MARIA LUISA VDA. DE DONATO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, CRESENCIANO PRADO AND ORLANDO DE LA GUISON, RESPONDENTS.

By this petition, Ma. Luisa Vda. de Donato seeks review of
the Decision of respondent Court of Appeals^[1]
promulgated on May 25, 1982 in CA-G.R. No. 13732-CAR, entitled “Cresenciano Prado and Orlando de
la Guison versus Maria Luisa Vda.
de Donato“, which found
the existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties and ordered
petitioner as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering appellant Ma.
Luisa Vda. de Donato to maintain the appellees Cresenciano Prado and Orlando de
la Guison in the riceland
portion of Hda. Mercedes consisting of 3.70 hectares
as indicated in its parcellary
plan.  No pronouncement as to
costs.”

The case originated in the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations at
Bacolod City where Cresenciano
Prado and Orlando de la Guison
filed a complaint against Maria Luisa vda. de Donato.  They alleged that they are leasehold tenants
of Maria Luisa vda. de Donato, owner of Hda. Mercedes, situated at Barangay
Ma-ao, Bago City; that sometime in 1979 and without any justifiable cause, the said owner tried to disposses them
of their respective landholdings, thus
they were compelled to file this case to maintain
the status quo with
damages.

Petitioner Maria Luisa vda.
de Donato claims and by her evidence tries to prove that Cresenciano Prado and Orlando de
la Guison have never been her leasehold tenants.  But both the Agrarian Court and
respondent Court of Appeals found the existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties – (a)
that Orlando de la Guison has been a tenant of Maria
Luisa vda. de Donato since 1971 in a
portion of her hacienda planted with palay and since then he has been religiously paying his lease
rentals
and (b) that Cresenciano
Prado has been a tenant of Maria Luisa vda. de Donato since 1963 but it was
only in
1972 that he became a leasehold
tenant.  He has been religiously paying his yearly rental
of fifty (50) cavans.

The sole issue presented in this petition is one of fact –
whether or not respondents are tenants of petitioner.

This Court has consistently held that the findings of facts of the Court of Agrarian
Relations will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support them and all that this Court is
called upon to do insofar as the
evidence is concerned, in agrarian cases, is to find out if the conclusion of
the lower court is supported by “substantial evidence.” Bagsican vs.
Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 226). 
Substantial evidence in support of the findings of the Court of Agrarian
Relations does not necessarily import preponderant evidence
as is required in ordinary civil cases. 
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, for the appellate court cannot substitute its
own judgment or criterion for that of the trial court in determining wherein
lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.  (Picardal vs. Lladas, 21 SCRA 1483)

Even a cursory reading of the decision appealed from would reveal
that the lower court arrived at its finding after weighing the evidence of both
parties and it gave its reasons for its conclusion together with the supporting
facts.  The relevant portion of the
decision reads thus –

“After going thoroughly over the evidence adduced by the party litigants herein, this Court finds, and so holds, that plaintiffs Cresenciano
Prado and Orlando de la Guison are agricultural tenants of the
defendant.  Hence, they are entitled to the security of tenure as provided for under
Section 7, R.A. 3844.

“As revealed by the evidence, plaintiffs are residing at Hda. Mercedes,
owned by the defendant herein, situated at Barrio Ma-ao, Bago City.  They
are cultivating a palay landholding in the said hacienda and religiously
paying rentals to the landholder, Ma. Luisa Vda. de Donato.

“Plaintiff Orlando de la Guison is a
tenant of Ma. Luisa Vda. de Donato since 1971 in the palay
portion of the latter’s hacienda.  Thus, in the affidavit of Zacarias Maypa dated October 30, 1979 (Exh. ‘F’) the affiant declares that the
aforementioned plaintiff is a tenant since 1971 and that he religiously paid
his lease rental to the landholder, Ma. Luisa Vda. de Donato.  This declaration is corroborated by another witness for the plaintiff, Jose Arandilla, in his affidavit dated October
30, 1979 (Exhibit
‘G’).

“Plaintiff Cresenciano Prado is a tenant of the defendant herein since 1963 but it
is only in 1972 that he became a leasehold tenant with a yearly rental of fifty
(50) cavans. 
The landholding of plaintiff Prado was
formerly 1.56 hectare but later on it
was increased to 6.16 hectares.  The
increase of area of cultivation of plaintiff Prado
was certified by no other than Carlito Mamon, team leader 1 of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform at Bago City, when he issued a certification to the
effect that plaintiff is a tenant-tiller of Maria Luisa Vda.
de Donato cultivating an
area of 6.16 hectares, situated at Hda. Mercedes, Bago City (Exhibit ‘K’).  Moreover, an affidavit of Manuel Cayagas dated August 2, 1978 (Exhibit ‘C’) can not escape our
attention.  In the aforementioned declaration, Cayagas
declared that he has inspected the landholding of plaintiff Prado
because the latter is going to secure loan (Exhibit ‘B’) from the Rural Bank of
Murcia amounting to P2,400.00 to be spent in the expenses for his farm cultivation.  Such aforementioned amount was actually
secured by Prado from the said Rural Bank.

“Faced by the preponderance of evidence above-mentioned we
conclude nothing except that plaintiffs herein are agricultural tenants of the
defendants herein.

“As
defined by law a “tenant is a person who 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, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying the landholder a
price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money, or both, under the
leasehold tenancy system.  Likewise, as
ruled by the Honorable Court of Appeals in the case of Pedro Montero vs. Necitas Rama, et al, CA-G.R. No.
SP-07204, March 28, 1978,
the essential requisites of tenancy relationship which are the following to
wit:

‘(1)  the
parties are landholder and tenant;

‘(2)  the
subject in litigation is an agricultural land;

‘(3)  there
is consent;

‘(4)  the
purpose is agricultural production;

‘(5)  consideration;

have been
concurrently satisfied by the plaintiff herein which convince this court that
they are working in the land of the defendant in the concept of tenants.

“Although it does not show in evidence that
express consent of the landholder, Ma. Luisa Vda.
de Donato, has been
solicited by the plaintiffs herein, however, this fact may not disrupt or
prejudice the theory of the plaintiffs that they are tenants.  As provided by law consent may be given
orally or in writing, express or implied.

“By allowing the plaintiffs to cultivate the landholding in question
and in receiving the owner’s share of the produce defendant impliedly
recognized the plaintiffs as tenants and there arose between them implied
contract of tenancy.  In the case of de la Cruz vs. Castro (CA-G.R. No. 47039-K,
January 5, 1972) the Court of Appeals has held that by allowing a person to
cultivate the land and accepting share or rental from him is an eloquent
example of implied consent.

“On the other hand, the contention of defendant that
plaintiffs herein are not her tenants is pointless, flimsy and baseless.  The theory of the defendant
that Hda.
Mercedes is a sugar land and hence plaintiffs herein worked thereat as cane
laborers is belied by the fact that there are portions of the said hacienda
that are planted to palay especially the lowland
portion where the Bago irrigation system can
reach.  If indeed plaintiffs are her
sugar cane laborers why is it that plaintiffs have a farmholding
in the said hacienda and are giving share of their produce to the landowner thereof.  This aforementioned
fact can not alienate nor distort the attention of this Court that plaintiffs
herein are agricultural tenants of
defendant Ma. Luisa Vda. de Donato in her land situated at Hda.
Mercedes, Barangay Ma-ao, Bago City.”

It cannot be said therefore that the finding of the Court of Agrarian Relations that Cresenciano Prado and Orlando de
la Guison are leasehold tenants of petitioner Maria Luisa Vda. de Donato over the riceland
portion of her hacienda Mercedes which finding was affirmed
by respondent Court of Appeals in its now assailed decision, is not supported
by substantial evidence.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is
hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that private
respondents are considered leasehold
tenants of petitioner.  Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera,
Padilla, and Sarmiento,
JJ., concur.

^[1] Penned by Justice Juan A. Sison
and concurred in by Justices Ramon G. Gaviola, Jt. and Serafin R. Cuevas.