JOSEFINA ARINES-ALBALANTE AND JUANA ARINES, PETITIONERS, VS. SALVACION REYES AND ISRAEL REYES, RESPONDENTS.

Arines-Albalante versus Reyes

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Josefina Arines-Albalante and Juana Arines against the spouses Salvacion Reyes and Israel Reyes. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which had dismissed their complaint for illegal ejectment and declared that Josefina had not proven any right to tenancy over a one-hectare rice land in Buhi, Camarines Sur. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole law of agrarian tenancy succession and security of tenure: who steps into the shoes of a deceased tenant, what happens when a landowner seizes the land by force, and where the burden of proving a lawful cause for ejectment lies.

Procedural History

Josefina, assisted by her sister-in-law Juana, filed a complaint for illegal ejectment and reinstatement before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in Pili, Camarines Sur. The Provincial Adjudicator ruled for the petitioners, ordering the respondents to reinstate Josefina as agricultural lessee and to pay sixty cavans of palay per cropping from the institution of the action until its final termination. The respondents moved for reconsideration, which was denied.

On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board affirmed the Provincial Adjudicator in full. It held that ejectment of a tenant must rest on a ground provided by law, that the respondents' claims of abandonment and non-payment were unsupported by substantial evidence, and that the respondents had taken the law into their own hands.

The respondents then went up to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 43. The Court of Appeals reversed the Board and dismissed the complaint, holding that Josefina had not established her right to the tenancy, that the landowner never chose a successor under Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844, and that the elements of consent, personal cultivation, and sharing of produce were lacking. Reconsideration was denied, so the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Sergio Arines was the original tenant of Lot 5543, a rice holding of about one hectare in Sta. Isabel, Buhi, Camarines Sur, with a lease rental of twenty cavans per harvest. During his lifetime he delivered the landowner's share to Salvacion Reyes, who received it personally or through a representative, although no receipts were issued. Sergio died in 1997.

In May 2003, Salvacion verbally told Josefina to stop cultivating the land and to surrender possession. Josefina refused. The respondents then entered the land with several workers and cultivated it themselves, and they refused to return possession despite repeated demands. Josefina brought the matter to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee, which referred it for mediation, but no settlement was reached.

Josefina then filed the complaint for illegal ejectment, seeking reinstatement and payment of unrealized production of sixty cavans per cropping. The respondents answered that Josefina, being a deaf-mute, lacked capacity to sue, that Juana was not lawfully authorized to represent her, that the petitioners were not registered tenants, that Sergio had abandoned the land, that the farm had been subleased to third parties, and that the Arines family owed irrigation fees and had delivered wet and decayed palay instead of dry and clean palay.

Issues

• Whether or not Josefina was illegally ejected by the respondents from the subject landholding.
• Whether or not Josefina is a tenant of the landholding and should be reinstated as such.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Republic Act Number 3844 provides:

The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided.

This is the source of the tenant's security of tenure, and it is why the Court says Josefina may stay until a final judgment authorizes her dispossession.

Section 37 of Republic Act Number 3844 provides:

Burden of Proof - The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor.

This places on the respondents, not on Josefina, the duty of proving any ground for ejectment such as abandonment or non-payment of rentals.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the ejectment was illegal. There was no dispute that Josefina was ejected from her possession and cultivation, and the respondents admitted entering the land, justifying it only by the advice of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. The Court ruled that the respondents took the law into their own hands. If they had legal grounds, they should have invoked a forum of competent jurisdiction. A person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence, or terror, not even by the owners; and one who proves prior possession may recover it even from the owners themselves. Regardless of whether Josefina was a tenant or had ceased to be one, she was entitled to remain until lawfully ejected, and only after an ejectment order could she be evicted.

On the second issue, the Court held that Josefina is a tenant and must be reinstated. It listed the elements of a tenancy relationship: the parties are landowner and tenant; the subject is agricultural land; there is consent; the purpose is agricultural production; there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and the harvest is shared. All must be shown by substantial evidence, for only a de jure tenant enjoys security of tenure. The Court found that Sergio was undisputedly the original tenant under a leasehold contract with Salvacion, and that tenancy is not extinguished by the death of the landowner or the lessee; it continues in favor of the tenant's surviving spouse or descendant. Thus, upon Sergio's death in 1997, Josefina had the right to succeed him under the same terms. Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844, cited by the Court of Appeals, merely fixes the order of priority for the lessor's choice; it does not prohibit a direct descendant from continuing cultivation. The consent given to Sergio binds Josefina as his successor-in-interest, who steps into his shoes, acquiring his rights and his obligations. As to the elements, the respondents' own averments that the palay delivered was wet and decayed, and that irrigation fees were unpaid, showed that Josefina had continued cultivating and sharing the harvest. The claims of abandonment, subleasing, unpaid irrigation fees, and non-payment of rentals are causes for ejectment that must be resolved in a proper ejectment case, where the burden lies on the lessor.

Doctrine

First, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence, or terror, not even by the owner; the remedy is a judicial action, and one who proves prior possession may recover it even from the owners. Second, a tenancy relationship is not extinguished by the death of the landowner or the agricultural lessee; it continues in favor of the tenant's surviving spouse or descendant, who steps into the shoes of the predecessor and acquires both rights and obligations. Third, Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844 supplies only the order of priority for the lessor's choice of successor and does not bar a direct descendant from continuing personal cultivation. Fourth, all six elements of tenancy must be shown by substantial evidence, since only a de jure tenant is entitled to security of tenure under Section 7. Fifth, under Section 37, the burden of proving a lawful cause for ejectment rests on the agricultural lessor.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court of Appeals decision and resolution were reversed and set aside, and the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board reinstating Josefina as agricultural lessee was reinstated.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence, or terror, not even by the owners, and that tenancy survives the death of the tenant in favor of his descendant. Examiners use this case for the elements of tenancy, succession under Section 9 of Republic Act Number 3844, security of tenure under Section 7, and the burden of proof under Section 37.