TEODORO CHAVEZ, ZACARIAS PANTANILLA, ERNESTO PANTANILLA, NITO PANGAN, DADING DE LA CRUZ & RAFAEL MANIEGO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

These are cases jointly tried in the lower court but separately
instituted by respondents, as plaintiffs therein, against petitioners, as
defendants therein, to restore and maintain them (respondents) in the peaceful
and continued possession and cultivation of the salt beds owned by petitioner
Teodoro Chavez, and for recovery of damages and
litigation expenses.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties, except defendant
Felipe Cruz, duly assisted by their respective counsel, agreed in open court on
the following stipulation of facts:

“1.  That the saltbeds
involved in these cases, 47 in CAR Case No. 3141-Bulacan, 47 in CAR Case No.
3142-Bulacan, 56 in CAR Case No. 3143-Bulacan, and 50 in CAR Case No.
3144-Bulacan, are constructed or laid on a portion with an area of 14 hectares,
more or less, of the fishpond located in the Sitio of
Pariahan, Barrio Taliptip,
Bulacan, Bulacan, owned by
defendant Teodoro Chavez since 1958, the relative
positions of which as well as two (2) compartments in said fishpond used as
storage of water to increase its salidity in (paalatan), marked as Exhs. “A-1” and “A-2”, two (2) compartments in the same
fishpond used as temporary storage of water, marked as Exhs. “A-3” and “A-4”, and a bodega or storehouse of salt
produce on the saltbeds in question, marked as Exh. “A-5” are shown on the sketch
plan, marked as Exh. “A” for the
plaintiffs, and Exh. “1” for the
defendants;

“2.  That the scraping of salt in the saltbeds in question during the salt-making season starts in
the month of February and ends in the month of May or
June;

“3.  That after the close of the salt-making season,
the saltbeds in question are used for the production
of fish and plaintiffs David Teodoro, Juan Teodoro and Marcelo Borlongan have
nothing to do with the operation of said saltbeds as a
fishpond;

“4.  That the construction of
the saltbeds in question started in the year
1967;

“5.  That in the salt-making seasons or agricultural
years 1968-1969, 1970-1971, 1971-1972, 1972-1973, 1973, 1973-1974 and 1974-1975,
there were salt productions from the saltbeds in
question while in the agricultural year 1969-1970 there was no salt production
from said saltbeds;

“6.  That no written tenancy
contract over the saltbeds in question between
defendant Teodoro Chavez and the plaintiffs was
executed by them;

“7.  That a criminal complaint
entitled, “People of the
Philippines vs.
Carlos Teodoro accused“, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1352 for
estafa was filed against plaintiff Carlos Teodoro with the Municipal Court of Bulacan, Bulacan (Exh. “2”);

“8.  That plaintiff Carlos
Teodoro admits to be his signatures those affixed on
the receipts marked as Exhs. “3”, “3-A”, “3-C”, “3-D”,
“3-E”, “3-F”, “3-G”, “3-H”, “3-I”, “3-J”, “3-K”, and
“3-L”;

“9.  That plaintiff Juan Teodoro admits to be his signatures those affixed on the
receipts marked as Exhs. “4”, “4-A”, “4-B”, “4-C”,
“4-D”, “5”, “5-A”, “5-B”, “5-C”, “5-D” “5-E”, “6”, “6-A”, “6-B”, “6-C”, “6-D”,
“6-E”, “6-F”, “6-G”, “6-H”, “6-I”, “6-J”, “6-K”, “6-L”, “6-M”, “8”, “8-A”,
“8-B”, “8-C”, “8-D”, “9”, “9-A”, “9-B”, “9-C”, “9-D”, “9-E”, “9-F”, “9-G”, and
“9-H”;

“10.  That plaintiff Marcelo
Borlongan admits to be his signatures those affixed on
the receipts marked as Exhs. “7”, “7-A”, “7-B”, “7-C”,
“7-D”, “7-E”, “11”, “11-A” and “11?B”;

“11.  That plaintiff David
Teodoro admits to be his signatures those affixed on
the receipts marked as Exh. “10”, “10-A” and “10- B”;
and

12.  That defendant Teodoro
Chavez admits that the signature reading Teodoro
Chavez appearing on the document marked as Exh. “B” is
his signature.

The principal issue to be resolved in these cases is whether or not
the plaintiffs are the agricultural tenants of defendant Teodoro Chavez on the saltbeds in
question.  In the affirmative, whether or not the plaintiffs are
entitled to reinstatement and damages.

There being no other fact which the parties could stipulate upon,
the pre-trial conference of these cases was deemed closed and
terminated.”

After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision in favor
of the plaintiffs, the dispositive portion reading as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the plaintiffs, Carlos Teodoro, David
   Teodoro, Juan Teodoro and
   Marcelo Borlongan, to be the share tenants of
   defendant Teodoro Chavez on 47 saltbeds, 47 saltbeds, 56 saltbeds and 50 saltbeds,
   respectively, involved in these cases, located in the Sitio of Pariahan, Barrio of Taliptip, Bulacan, Bulacan;

2. Ordering defendants Zacarias Pantanilla, Ernesto Pantanilla,
   Nito Pangan, Dading dela Cruz and Rafael Maniego, Jr. to vacate the saltbeds in question and surrender the possession thereof to
   the plaintiffs;

3. Ordering Teodoro Chavez to reinstate
   the plaintiffs as share tenants on the saltbeds
   respectively tenanted by them involved in these cases and maintain them in the
   peaceful possession and cultivation thereof, every salt-making season only, with
   all the rights accorded and obligations imposed by law;

4. Dismissing the other claims of the plaintiffs and counterclaim of the
   defendants for lack of merit; and

5. Dismissing this case with respect to defendant Felipe Cruz,
   Jr.

No pronouncement as to costs.”

Not satisfied with said decision, defendants appealed to the Court
of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, hence
the present petition, assigning errors reading as follows:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING ON THE BASIS OF
UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTIONS AND PREMISES AND IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EVIDENCE AND
ADMISSIONS ON RECORD, THAT RESPONDENTS ARE THE SHARE TENANTS OF PETITIONER
TEODORO CHAVEZ.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RESOLVING A VITAL
QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW RAISED BEFORE IT IN RESPECT TO
THE MATTER OF LACK OF IDENTITY OF THE SALTBEDS ALLEDEGEDLY TENANTED BY THE
INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT.

III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO
THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT.

The trial court made the following findings of fact:

“Sometime in 1962 or 1964 Eugenio dela Cruz, brother-in-law of defendant Teodoro Chavez and former Vice-Mayor of Bulacan, Bulacan, engaged the
plaintiff Carlos Teodoro as fishpond guard of a
fishpond located at Pariahan, Taliptip, Bulacan, Bulacan, owned by defendant Teodoro Chavez, when the former guard of said fishpond had
stopped working as such guard.  Plaintiff Carlos Teodoro and defendant Teodoro
Chavez met in the house of Eugenio dela Cruz and on that occasion defendant Teodoro Chavez agreed to employ plaintiff Carlos Teodoro as fishpond guard of his fishpond and the latter
agreed to work as such guard.  Plaintiff Carlos Teodoro worked as guard of said fishpond until
1970.

Sometime in 1967 when plaintiff Carlos Teodoro was still working as guard of said fishpond,
defendant Teodoro Chavez told him to look for persons
who could construct saltbeds and work as saltmakers.  Carlos Teodoro engaged plaintiffs Juan Teodoro, David Teodoro and Marcelo
Borlongan including himself.  Plaintiffs
and defendant Teodoro Chavez met in a house erected on
said fishpond and entered into an agreement that the plaintiffs shall be the
ones to construct the saltbeds in question and be the
tenants on the saltbeds to be constructed by
them.

Plaintiff Carlos Teodoro constructed 47
saltbeds, David Teodoro, 47
saltbeds, Juan Teodoro, 56
saltbeds and Marcelo Borlongan, 50 saltbeds in a
portion of the fishpond owned by defendant Teodoro
Chavez, located at Pariahan, Taliptip, Bulacan, Bulacan.

Plaintiff Juan Teodoro acted as the
foreman in the construction of the said saltbeds.  The construction of the compartment
called “paalatan” and the saltbeds in question including the laying of tiles thereon
was completed sometime in January, 1968.

Defendant Teodoro Chavez defrayed the cost
of tiles, sand and lumber used in the construction of said saltbeds.  In the production of salt from said
saltbeds, the agreement between the plaintiffs and
defendant Teodoro Chavez was that the plaintiffs shall
contribute their labor and the articles needed in producing salt like the “panulong“, “tiklis“, “pangayod” and broom, while defendant Teodoro Chavez shall defray the cost of sand to be used for
levelling the saltbeds, the
tiles to replace the missing tiles and lumber to replace the lost or destroyed
lumber used as partitions of the saltbeds and that the
proceeds of the sale of the harvest, after deducting the cost of measurement,
shall be divided between the plaintiffs and defendant Teodoro Chavez under the sharing ratio of
50-50.

The plaintiffs started scraping salt from the respective saltbeds in February, 1968 and terminated the same in June,
1968.  The salt scraped by the plaintiffs every day was hauled and
stored by them in their respective compartments of the store house. 
After the scraping of salt was terminated in June, 1968 all of the salt
produced by them was sold and the proceeds (divided) between the plaintiffs and
defendant Teodoro Chavez under the sharing ratio of
50-50.

In the salt making seasons of 1967-1968 and 1968-1969 the plaintiffs
with the help of the members of their families and farm households, worked on
their respective saltbeds.  They did not
work on the said saltbeds in the salt making season of
1969-1970 for the reason that the production of salt was suspended as the store
house was still filled up with unsold salt.  Defendant Teodoro Chavez was the landholder of the plaintiffs in the
salt making seasons of 1967-1968 and 1968-1969.

In the salt making season of 1970-1971, 1971-1972 and 1972-1973, Dr.
Alberto Reyes of Malolos, Bulacan was the legal possessor-land-holder of the saltbeds in question.  (Exh. 21).

In the salt making season of 1973-1974, Dr. Mario O. Lacson of Tunsuya, Malabon, Metro Manila, was the legal possessor-landholder of
said saltbeds, with defendant Felipe Cruz, Jr., as the
manager (Exhibits “21-A” and Exhibit “H”).

In the salt making seasons of 1968-1969, 1970-1971, 1971-1972,
1972-1973 and 1973-1974, the plaintiffs, with the exception of David Teodoro who was sick in salt making seasons of 1970-1971,
1971-1972, 1972-1973, performed all of the phases of work in the production of
salt in their respective saltbeds.  In
the month of November or December, each year, plaintiff repaired the dikes,
cleaned the dikes by removing the grasses and weeds growing thereon, cleaned the
paalatan by removing the fish feed called
“lablab“, drained the water from the paalatan, dried up the paalatan for three days allowed the water to enter
the paalatan and kept it therein to enhance
its salinity, removed the mud or soil from the tiles of the salt-beds, repaired
the missing tiles of the saltbeds with new ones, levelled the saltbeds, cleaned the
saltbeds with broom and water and after such cleaning
dried up the saltbeds.

In the month of February of the ensuing year, the plaintiffs allowed
the water coming from the paalatan to flow
into the saltbeds every morning, scraped the salt that
had been formed and started scraping at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon,
piled the scraped salt inside the saltbeds and late in
the afternoon hauled and stored the salt in their respective compartments of the
store house after scraping of salt every day was finished.

After the close of each salt making season, the salt harvests
deposited in the store house were sold.  The proceeds of the sale
of the harvest in the salt making seasons of 1968-1969, after deducting the cost
of measurement, was divided between the plaintiffs and defendant Teodoro Chavez under the sharing ratio of 50-50. 
The loans and advances extended by said defendant to the plaintiffs
during said salt making season were paid by the plaintiffs to said defendant
from their 50% share.  One cavan for
every 10 cavans of salt of the 50% share of the
plaintiffs was taken by defendant Teodoro
Chavez.

In the salt making seasons of 1970-1971, 1971-1972 and 1972-1973,
the proceeds of the sale of the salt harvests of the plaintiffs from their
respective saltbeds, after deducting the cost of
measurement, were divided between the plaintiffs and Dr. Alberto Reyes, thru his
overseer, Ruperto Liwanag of
Atlag, Malolos, Bulacan, under the sharing ratio of 50-50.  The
loans and advances extended by Dr. Alberto Reyes to the plaintiffs were paid by
the latter to the former from their respective 50% share.

In the salt making season of 1973-1974, the proceeds of the sale of
the salt harvests of the plaintiffs from their respective saltbeds, after deducting the costs of measurement, were
divided between the plaintiffs and defendant Felipe Cruz, Jr., manager of Dr.
Mario O. Lacson, under the sharing ratio of
50-50.  The loans and advances extended by defendant Felipe Cruz,
Jr., to the plaintiffs in said salt making season were paid to said defendant
from the 50% share of the plaintiffs.

In the salt making season of 1974-1975, the plaintiffs started the
preparation of their respective saltbeds in the month
of December, 1974.  They cleaned the dikes and “paalatan“, removed the soil from the tiles of the
saltbeds, levelled the saltbeds and replaced the missing tiles with new
ones.

On February 17, 1975, at about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, while
the plaintiffs were in the saltbeds in question and
about to begin scraping salt from their respective saltbeds, defendant Teodoro
Chavez, in company with Teodoro Chavez, Jr., two
security guards carrying firearms, Patrolman Ernesto Carpio, of the Police Department of Bulacan, Bulacan, P.C. Sgt. Decrito, Zacarias Pantanilla, Dading de la Cruz,
Nito Pangan, Rafael Maniego, Jr., and Ernesto Pantanilla drove away the plaintiffs from the saltbeds in question.  Plaintiffs David Teodoro, Juan Teodoro and Marcelo
Borlongan were brought by Patrolman Ernesto Carpio to the Office of the Chief of Police of Bulacan, Bulacan, on said
date.  Plaintiff Carlos Teodoro
voluntarily went to the office of chief of Police on the same afternoon and
inquired from said Chief of Police whether he and the other plaintiffs could
return to the saltbeds in question.  The
said Chief of Police told him that he could not do so and warned him that if he
and the other plaintiffs would go to said saltbeds
they might be considered as trespassers.  Notwithstanding the
admonition of said Chief of Police, the plaintiffs returned to the saltbeds in question, but they were prevented by the
security guards from entering said saltbeds.

On February 19,
1975, the plaintiffs went to the P.C. Headquarters of Malolos, Bulacan, and were able to
talk with Lt. Sarmiento, to whom they complained that
they were prevented by defendant Teodoro Chavez from
entering and working on their respective saltbeds.  After the lapse of a few days,
plaintiff Carlos Teodoro again returned to the P.C.
Headquarters at Malolos, Bulacan, and was advised by Lt. Sarmiento to seek the assistance of the Bureau of Agrarian
Legal Assistance, Malolos, Bulacan, Department of Agrarian Reform, in filing the proper
action in court.  Hence, on March 10, 1975, the complaints in the instant cases were
filed by the plaintiffs, thru their counsel, the Bureau of Agrarian Legal
Assistance.

After the plaintiffs were driven away from their respective saltbeds on February 17, 1975 and prevented from working on
the same, defendants Zacarias Pantanilla and Ernesto Pantanilla
have been working on the 47 salt-beds involved in CAR Case No. 3141-Bulacan ’75,
defendant Nito Pangan on the
47 saltbeds involved in CAR Case No. 3142-Bulacan ’75,
Dading dela Cruz on the 57
saltbeds involved in CAR Case No. 3143-Bulacan ’75 and
Rafael Maniego on the 50 saltbeds involved in CAR Case No. 3144-Bulacan ’75 up to the
present.”

Defendants or petitioners presented in their brief a
counterstatement of facts:

“From the evidence, testimonial and documentary, the following facts
were established, to wit:

That petitioner Teodoro Chavez is the
owner of that certain fishpond located in Pariahan,
Taliptip, Bulacan, Bulacan, with an area of fourteen (14) hectares, more or
less, portion of which is utilized as saltbeds for
salt-making purposes, with an area of eight (8) hectares, more or less. 
As early as August 1,
1959, he (Chavez) engaged Zacarias Pantanilla as caretaker (“katiwala“) and overseer of said fishpond with fixed
compensation.  The services of Zacarias
Pantanilla continued and then in the early part of
September 1967 Chavez caused the construction of the saltbeds in question, designating said Zacarias Pantanilla as his foreman
(“maestro“) therein because of his experience in said endeavor, in
addition to his job as caretaker of the fishpond.  Because of this,
the compensation of Zacarias Pantanilla increased commensurately.

At the initial stages of the construction of the saltbeds commencing from the first week of September 1967 to
September 30, 1967, Chavez hired, on “pakyaw”
basis, laborers (Fidel Cruz, Arturo San Jose and Florentino Rodriguez) under the supervision of Zacarias Pantanilla, to perform
the levelling of the saltbeds and they were paid their corresponding wages therefor.  During the period from October 1, 1967 to October 31, 1967, the drying of the
saltbeds was effected in preparation for the placing
of lumber for each compartment of the saltbeds. 
The placing of lumber for each saltbed
compartment was done from November 2, 1967 to November 22, 1967, on “pakyaw” contract with Amado Chavez and his helpers, also under the supervision of
Zacarias Pantanilla, “From
November 23, 1967 to December 15, 1967, the placing of sand (“paglalatag ng
buhangin“) was performed by hired workers on
“pakyaw” contract and, thence, from December
16, 1967 to February 2, 1968, the preparation of the saltbeds (“latag ng banigan“) was
done by hired laborers, namely:  Carlos Teodoro and Marcelo Borlongan,
herein respondents, and one Jose Teodoro and Miguel
Teodoro.

On February 2, 1968, Zacarias Pantanilla, under “pakyaw” basis, started the production of salt for
the stipulated amount of P6,500.00, hiring for that purpose laborers/workers
(namely, Jesus Pantanilla, Teofilo Pantanilla, Dolfo Pera, Celestino Pera, etc) and expending
therefor for his account the costs of “tiklis“, panulong.

For the saltmaking season of 1968-1969,
Zacarias Pantanilla
undertook the salt-production on “pakyaw”
contract at the price of P6,500.00 hiring for that
purpose laborers (namely:  Jesus Pantanilia, Pedro Guzman, Celestino Pera, etc) to perform
the job.

Chavez did not produce salt for the season 1969-1970 as he had
plenty of salt stored in his bodega and the price of salt was then unprofitably
low.

For the salt-making season 1970-1971, Chavez contracted, again on
“pakyaw” basis, Zacarias Pantanilla to produce and
harvest salt from the saltbeds in question for P7,000.00 as consideration, therefor.  Hired helpers (namely: 
Jesus Pantanilla, Teofilo Pantanilla, Dolfo Pera, Celestino Pera, etc) were engaged
as before, by Zacarias Pantanilla who paid their wages.

On February 23,
1971 Chavez entered with Dr. Alberto Reyes into a contract of buy and
sell covering fish in the former’s fishpond. 
Said contract expired on February 23, 1973.  The production of salt
was already in progress at the time of execution of said contract and Chavez had
already engaged Zacarias Pantanilla on “pakyaw”
contract to undertake the production and harvest of salt for the salt-making
season 1970-1971.  Dr. Alberto Reyes never engaged in salt
production during the entire period of said contract.

For the salt-making season 1971-1972, Chavez engaged Zacarias Pantanilla for the
production and harvest of salt in his (Chavez’s) saltbeds for the consideration of P7,000.00, Zacarias Pantanilla hired workers
(namely, Jesus Pantanilla, Teofilo Pantanilla, Celestino Pera, Dolfo Pera, etc.), to
effect his undertaking.

For the saltmaking season 1972-1973,
Chavez contracted Zacarias Pantanilla to produce and harvest salt from the questioned
saltbeds for the consideration of P7,500.00, engaging for that purpose the same hired
helpers.

For the salt-making season 1973-1974, Chavez again contracted, for
the sum of P8,000.00, Zacarias Pantanilla to produce and
harvest salt, hiring for that purpose workers to perform his undertaking. 
For the season 1974-1975, Zacarias Pantanilla was contracted, for the sum of P9,000.00, to produce and harvest salt and for this purpose,
Zacarias Pantanilla engaged
helpers to work on the saltbeds.

On January 7,
1974, a contract of buy and sell was executed between Dr. Mario O.
Lacson and Chavez covering the latter’s
fishponds.  At the time of said contract of buy and sell, Zacarias Pantanilla who had
already been engaged by Chavez to work on the saltbeds, had commenced preparation for saltmaking.  Dr. Lacson did not cause work to be done in said saltbeds.

Indeed, Chavez never engaged Carlos Teodoro to be his fishpond guard as Zacarias Pantanilla was Chavez’s
caretaker and overseer of the fishpond during the period that Carlos Teodoro claims to have worked as fishpond guard for
Chavez.  Chavez likewise never requested Carlos Teodoro to look for saltmakers nor
entered into any agreement with respondents for them to construct and work in
the saltbeds in question, and that the only activity
of plaintiffs as regards the saltbeds has reference to
their participation in the construction of the saltbeds as hired workers and suppliers of some of the
materials used in the saltbed
construction.

Prior to January 6,
1975, Chavez had charged respondent Carlos Teodoro for estafa by virtue of
which Criminal Case No. 1352 was filed on January 6, 1975 with the Municipal Court of Bulacan, Bulacan. 
After the filing of said case for estafa
against Carlos Teodoro, respondent David Teodoro (brother of Carlos Teodoro) and other relatives entered the saltbeds by stealth — without the permission of
Chavez.  Then, when demanded by Zacarias
Pantanilla to vacate the premises, they refused to
comply.  Chavez thus charged them for trespassing in the Municipal
Court of Bulacan docketed as Criminal Case No.
1356.  Thereafter, respondent David Teodoro vacated the premises voluntarily but threatened to
kill Zacarias Pantanilla and
to return to the saltbeds.  On January 21, 1975, however, Carlos
Teodoro and his relatives entered Chavez’s fishpond,
particularly the saltbeds portion, without the owner’s
consent and permission and therein made threats, and for this incident, Chavez
filed a criminal complaint docketed as Criminal Case No. 1359 of the Municipal
Court of Bulacan, Bulacan.  On February 4, 1975, respondent David Teodoro reentered the saltbeds and
destroyed the “banigan” thereof, for which reason, Chavez instituted Criminal Case No. 1367 with the
same court.  On February 17, 1975, respondents Marcelo Borlongan, Miguel Teodoro (son of
David Teodoro), Jose Teodoro
(son of Juan Teodoro), Ernesto Valdez and one Joven Torres entered the saltbeds
involved without the permission and consent of Chavez, drove away the saltworkers of Zacarias Pantanilla and started scraping salt and placing the scraped
salt in “tiklis“.  Having been
informed of this unlawful entry into the saltbeds,
Chavez complained with the police of Bulacan, Bulacan and acting thereon, the Chief of Police, Lt. Antonio
Cardenas, sent Pat. Ernesto Carpio
and PC Sgt. Decrito to investigate the incident and
invite the persons who entered the saltbeds.  Immediately, Pat. Carpio, the PC sergeant, Zacarias
Pantanilla, Teodoro Chavez,
Jr., and petitioner Teodoro Chavez proceeded to the
saltbeds involved.  Upon their arrival at
the scene of the incident, PC Sgt. Decrito talked with
Marcelo Borlongan, Miguel Teodoro (son of David Teodoro),
Jose Teodoro (son of Juan Teodoro), Ernesto Valdez and Joven
Torres, and invited them to go to their station commander.  These
persons invited went voluntarily to the police station.  When the
five (5) persons arrived in the municipal hall of Bulacan, Bulacan, Chavez had
already left and the Chief Police talked with them, asking if there was any
possible settlement or if they are really aggrieved, that they file a complaint
and “we will help.” The persons invited begged leave, after a while, to go
home.

On said occasion on February 17, 1975, respondents Carlos Teodoro, Juan Teodoro, David Teodoro and Felipe Cruz, Jr. were not in the saltbeds premises.  There were no security
guards during the incident on February
17, 1975 as Chavez employed security guards only after the said
incident to protect his property from intruders.  Chavez filed
Criminal Case No. 1375 in the Municipal Court of Bulacan, Bulacan, against those
who actually entered the saltbeds.

“The criminal cases filed against Chavez were filed long after
various criminal cases had been lodged against them for various offenses and
that these instant cases filed against Chavez were retaliatory moves against
him.”

The issues brought up in the petition before Us boil down to the determination of whose version of the
statement of facts is to be adopted by this Court.

Petitioners aver that it was wrong for the trial court and the
respondent appellate court to rely mainly on the mere verbal assertions of the
private respondents that they are the share tenants of petitioners and totally
disregard the documentary evidences representing the receipts signed by private
respondents Juan Teodoro and David Teodoro as suppliers of the materials for the saltbeds.  Petitioners also aver that Exhs. “8”, “8-A” to “8-D” were offered to prove that
respondent Juan Teodoro was a “hired laborer” to work
on the construction of the questioned saltbeds and
Exhs. “10″, “10-A” and
“10-B”, were offered to establish that David Teodoro
was also a mere “hired laborer”.  Private respondents’ contention
in this respect is that they worked on the questioned construction upon an
agreement that they would work on the saltbeds as
tenants.

We disagree with petitioners’ averments.  The
receipts were not for wages or salaries received but the produce. 
If indeed respondents were mere employees or laborers, why was said
relationship not duly reported to the Social Security Commission? 
We agree with the following apt observations of the Court of Appeals.

“Appellants make much of the fact that plaintiffs appear to have
received their regular salary from the defendant Chavez as evidenced by receipts
to that effect.  Contrarily, We find these receipts which are
Exhibits 3 to 3-L, Carlos Teodoro; Exhibits 4 to 4-D;
5 to 5-Z; 6 to 6-M; 8 to 8-D; and 9 to 9-R, Juan Teodoro; Exhibits 7 to 7-E; and 11 to 11-B; Marcelo Borlongan, Exhs. 7 – 7-E and 11 to
11-B; David Teodoro, Exhs.
10 – 10-B; as indicated are but for “hakot
ng tisa“;
“buhangin“; “tabla“, etc., and a few “labor” not in the
handwriting of plaintiffs and these are not indicative of they being hired
laborers.  The greater number of these receipts
were signed by Pantanilla, et al., as
overseer and who took over after February 17, 1975.  If they were hired
laborers, did Teodoro Chavez, et al., make
the SSS contributions for them under the law?  Never!
Plaintiffs-appellees were not even confronted with
these few receipts for “labor” by the defense as the record shows. 
Also, there is no proof whatsoever that these plaintiffs-appellants were
paid by the day, by the week or by the month, for so much,
respectively.”

xxx

xxx

xxx

“As disclosed by the record, Eugenio de la
Cruz, brother-in-law of Teodoro Chavez, landowner
herein and one-time vice-Mayor of Bulacan, Bulacan, engaged Carlos Teodoro
(godson in marriage by de la Cruz) as guard in the fishpond sometime in either
1962 or 1964.  In 1967, in the house of E. de la Cruz, Carlos Teodoro was engaged by said Teodoro Chavez to construct saltbeds and look for construction workers and salt-makers
as tenants on the saltbeds to be constructed by
them.  Carlos Teodoro, principal
plaintiff, then engaged the services of the other plaintiffs, first as
construction salt-bed workers which was completed in January of 1968 and then
followed up as salt-makers on a 50-50 sharing basis from the net proceeds
thereof starting from February of 1968 to June, 1968.  In the
1969-70 agricultural year salt-making season, there was
no salt production because there was still undisposed
salt in the bodega (unsold).  In 1970-71 agricultural year
salt-making season, the legal possessor was Dr. Mario Lacson of Malabon, Rizal, under the same 50-50 sharing agreement with the
herein plaintiffs.  In 1973?74 salt-making season, Felipe Cruz,
Jr., became the legal possessor under the same 50-50 sharing
agreement.

At the start, the plaintiffs-appellees
contributed labor and expenses for the broom, “panulong“, “tiklis” and “pangayod” while defendant Teodoro in the beginning of the said tenancy relationship
shall, and did defray the cost of sand to replace the missing tiles and lumber
to replace the destroyed ones as partitions in the saltbeds, and the proceeds of the sale of the harvest after
deducting the cost of measurement, shall be divided as they did divide the net
proceeds between plaintiffs-appellees and
defendant-appellant Teodoro Chavez.

The contribution of plaintiffs-appellees
was to clean the dikes by removing the grasses and weeds thereon, cleaning the
“paalatan” by removing the fish called
“lablab“, draining the water from the “paalatan“, dried it up for 3 days and allowed the
water to come in and kept it there to enhance the salinity. 
Scraping the salt-beds is a normal phase of work in salt-making which is
part of the labor contributed by plaintiffs-appellees.  Cash Advances were sometime given
to the poor tenants by the defendants-appellants payable after their partition
from the share in the salt-harvest.

Uncontradicted is the fact that the said
plaintiff-appellees were forcibly ejected by the
appellants with the aid of armed men, from the Bulacan, Bulacan Police
Department, 2 security guards and PC sergeant and soldiers on February 17, 1975
from the subject landholdings, witnessed by Felipe Cruz, civil law-lessee since
1973, the reasons for which was the desire of the herein defendants-appellants
to hire laborers instead (t.s.n., pp. 1017-11018, Vol.
II, Record).  Vital to the cause of action for reinstatement, this
is why the plaintiffs?appellees were/are not in the
landholdings in question.

The bureau of Legal Assistance (BALA), of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (BAR) through counsel, upon receipt of the complaint, after the therein
plaintiffs were advised by the PC Command to which they went twice, to consult
the government’s counsel (after they tried to enter the landholdings again but
were prevented by the Chief of Police of Bulacan,
Bulacan), filed the said complaints on March 10,
1975.”

Such abovementioned recital of the participation of the private
respondents in all the phases of farm work in the salt-bed cultivation of the
questioned landholdings leaves no doubt that the tenancy relationship existing
between petitioners and respondents is fully substantiated by the records and
that the respondent Court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in its
appreciation of facts.  We have held in the case of People v.
Marcina, 77 SCRA 238 and in other similar cases that the findings of facts
of the trial court which heard, saw and observed the witnesses testify in Court
should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that it had
overlooked, misunderstood or otherwise misinterpreted some facts or
circumstances which when properly weighed and interpreted, would justify a
reversal of the appealed decision.  In the same manner, the
findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are generally binding upon the Supreme
Court.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed
decision, We hereby AFFIRM the same with costs against
petitioners.

SO
ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, and Bidin, JJ., concur.
Alampay, J., no part.

---

^[1] The Justices were Reyes, Alampay, German, Cuevas & Nocon.