ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 137556.December 13, 1999]
SANTIAGO et al. vs. VERAGUAS, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 13, 1999.
G.R. No. 137556 (Carolina Santiago, et al. vs. Alandino Veraguas, et al.)
The sole issue in the instant case is whether or not the late Benjamin Santiago was a share tenant, or a mere farm helper of respondent spouses- Alandino and Rosalina Veraguas.
Respondents are the
registered owners of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. NT-234249 consisting
of 15,787 square meters more or less, situated in Barrio San Mariano,
Municipality of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. They claim that. sometime in 1992, they
hired the aforesaid Benjamin Santiago as a farm helper with a fixed monthly
salary of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00). Petitioners, heirs of Benjamin
Santiago, on the other hand, allege that the latter and the Veraguas spouses
had entered into a verbal contract of shared tenancy over the subject property.
Sometime in 1995, Benjamin Santiago filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB, for brevity) in Cabanatuan City, a petition praying therein that he be declared a tenant over the 1.5-hectare property and that a written leasehold agreement be executed between him and respondents. As a consequence, respondents filed a complaint for ejectment against Santiago. These two cases were subsequently consolidated.
On July 31, 1995, the PARAB rendered a decision finding Santiago to be "a farm worker over the landholding in question." Said decision was affirmed in toto by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in its decision, dated July 14, 1997.
Santiago appealed to the Court of Appeals, assailing the aforesaid DARAB decision, as well as the DARAB resolution dated September 16, 1997 which denied Santiago's Motion for Reconsideration.. In its Decision, dated June 29, 1998, the appellate court affirmed in toto the DARAB decision, dated July 14, 1997; and resolution, dated September 16, 1997.
On July 31 , l998, Benjamin Santiago died. Hence, the substitution by his heirs, the petitioners herein.
The heirs of Santiago filed the instant petition for review alleging that the Court of Appeals committed errors of law when it arbitrarily declared and erroneously concluded that Benjamin Santiago's evidences are sell-serving and that the spouses Veraguas failed to prove that Benjamin Santiago is a farm worker with fixed monthly wages.
The petition is devoid of merit.
As stated at the outset, all the arguments of petitioners boil down to the sole issue of whether or not the late Benjamin Santiago was a tenant or a mere farm helper of respondent spouses.
On this point, we quote with favor the findings and conclusions of the DARAB when it said:
As found by the Adjudicator a quo, the evidence shows that tenancy relationship exist between parties. This finding is supported by the fact that both the Barangay Captain and the BARC Chairman subsequently retracted from their statements attesting to the tenancy of appellant, as the same was made only to allow appellant to obtain a loan with the Samahang Nayon as a pre-requisite for said application. Moreover, the receipts proffered by appellant are found to have no probative value as it does not indicate therein what they represent.
Moreover, there is no showing that there was sharing of the produce or equivalent sum from the proceeds of the kalamansi harvest. On the contrary, what is shown is that appellant was paid a fixed wage on a monthly basis, undisputably proving that he is, indeed, a farmworker.
The Supreme Court, in explaining the relationship of tenant and landlord, said, "The fact alone of working on another's landholding does not raise the presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. Other factors must be taken into consideration like compensation in the form of lease rentals or a share in the produce of the landholding involved" (Berenguer Jr. vs. CA, 164 SCRA 432). In a more recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court declared: "Tenancy, however, is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed and, as in this case, their written agreements, provided these are complied with and not contrary to law, are even more important" (Tuazon vs. CA, 118 SCRA 484).
In the instant case, not only is appellant a mere hired laborer, but he has abused the trust reposed upon him by the landowner to the extent of depriving the latter from supervising and entering his farmland. Such high-handed attitude to the one who provided him the livelihood cannot be countenanced and appellant does not deserve to stay on in the landholding a minute longer.
Moreover, this Court has held that such an issue is basically a question of fact. 1 Macaraeg vs. CA, 169 SCRA 259 (1989); Chavez vs. CAR, 9 SCRA 412 (1963).Well-settled is the rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and that the findings of fact of administrative bodies shall not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that it committed grave abuse of discretion or otherwise acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction. 2 Ilas vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 682 (1991).
Findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are accorded not only respect, but finality [1] cralaw particularly when affirmed by the appellate tribunal. [2] cralaw
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the instant petition for review.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Director of Lands vs. CA, 194 SCRA 224 (1991).
[2] cralaw Jacinto vs. CA, 281 SCRA 657 (1997).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
