ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137741. June 9, 1999]

FREDDY TAN vs. FRANCISCO ELUMBA

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 9, 1999.

G.R. No. 137741 (Freddy Tan vs. Francisco Elumba.)

Petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land situated at Diwa-an, Dapitan City with an area of 1.9648 hectares.

In 1991, petitioner hired the services of respondent to oversee and do the work of harvesting, gathering, breaking as well as scooping the coconuts and converting them to copra. He alleged that he paid respondent P400.00 per one thousand nuts.

Subsequently, petitioner discovered the loss of some copras so he did not re-hire respondent anymore. He also found out that respondent had built a small hut on the land without his consent and therefore ordered its demolition.

Thus, respondent filed a case for illegal ejectment against petitioner with the regional office of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

On May 10, 1994, the DARAB, Region IX, Zamboanga City rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which reads:

Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the complainant a bonafide tenant of the respondent and the land in question,

2. Ordering the respondent:

(a) To reinstate the complainant in the land in question and to maintain him in the peaceful possession and cultivation of said land;

(b) To restore and/or reconstruct with similar kind of materials on the land in question the small hut or "barong-barong" which he demolished without court authority; or to pay the complainant the equivalent value of the demolished hut based on the current prevailing market prices of such materials; and

(c) To account for the harvest on the land in question and to deliver the share of the complainant of the harvest during the period from August 1993 up to and including the last harvest until actual reinstatement is made.

SO ORDERED.1 [Rollo, pp. 43-44.]

On appeal, the decision was affirmed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Diliman Office and by the Court of Appeals.

Hence, this petition.

The issues raised in the instant petition are: (1) Whether the respondent is a bona fide tenant on the land in question within the purview of the law; (2) whether respondent is entitled to the security of tenure as well as to reinstatement to the land in suit under R.A. 3844, as amended; (3) whether respondent is entitled to the accounting of the harvest of the land in question and to the delivery of the supposed share of the harvest; and (4) whether herein petitioner is liable to restore and/or reconstruct the demolished small hut or "barong-barong" or pay the equivalent value thereof.2 [Id., at 10.]

The issues raised are factual and are the very same issues before the DARAB and the Court of Appeals. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of fact of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but finality because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial tribunals from handling specific matters falling under their jurisdiction.3 [Alba v. Nitorreda, 254, SCRA 753 [1996].] We see no cogent reason to disturb such rule.

We are in accord with the findings that all of the requisites of a tenancy relationship have been complied with. Petitioner has failed to convince us that respondent's tasks are that of a paid laborer only had on a "pakiao" basis. No proofs were presented t show the existence of such relationship. Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, respondent did farmwork of a tenant under the purview of the law and is therefore entitled to security of tenure.'

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE