HEIRS OF PABLITO ARELLANO, NAMELY, ELENA ARELLANO, REYNANTE ARELLANO, AND RUBY ARELLANO, PETITIONERS, V. MARIA TOLENTINO, RESPONDENT.

Heirs of Arellano versus Tolentino

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the heirs of Pablito Arellano against Maria Tolentino, arising from a complaint for recovery of possession filed before the agrarian adjudicators. The quarrel is simple to state and important to master: two families claim the right to till the same agricultural land, one as the heirs of the tenant of record, the other as the heirs of the man who actually held the plow. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of personal cultivation under the Agricultural Land Reform Code, and because it holds that a tenant's rights pass to his heirs upon death and cannot be lost by implication.

Procedural History

The controversy began before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, which ruled for Maria Tolentino, declared Juanito Tolentino the legitimate agricultural lessee, and ordered the Arellanos to surrender possession and cultivation. On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board reversed, dismissed the complaint, declared Pablito Arellano the lawful tenant, and directed the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer to assist in preparing a leasehold contract. Maria Tolentino then went up to the Court of Appeals, which granted her petition, set aside the Board's decision, and reinstated the Provincial Adjudicator's ruling. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. The Arellanos then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Facts

Bartolome Songco owned a two and a half hectare parcel of agricultural land in Hermosa, Bataan, and was succeeded by his son Enrique. Timoteo Tolentino, Maria Tolentino's husband, entered into a leasehold agreement with Bartolome in February 1973, renewed with Enrique in January 1985, undertaking to cultivate palay and to pay annual rentals of twenty one cavans and later twenty two cavans of palay.

During his lifetime, Timoteo allowed Pablito Arellano, his stepson, to assist him in cultivating the land and in remitting the landowner's share. Timoteo died in 2004, and a dispute arose over who would succeed to his tenancy. Maria Tolentino and her children designated Juanito Tolentino, her son by Timoteo, as successor. Pablito claimed he was the rightful tenant, arguing that his continuous cultivation, known to the Songcos, amounted to his stepfather's abandonment and relinquishment of the tenancy.

Maria Tolentino, represented by Juanito, filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Pablito. Pablito died during the proceedings and was substituted by his heirs, including the petitioners.

Issues

• Whether or not Pablito Arellano can be considered the lawful tenant of the subject land, replacing Timoteo Tolentino.
• Whether or not Timoteo Tolentino failed to personally cultivate the land, and thereby abandoned his tenancy rights.
• Whether or not an implied tenancy arose between Pablito Arellano and the Songcos.

Applicable Provisions

Section 166, paragraph 2 of Republic Act Number 3844 defines the agricultural lessee:

"Agricultural lessee" means a person who, by himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by, another with the latter's consent for purposes of production, for a price certain in money or in produce or both.

This definition shows that cultivation through one's household is still cultivation by the lessee himself.

Section 166, paragraph 13 of the same Code defines personal cultivation:

"Personal cultivation" means cultivation by the lessee or lessor in person and/or with the aid of labor from within his immediate household.

This is the provision on which the whole case turns, because it answers whether Pablito's labor displaced Timoteo or merely aided him.

Section 166, paragraph 8 defines the immediate farm household:

"Immediate farm household" means the members of the family of the lessee or lessor and other persons who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him in his activities.

This brings a stepson who usually helps within the circle of permitted helpers.

Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844 provides:

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 basis for holding that Timoteo's tenancy survived his death and passed to his surviving spouse.

Section 36 of the same Code provides:

Possession of Landholding; Exceptions - Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that: (1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the landholding, if suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or school site or other useful non-agricultural purposes: Provided; That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his landholding in addition to his rights under Sections twenty-five and thirty-four, except when the land owned and leased by the agricultural lessor is not more than five hectares in which case instead of disturbance compensation the lessee may be entitled to an advanced notice of at least one agricultural year before ejectment proceedings are filed against him: Provided, further, That should the landholder not cultivate the land himself for three years or fail to substantially carry out such conversion within one year after the dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have the right to demand possession of the land and recover damages for any loss incurred by him because of said dispossession; (2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure; (3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon; (4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine; (5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lessee; (6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished; or (7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of the terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.

This provision supplies the only grounds for dispossession, and none of them was shown here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition has no merit and that Timoteo, not Pablito, was the lawful tenant. Timoteo's tenancy under the leasehold agreements was undisputed, and Pablito's assistance was admitted. The Court restated the essential requisites of tenancy, namely that the parties are landowner and tenant, that the subject is agricultural land, that there is consent, that the purpose is agricultural production, that there is personal cultivation, and that the harvest is shared. It stressed that cultivation alone does not ipso facto make one a tenant, and that independent and concrete evidence is required.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no failure of personal cultivation. Applying the statutory definition, it ruled that cultivation with the aid of labor from within one's immediate household is still personal cultivation in legal contemplation. Pablito, the stepson, fell within the immediate farm household, so his labor did not violate Timoteo's obligation and did not amount to abandonment. At most, Pablito was a farmhand.

On the third issue, the Court held that no implied tenancy arose. Harvest sharing is a vital element of every tenancy, and the receipts Pablito presented proved only delivery of shares, not a sharing arrangement or the Songcos' consent. Worse for the petitioners, the number of shares in the receipts matched the terms of Timoteo's leasehold agreement, which only confirmed that Pablito acted on Timoteo's behalf. The Court added that there can be no implied tenancy when another express tenancy exists on the same landholding, and that while there may be implied tenancy, there can be no implied dispossession and no implied rescission of an agricultural leasehold agreement. Dispossession must be authorized by the Court upon a ground provided by law.

Doctrine

Personal cultivation by an agricultural lessee includes cultivation with the aid of labor from within his immediate farm household, and a stepson who usually helps in the farm falls within that household. A tenant who merely allows a relative to help does not abandon his tenancy. Tenancy rights are not extinguished by the death of the lessee; under Section 9 they continue in the person chosen from among the surviving spouse, the eldest direct descendant, or the next eldest descendants. No implied tenancy may be recognized where an express tenancy exists over the same landholding, and no tenant may be dispossessed by implication, since dispossession requires a court judgment upon a ground under Section 36.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed, leaving Maria Tolentino and her children as the lawful successors to Timoteo's tenancy.

Remember This

Memorize this line: cultivation with the aid of one's immediate farm household is still personal cultivation, and there can be no implied dispossession of a tenant. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of tenancy, the meaning of personal cultivation, and succession to leasehold rights upon the tenant's death.