ROSITA H. SUMONOD REPRESENTED BY TERESITA S. TENEZA AND CORAZON TENEZA, PETITIONERS, VS. ELMER R. UY, RESPONDENT.

Sumonod versus Uy

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Rosita Sumonod, represented by her attorneys in fact Teresita Teneza and Corazon Teneza, against Elmer Uy. The landowners seek to reverse the ruling of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Central Office, which declared Elmer Uy a bona fide tenant in his own right over three parcels of agricultural land in Gingoog City and ordered the landowners to respect his possession and cultivation. The case matters because it tests whether a tenancy relationship may arise by implication from the parties' conduct, and whether the statutory rule on succession to a deceased tenant applies when the person claiming the land was, in truth, already a tenant himself.

Procedural History

The landowners filed before the Regional Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board for Region 10 a petition for declaration of non tenancy and extinguishment of tenancy relationship against Elmer Uy. The Regional Adjudicator ruled in favor of the landowners, holding that Elmer Uy, being only a nephew of the late tenant Tito Uy, could not legally succeed him, and that the tenancy was extinguished because no one among those named in Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844 could succeed the deceased tenant, who died without issue. The Regional Adjudicator ordered Elmer Uy to cease and desist from entering the landholdings under a claim of tenancy by right of succession, and awarded no damages for lack of factual and evidentiary basis. Elmer Uy moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and he appealed to the DARAB Central Office. The DARAB Central Office set aside the Regional Adjudicator's decision, declared Elmer Uy a bona fide tenant in his own right, maintained him in peaceful possession and cultivation, ordered the landowners and all persons deriving authority from them to respect that possession, and directed the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Gingoog City to assist the parties in executing an Agricultural Leasehold Contract. The landowners' motion for reconsideration was denied, so they filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Three parcels of agricultural land in Gingoog City were originally tenanted by the spouses Tomas Uy and Gertrudes Rivera Uy. Tomas Uy died in February 1983, and Gertrudes Rivera Uy died in September 1986. After their deaths, the acknowledged and recognized tenant of the three parcels was Tito Uy, and there was no conflict on this point.

Tito Uy, however, was permanently incapacitated and could not perform his duties as a leasehold tenant. From 1986 onward, his nephew Elmer Uy performed the planting and harvesting of coconuts, assumed his uncle's responsibilities, managed and worked the lands, dealt with copra buyers and processors, and delivered the processed dried copra. The proceeds were shared, with the landowner side collecting seventy five percent after deducting expenses and Elmer Uy keeping twenty five percent. Elmer Uy cultivated the three lots from 1986 until 2005, a period of nineteen years, and remitted the landowners' shares of the harvests and lease rentals, as shown by numerous receipts and bank deposit slips.

Tito Uy died in May 2004, single and without any issue. Elmer Uy then came forward to claim a successional right over the tenancy. The landowners responded that the death of Tito Uy without a qualified heir extinguished the tenancy relationship, and they filed their petition for declaration of non tenancy and extinguishment of tenancy relationship.

Issues

• Whether or not Elmer Uy is a bona fide leasehold tenant in his own right over the subject agricultural lands, notwithstanding that his uncle Tito Uy was the acknowledged tenant.
• Whether or not the landowners impliedly consented to the tenancy of Elmer Uy, such that a tenancy relationship was established by implication.
• Whether or not the landowners are barred by laches from contesting the tenancy of Elmer Uy.
• Whether or not Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844, on succession to a deceased or incapacitated agricultural lessee, applies to defeat the tenancy of Elmer Uy.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844 provides:

Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties. In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age: Provided, That in case the death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year: Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established. In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs.

This provision is the landowners' principal weapon, for they invoke it to say the tenancy ended with Tito Uy's death because Elmer Uy, a nephew, is not among those who may be chosen to continue the leasehold.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Elmer Uy is a leasehold tenant in his own right. It listed the elements of a tenancy agreement: the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; the subject matter is agricultural land; there is consent between the parties; the purpose is agricultural production; there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and the harvest is shared. Personal cultivation is indispensable, and the Court stressed that the leasehold tenant must actually and personally till, cultivate or operate the land, solely or with the aid of labor from his immediate farm household. Since Tito Uy was permanently incapacitated and Elmer Uy cultivated the lands from 1986 until 2005, the element of personal cultivation was satisfied by Elmer Uy himself.

On the second issue, the Court held that the landowners impliedly consented. A tenancy relationship may be established verbally or in writing, expressly or impliedly. The DARAB Central Office found implied consent from the landowners' subsequent acts, as when the landowner accepts the shares proffered by the farmer tiller, or permits the tiller to possess and cultivate the landholding in the concept of a tenant for a period of ten years without protest. Here Elmer Uy cultivated for nineteen years, the landowners never demanded that he vacate in 1986, and he remitted shares and lease rentals evidenced by receipts and bank deposit slips.

On the third issue, the Court held that the landowners are barred by laches, quoting its own definition:

Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned or declined to assert it. The principle of laches is based on grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims. It is principally directed against the unfairness of permitting an alleged right or claim to be enforced. It concerns itself with whether or not by reason of long inaction or inexcusable neglect, a person claiming a right should be barred from asserting the same, because to allow him to do so would be unjust to the person against whom such right is sought to be enforced.

The Court found the landowners' silence for nineteen years, their belated disavowal, and their presumed acceptance of lease rentals to speak loudly of acquiescence.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the insistence on Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844 must fail. The landowners could not avail themselves of the right granted by that provision precisely because Elmer Uy had been a bona fide leasehold tenant since 1986. Succession was never the source of his right; his own cultivation and the landowners' implied consent were.

Doctrine

A tenancy relationship may be established verbally or in writing, expressly or impliedly, and its creation requires personal cultivation by the tenant, who must actually and personally till, cultivate or operate the land, solely or with the aid of labor from his immediate farm household. Implied consent of the landowner may be inferred from his acceptance of the tiller's shares or from his permitting the tiller to possess and cultivate the landholding in the concept of a tenant for a long period without protest. A landowner who sleeps on his rights for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time is barred by laches from later denying the tenancy. Where the claimant is a tenant in his own right, Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844 on succession to a deceased or incapacitated lessee does not apply, because that provision presupposes that the claimant derives his right from the deceased tenant rather than from his own cultivation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the DARAB Central Office, so Elmer Uy won and was maintained in possession and cultivation as a bona fide tenant in his own right.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a tenancy may arise by implication, and nineteen years of cultivation with the landowners' acceptance of shares creates a tenant in his own right, not a mere successor. Examiners use this case to test the elements of tenancy, implied consent, laches, and the correct application of Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844.