ANGELES MALATE, NORBERTO ESGUERRA AND BENEDICTO ESGUERRA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AND FELINO GEMANIL, RESPONDENTS.

This has reference to a petition for review on certiorari
of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-­G.R. No. 10806-CAR, promulgated
on August 5, 1980, penned by Justice Mariano Zosa with the concurrence of
Justices Samuel Reyes and Jorge Coquia, which reversed the decision of the
Court of Agrarian Relations in CAR Case No. 1053, Cavite ‘79, dated March 12,
1980, the dispositive portion of which latter decision reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgments is hereby
rendered:

a)  Finding the plaintiffs to be the legitimate
tenants of their respective landholdings described in paragraph 5 of the
Complaint and ordering the defendant Felino Gemanil to reinstate them as such;

b)   Enjoining the observance by the parties of
the schedule of rentals to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant Felino
Gemanil, as follows:

‘Crops                    Tenants          Landowners

1. Pineapple                ¾                        ¼

2. Papaya                    ¾                        ¼

3. Bananas                   ¾                        ¼

4. Rice                          ¾                       ¼’ ;

c)  Ordering the defendant Felino Gemanil to
respect the plaintiffs’ peaceful enjoyment, possession and cultivation of their
respective landholdings;

d)  Ordering the defendant Felino Gemanil to pay
to each plaintiff the total sum of P2,700.00 representing the 15% share of each
plaintiff on the three (3) harvests for the crop years 1976­-’77, 1977-’78 and
1978-’79 and P400.00 to each plaintiff representing the litigation expenses
incurred and damages suffered by each plaintiff in the prosecution of their
present complaint;

e)  Dismissing the complaint as to the defendants
Antolin Gemanil, Cecilia Gemanil Mercado and Dominga Gemanil; and

f)   Dismissing all other claims of the parties
for lack of basis in law and or the evidence.

SO ORDERED.” (pp. 51-52, Rollo.)

In challenging the finding of the Court of Appeals, which served
as the basis for its reversal decision, that petitioners are not really tenants
of the landholding, petitioners contend now that —

“I

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND/OR VIOLATED
THE RULE ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.
946 AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS AND SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN DECISION
FOR THAT OF THE LOWER COURT.

II

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED WHEN IT RE-APPRAISED THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE FORM OF TAX
DECLARATION NO. 6714 (Exhibit ‘A’) AND THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PETITIONERS AND
THEIR WITNESS.

III

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
MISAPPREHENSIONS OF FACTS WHEN IT REASSESSED OR RE-APPRAISED THE EVIDENCE OF
THE PETITIONERS IN THE FORM OF THE TAX DECLARATION NO. 6714 (Exhibit ‘A’) AND
THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PETITIONERS.

IV

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT APPLIED THE PRESUMPTION THAT SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE IS
UNFAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE CASE AT BAR, WHEN PETITIONERS FAILED TO
PRESENT FRANCISCO ESGUERRA AND ARTEMIO GONZALES AS WITNESSES TO SHED LIGHT ON
THE TRUTH OF THE INSTITUTION OF PETITIONERS AS TENANTS CONSIDERING THAT THESE
PREVIOUS TENANTS ARE STILL ALIVE AND APPEAR TO BE THE MOST COMPETENT WITNESSES
TO PROVE THAT PETITIONERS ARE REALLY TENANTS ON THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDINGS.”
(pp. 1-2, Brief for Petitioners, p. 95, Rollo.)

As disclosed by the record, the antecedent facts are as follows:

The original owner of the landholding in question was Feliciana
Bautista, the mother of private respondent Felino Gemanil. In 1939, Feliciana Bautista instituted as
tenants on the landholding Francisco Esguerra, father of petitioners Norberto
and Benedicto Esguerra, and Artemio Gonzales, uncle of petitioner Angeles
Malate.

In 1961, petitioners Norberto and Benedicto Esguerra were
instituted as tenants on the landholding by their father in the presence and
with the consent and conformity of Feliciana Bautista.

Petitioners Norberto and Benedicto Esguerra were instituted as
tenants by reason of the old age of their father. Likewise, by reason of his advanced age, Artemio Gonzales
instituted his nephew, petitioner Angeles Malate, as tenant in said landholding
with the consent of owner Feliciana Bautista. Norberto was given 3 hectares to till, and Benedicto and Angeles one
hectare each. The agreement between
petitioners and owner Feliciana Bautista was that they would share in the
produce of the land on a 75-25 sharing basis in favor of petitioners. The landholding was devoted to the planting
of pineapple, papaya, banana, and rice.

Since working and tenanting the landholding, petitioners had
religiously delivered the landowner’s share of 25% of the produce to Feliciana
Bautista until her death, following which event, Feliciana’s sister, Matea
Bautista, took over the administration of the landholding and petitioners
promptly delivered 25% of the produce of the land to Matea until her death.

In 1976, after the death of Matea, private respondent Felino
Gemanil, invited petitioners to a conference and, at the conference, requested
them to let him plant the landholding to sugarcane for three years and he would
give petitioners 15% of the gross harvest of the landholding as their
share. He proposed that petitioners
would not be saddled with any duties except to help him supervise the
landholding. The petitioners acceded to
the request of private respondent. Thus, private respondent took possession of the landholding and planted
the same to sugarcane.

However, private respondent, for three years, reneged in his
promise to give petitioners the agreed upon 15% share of the harvest and worse,
he refused to reinstate petitioners to the landholding despite demands
therefor.

Consequently, petitioners filed a complaint with the Court of
Agrarian Relations of Cavite City. As
aforestated, said court rendered a decision in favor of petitioners, but on
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed.

The error’s assigned by petitioners can be reduced to only one
issue: Whether the Court of Appeals
erred in reversing the findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

We find merit in the petition.

In appeals in agrarian cases, the only function required of the
Court of Appeals is to determine whether the findings of fact of the Court of
Agrarian Relations are supported by substantial evidence. And substantial evidence has been defined to
be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is
contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, and where the findings
of fact of the agrarian court are supported by substantial evidence, such findings
are conclusive and binding on the appellate court (Bagsican vs. Court of
Appeals, 141 SCRA 226 [1986]; Heirs of E.B. Roxas, Inc. vs. Tolentino,
167 SCRA 334 [1988]). In such cases,
the appellate court cannot make its own findings of fact and substitute the
same in lieu of the findings of fact of the agrarian court.

An examination of the evidence on record clearly shows that the
findings of fact of the agrarian court are supported by substantial
evidence. The testimony of petitioners
which is clear, simple, and direct, unencumbered by inconsistencies and
contradictions or evasion and corroborated by the testimony of witness
Marianito Manalo, fully supports the allegations of the complaint.

Contrarywise, we find, together with the trial court, that the testimony
of private respondent is unworthy of belief. Said thus the agrarian court on this point:

“The Court finds the uncorroborated testimony of defendant
Felino Gemanil rejecting the tenancy claims of the plaintiffs to be distinctly
inconclusive and unreliable. He
presented a very incoherent story – punctuated by revealing contradictions.

Felino Gemanil, himself, denied credence to his testimony that the
plaintiffs were never tenants of the disputed property with his own admission
that the plaintiff ANGELES MALATE had been tenanting a portion of his
landholding (Hearing of October 23, 1979, t.s.n., p. 10) and that, the
plaintiff BENEDICTO ESGUERRA is still working on a portion thereof (ibid,
pp. 12-13).

And, significant enough, in answer to a question of the Court, he
confessed that when his mother was still living, he did not know who was
administering the property and who were actually working thereon (ibid, pp.
6-7).

Similarly, Felino Gemanil, himself, discredited his testimony that
when he took over the possession of the property in 1975, the landholding was
an idle land ‘cogonal land and stony (batuhan)’ (ibid, p. 5) with his
own revelation that his mother, Feliciana Bautista, had been employing workers
to clear and cultivate the same (Hearing of November 15, 1979, t.s.n., p. 8),
which practice was, likewise, followed by his brother, Antolin, when he,
Antolin, succeeded their mother in the administration of the property so much
so that it was improved and cultivated ‘piece by piece’ (ibid, pp. 2-3). As if to stress the fact that he had been
testifying falsely, he, Felino Gemanil, disclosed that ‘When I first entered
the landholding I saw portions planted to palay, corn, pineapple and several
banana plants’ (ibid, p. 19).

The Court, thus, finds itself yielding to the conclusion forced
upon it by Felino Gemanil – that he should not be believed.” (pp. 45-46,
Rollo.)

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals is
hereby REVERSED and set aside and the decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., (Chairman), on
leave.