499 Phil. 536
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision dated July 28, 1998 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered:A motion for reconsideration[15] was filed but the same was denied.[16]
1. Declaring Plaintiff-Appellant Sofronio Ambayec and his late father Perfecto Ambayec as bona fide agricultural tenants on the subject property with an aggregate area of twenty four (24) hectares within Lot No. 483, Cad 102; originally covered by OCT-No. 0-703 in the name of Vicenta M. Tionko.
2. Ordering Respondents-Appellees and all other persons claiming rights under them to maintain Plaintiffs-Appellants in their peaceful possession and cultivation of the remaining ten (10) hectares of the subject property; and,
3. Ordering Plaintiffs-Appellants to religiously remit the landowner’s share of the produce.
4. Directing the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Davao City where the landholding subject of controversy is situated to assist the parties in the preparation or execution of their leasehold contract.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Petitioners aver that since time immemorial Sofronio Ambayec was in open and continuous possession of the disputed land. When the land was fully cleared and cultivated, Vicente Tionko claimed ownership over the property and forced Sofronio to share its produce. Sofronio acceded to the demands of Vicente because he was rich and influential. Upon the death of the spouses Tionko, the disputed landholding was transferred to Maria Judith Tionko, whose husband, Salvador de la Cruz, caused the bulldozing of the coconut trees and other fruit trees planted on the land.I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING & SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD RENDERED ON OCTOBER 26, 2000;II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT SOFRONIO AMBAYEC AND HIS HEIRS ARE NOT TENANTS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY;III
THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE LAW APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE IS PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27.
… 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.All these essential requisites are necessary to establish tenancy relationship. Unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws.[22]
On the other hand, the certification issued by the MAR Regional Director provides:August 6, 1983
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to Certify that, I have been (sic) conducted inspection and investigation (sic) the lands occupied by Mr. Sofronio Ambaic, located at Torres and Mabini street, infront of the Davao City High School or within a lot No. 483, Cad-102, containing an area 731,696 square meters or less. For explanatory to wit: (sic)
- That Mr. Sofronio Ambaic is recognized full Tenant in the said land, since the time immemorial;
- That the (sic) have been in the continous (sic) and undisturbed possession occupation (sic) and cultivation on (sic) the said land;
- As a Tenant he have (sic) never loss (sic) his hope and right to have a share of the said land.
Now therefore Mr. Sofronio Ambaic be given due course.Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
AMIL H. SAPPARI
Land Inspector[24]
In Bautista v. Araneta,[26] reliance on a similar certification for failure to disclose how and why petitioner therein became a tenant was rejected -CERTIFICATION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This Certify (sic) that Mr. Sofronio Ambaic, as a Tenant of Lot No. 483, Cad-102, containing an area of 731,696 square meters more or less, located at Poblacion, Davao City, that Mr. Ambaic, (sic) be given due course in consonant to the letter which was certified by Land Inspector Amil H. Sappari of the Bureau of Lands District Office No. XI-14, Davao City.(Sgd.)ATTY. LEOPOLDO SERRANO
MAR, Regional Director
Region XI, Davao City[25]
His reliance on the certifications issued in his favor is misplaced because they do not prove that the landowner made him his tenant. As the Court of Appeals aptly observed, they only show that petitioner is in possession of the land. The certifications do not disclose how and why he became a tenant. Thus, the certification dated July 12, 1991, issued by Virginia B. Domuguen that petitioner is a tenant and pays rental of forty (40) cavans per year, and, her finding in the ocular inspection conducted on May 3, 1991, are culled only from her interview of petitioner and the Barangay Captain of Tungkong Mangga, Romeo G. Baluyot. In no way do they prove the oral tenancy agreement between petitioner and the landowner.[27]Certifications issued by administrative agencies and/or officials concerning tenancy relationship are preliminary and are not binding on the courts.[28]
We agree with petitioners that private respondents failed to establish all the elements of tenurial relationship. Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 1199 defines a tenant as a person who by himself, or with the aid available from within his immediate household, cultivates the land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter’s consent for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system. It is interesting to note that nowhere in the documentary evidence of private respondents, which consist of their affidavits, does it appear that Sofronio Ambayec shared the produce on the subject property with petitioners.[29]We held in Isidro v. Court of Appeals[30] that:
Based on the statutory definitions of a tenant or a lessee, it is clear that there is no tenancy or agricultural/leasehold relationship existing between the petitioner and the private respondent. There was no contract or agreement entered into by the petitioner with the private respondent nor with the overseer of the private respondent, for petitioner to cultivate the land for a price certain or to share his harvests. Petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim that he was paying rent for the use of the land.Petitioners’ claim of tenancy relationship was further weakened by the inconsistent and contradictory claims of Sofronio and Cleotilde Ambayec. Cleotilde claimed that they owned the coconut trees planted on the disputed land despite her allegation that her husband was merely a tenant. When they intervened[31] in the case[32] pending before the Bureau of Lands, they claimed that they have been in open, adverse, continuous and exclusive possession of the disputed land in the concept of owners, contrary to their claim of being mere tenants.