August 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > August 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 179833 : August 11, 2010] MARIA G. TEJERO AND CORAZON TEJERO-RARAOS V. SPOUSES EMMANUEL ESPINOSA AND ZENAIDA J. ESPINOSA :
[G.R. No. 179833 : August 11, 2010]
MARIA G. TEJERO AND CORAZON TEJERO-RARAOS V. SPOUSES EMMANUEL ESPINOSA AND ZENAIDA J. ESPINOSA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 August 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 179833 (Maria G. Tejero and Corazon Tejero-Ramos v. Spouses Emmanuel Espinosa and Zenaida J. Espinosa) � Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 23, 2007, which affirmed the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated January 6, 2004.
The facts of the case are summarized as follows;
This controversy involves a parcel of agricultural land situated in San Miguel, Tarlac, Tarlac, with an area of 2.6062 hectares, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 124975 (subject landholding), owned and registered in the name of respondent-spouses Emmanuel and Zenaida Espinosa (respondents).
On September 4, 1995, respondents filed an ejectment suit against petitioners Maria Tejero (Maria) and Corazon Tejero Ramos (Corazon) on the ground of non-payment of lease rentals and for collection of back rentals and attorney's fees. They alleged that Maria and her late husband, Ireneo Tejero (Ireneo), were the tenants of the subject landholding, with an obligation to pay thirty (30) cavans of palay at 45 kilos/cavan per annum. Sometime in 1975, after the death of Ireneo, Maria continued with the tenancy relationship. However, in 1980, Maria went abroad, abandoning the subject landholding and leaving the cultivation thereof to her daughter, Corazon, without the knowledge and consent of respondents.
Respondents also alleged that since 1990, Maria had been paying only a yearly rental of fifteen (15) cavans of palay; and from 1993 up to the filing of the ejectment case, she has not delivered any rental and even ignored the demands made by respondents, all in violation of the leasehold agreement. Thus, as of 1995, Maria owes respondents one hundred thirty-five (135) cavans of palay as unpaid rentals.
In their Answer, petitioners claimed that even after the demise of Ireneo, the subject landholding had been continuously and openly cultivated by ' Maria, being the legal wife of Ireneo, with the assistance of the other members of the family. Petitioners further claimed that a tenancy relationship exists between the parties as evidenced by several receipts constituting payments in favour of respondents from 1975 and for years thereafter.
Petitioners posited that Maria's act of going abroad does not per se constitute abandonment of the subject landholding since it was just temporary, because she regularly returned to the Philippines to perform farming activities with the members of her immediate farm household. Moreover, prior to 1991, petitioners claimed that they were merely paying as lease rentals fifteen (15) cavans per cropping, but when Mt. Pinatubo erupted on June 12, 1991, the subject landholding had become virtually non-productive. . .
Petitioners denied that they were guilty of any short delivery and/or non-delivery of lease rentals, or that they committed any act of abandonment, claiming that respondents themselves admitted in their Complaint that even in 1990, Maria paid her lease rentals. Thus, petitioners argued that respondents are estopped from ventilating or asserting then-claims.
On June 28, 1996, the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator for Region III, Tarlac, Tarlac (RARAD) rendered a Decision, finding Maria guilty of abandonment and non-payment of lease rentals, and ordered her dispossession of the subject landholding. Aggrieved, petitioners went to the DARAB. On January 6, 2004, the DARAB issued a Decision, affirming the RARAD's Decision. Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the DARAB Decision, but the same was denied in the DARAB's Resolution dated December 29, 2004.
Undaunted, petitioners appealed to the CA. However, in its Decision dated May 23, 2007, the CA affirmed the findings and ruling of the DARAB. Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated August 31, 2007 for lack of merit.
Hence, this Petition, raising the following issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPLIED/MISCONSTRUED THE APPLICABLE LAW. UNDULY DISREGARDED THE JUDICIAL ADMISSION AND IN NOT TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND RADICALLY DEPARTED FROM PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF ABANDONMENT[;]
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE EQUITY PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL AGAINST RESPONDENTS WHEN THEY ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED RENTALS DELIVERED BY PETITIONER CORAZON T. RAMOS WITHOUT ANY QUESTION FOR SEVEN LONG YEARS WHILE MARIA TEJERO WAS TEMPORARILY OUT OF THE COUNTRY[; AND]
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NON-PAYMENT OF RENTALS WAS NOT CAUSED BY FORCE MAJEURE OR DELIBERATE.[1]
We deny the Petition.
The questions whether Maria abandoned the subject landholding and whether petitioners paid the lease rentals due thereon are basically questions of fact, which are beyond the office of this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in which only questions of law may be raised.[2] It is a well settled rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the CA are regarded as final, binding and conclusive upon this Court especially when supported by substantial evidence.[3] While exceptions to the rule do exist, none are present in this case. It bears stressing that the RARAD, the DARAB and the CA unanimously found that there was abandonment and deliberate non-payment of lease rentals in this case. Clearly, petitioners utterly failed to show justifiable reasons to warrant the reversal of the CA decision, affirming the factual findings and rulings of both the RARAD and the DARAB. .
Accordingly, we affirm the CA's findings, to wit:
Once the agricultural tenant abandons the landholding, his tenancy relationship with the landholder comes to an end. It cannot be reinstated simply by the former tenant's demand for or even actual recovery of possession of the landholding, absent the landholder's consent. It should be remembered that consent is an essential element of the tenancy relationship. Moreover, the tenant who willfully abandons the landholding must face the consequences of his action - the termination of the tenancy relationship and the loss of his rights to the landholding - and the landholder's rights must not be held hostage to the possibility of the tenant's change of heart later on. When the tenancy relationship is extinguished by volition of the tenant, he may no longer recover possession of the subject landholding for such would be repulsive to.justice, fairness and equity.
Most importantly, we subscribe to the lower tribunals' finding that petitioners deliberately failed and/or refused to pay the lease rentals due to respondents. With the uniform finding by the RARAD, the DARAB and the CA that petitioners did not pay the lease rentals, the burden now rests on the shoulders of petitioners to prove their affirmative allegation of payment. Petitioners, however, failed to discharge said burden with substantial evidence in order to show any reversible error on the part of the CA, thus, sealing with imprimatur the factual findings of both the RARAD and the DARAB that petitioners did not pay respondents for the crop years 1992-1995.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 179833 (Maria G. Tejero and Corazon Tejero-Ramos v. Spouses Emmanuel Espinosa and Zenaida J. Espinosa) � Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 23, 2007, which affirmed the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated January 6, 2004.
The facts of the case are summarized as follows;
This controversy involves a parcel of agricultural land situated in San Miguel, Tarlac, Tarlac, with an area of 2.6062 hectares, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 124975 (subject landholding), owned and registered in the name of respondent-spouses Emmanuel and Zenaida Espinosa (respondents).
On September 4, 1995, respondents filed an ejectment suit against petitioners Maria Tejero (Maria) and Corazon Tejero Ramos (Corazon) on the ground of non-payment of lease rentals and for collection of back rentals and attorney's fees. They alleged that Maria and her late husband, Ireneo Tejero (Ireneo), were the tenants of the subject landholding, with an obligation to pay thirty (30) cavans of palay at 45 kilos/cavan per annum. Sometime in 1975, after the death of Ireneo, Maria continued with the tenancy relationship. However, in 1980, Maria went abroad, abandoning the subject landholding and leaving the cultivation thereof to her daughter, Corazon, without the knowledge and consent of respondents.
Respondents also alleged that since 1990, Maria had been paying only a yearly rental of fifteen (15) cavans of palay; and from 1993 up to the filing of the ejectment case, she has not delivered any rental and even ignored the demands made by respondents, all in violation of the leasehold agreement. Thus, as of 1995, Maria owes respondents one hundred thirty-five (135) cavans of palay as unpaid rentals.
In their Answer, petitioners claimed that even after the demise of Ireneo, the subject landholding had been continuously and openly cultivated by ' Maria, being the legal wife of Ireneo, with the assistance of the other members of the family. Petitioners further claimed that a tenancy relationship exists between the parties as evidenced by several receipts constituting payments in favour of respondents from 1975 and for years thereafter.
Petitioners posited that Maria's act of going abroad does not per se constitute abandonment of the subject landholding since it was just temporary, because she regularly returned to the Philippines to perform farming activities with the members of her immediate farm household. Moreover, prior to 1991, petitioners claimed that they were merely paying as lease rentals fifteen (15) cavans per cropping, but when Mt. Pinatubo erupted on June 12, 1991, the subject landholding had become virtually non-productive. . .
Petitioners denied that they were guilty of any short delivery and/or non-delivery of lease rentals, or that they committed any act of abandonment, claiming that respondents themselves admitted in their Complaint that even in 1990, Maria paid her lease rentals. Thus, petitioners argued that respondents are estopped from ventilating or asserting then-claims.
On June 28, 1996, the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator for Region III, Tarlac, Tarlac (RARAD) rendered a Decision, finding Maria guilty of abandonment and non-payment of lease rentals, and ordered her dispossession of the subject landholding. Aggrieved, petitioners went to the DARAB. On January 6, 2004, the DARAB issued a Decision, affirming the RARAD's Decision. Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the DARAB Decision, but the same was denied in the DARAB's Resolution dated December 29, 2004.
Undaunted, petitioners appealed to the CA. However, in its Decision dated May 23, 2007, the CA affirmed the findings and ruling of the DARAB. Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated August 31, 2007 for lack of merit.
Hence, this Petition, raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPLIED/MISCONSTRUED THE APPLICABLE LAW. UNDULY DISREGARDED THE JUDICIAL ADMISSION AND IN NOT TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND RADICALLY DEPARTED FROM PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF ABANDONMENT[;]
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE EQUITY PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL AGAINST RESPONDENTS WHEN THEY ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED RENTALS DELIVERED BY PETITIONER CORAZON T. RAMOS WITHOUT ANY QUESTION FOR SEVEN LONG YEARS WHILE MARIA TEJERO WAS TEMPORARILY OUT OF THE COUNTRY[; AND]
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NON-PAYMENT OF RENTALS WAS NOT CAUSED BY FORCE MAJEURE OR DELIBERATE.[1]
We deny the Petition.
The questions whether Maria abandoned the subject landholding and whether petitioners paid the lease rentals due thereon are basically questions of fact, which are beyond the office of this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in which only questions of law may be raised.[2] It is a well settled rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the CA are regarded as final, binding and conclusive upon this Court especially when supported by substantial evidence.[3] While exceptions to the rule do exist, none are present in this case. It bears stressing that the RARAD, the DARAB and the CA unanimously found that there was abandonment and deliberate non-payment of lease rentals in this case. Clearly, petitioners utterly failed to show justifiable reasons to warrant the reversal of the CA decision, affirming the factual findings and rulings of both the RARAD and the DARAB. .
Accordingly, we affirm the CA's findings, to wit:
Note that the agricultural lease relationship was between Maria and the respondents. Being the agricultural lessee, she has the primary obligation to personally cultivate the subject landholding. However, as gleaned from the records and as admitted by the petitioners, Maria went abroad and stayed there for several years without the consent and knowledge of the respondents. It was also undeniable that it was her daughter, Corazon, who has been doing all the farmwork. Clearly, Maria's act of going abroad and returning only three (3) times to the Philippines after several years of stay there as well as her failure to comply with her obligation to personally cultivate the subject landholding constitute abandonment. Thus, We see no cogent reason to disturb the D ARAB'S findings.
Once the agricultural tenant abandons the landholding, his tenancy relationship with the landholder comes to an end. It cannot be reinstated simply by the former tenant's demand for or even actual recovery of possession of the landholding, absent the landholder's consent. It should be remembered that consent is an essential element of the tenancy relationship. Moreover, the tenant who willfully abandons the landholding must face the consequences of his action - the termination of the tenancy relationship and the loss of his rights to the landholding - and the landholder's rights must not be held hostage to the possibility of the tenant's change of heart later on. When the tenancy relationship is extinguished by volition of the tenant, he may no longer recover possession of the subject landholding for such would be repulsive to.justice, fairness and equity.
Most importantly, we subscribe to the lower tribunals' finding that petitioners deliberately failed and/or refused to pay the lease rentals due to respondents. With the uniform finding by the RARAD, the DARAB and the CA that petitioners did not pay the lease rentals, the burden now rests on the shoulders of petitioners to prove their affirmative allegation of payment. Petitioners, however, failed to discharge said burden with substantial evidence in order to show any reversible error on the part of the CA, thus, sealing with imprimatur the factual findings of both the RARAD and the DARAB that petitioners did not pay respondents for the crop years 1992-1995.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 20.
[2] Sps. Colvo v. Sps. Vergara, 423 Phil. 939, 947 (2001), citing Salcedo v. People, 400 Phil. 1302,
1308 (2000).
[3] Napoleon Magno v. Gonzalo Francisco and Regina Vda, DeLazaro,G.R.Vio. 168959, March 25, 2010.
[4] Verde v. Macapagal, G.R. No. 151342, March 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 542, 557-558, citing Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, 116 Phil. 580, 588-591 (1978).
