8/4/2016

G.R.No.86186

TodayisThursday,August04,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.86186May8,1992
RAFAELGELOS,petitioner,
vs.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSandERNESTOALZONA,respondents.
BalagtasP.Ilaganforpetitioner.
EmilCapulong,Jr.,forprivaterespondent.

CRUZ,J.:
The Court is asked to determine the real status of the petitioner, who claims to be a tenant of the private
respondent and entitled to the benefits of tenancy laws. The private respondent objects, contending that the
petitioner is only a hired laborer whose right to occupy the subject land ended with the termination of their
contractofemployment.
The subject land is a 25,000 square meter farmland situated in Cabuyao, Laguna, and belonging originally to
privaterespondentErnestoAlzonaandhisparentsinequalshares.OnJuly5,1970,theyenteredintoawritten
contract with petitioner Rafael Gelos employing him as their laborer on the land at the stipulated daily wage of
P5.00. 1 On September 4, 1973, after Alzona had bought his parents' share and acquired full ownership of the land, he
wroteGelostoinformhimoftheterminationofhisservicesandtodemandthathevacatetheproperty.Gelosrefusedand
continuedworkingontheland.

On October 1, 1973, Gelos went to the Court of Agrarian Relations and asked for the fixing of the agricultural
lease rental on the property. He later withdrew the case and went to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, which
grantedhispetition.Forhispart,AlzonafiledacomplaintforillegaldetaineragainstGelosintheMunicipalCourt
ofCabuyao,butthisactionwasdeclared"notproperfortrial"bytheMinistryofAgrarianReformbecauseofthe
existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. Alzona was rebuffed for the same reason when he
sought the assistance of the Ministry of Labor and later when he filed a complaint with the Court of Agrarian
RelationsforadeclarationofnontenancyanddamagesagainstGelos.OnappealtotheOfficeofthePresident,
however,thecomplaintwasdeclaredproperfortrialandsodearchivedandreinstated.
Afterhearing,theRegionalTrialCourtofSanPabloCity(whichhadtakenovertheCourtofAgrarianRelations
underPB129)renderedadecisiondatedApril21,1987,dismissingthecomplaint.2ItfoundGelostobeatenantof
thesubjectpropertyandentitledtoremainthereonassuch.Theplaintiffwasalsoheldliableinattorney'sfeesandcosts.

ThedecisionwassubsequentlyreversedbytheCourtofAppeals.InitsjudgmentpromulgatedonNovember25,
1988,3itheldthatGeloswasnotatenantofthelandinquestionandorderedhimtosurrenderittoAlzona.Hewasalso
heldliableforthepaymentofP10,000.00asattorney'sfeesandthecostsofthesuit.

ThebasicquestionthepetitionernowraisesbeforetheCourtisessentiallyfactualandthereforenotproperina
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Only questions of law may be raised in this kind of
proceeding.ThesettledruleisthatthefactualfindingsoftheCourtofAppealsareconclusiveoneventhisCourt
aslongastheyaresupportedbysubstantialevidence.Thepetitionerhasnotshownthathiscasecomesunder
anyofthoserareexceptionsonsuchfindingsmaybevalidlyreversedbythisCourt.
ItistruethatinTalaverav.CourtofAppeals,4weheldthatafactualconclusionmadebythetrialcourtthatapersonis
a tenant farmer, if it is supported by the minimum evidence demanded by law, is final and conclusive and cannot be
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/may1992/gr_86186_1992.html

1/4

8/4/2016

G.R.No.86186

reversedbytheappellatetribunalsexceptforcompellingreasons.Inthecaseatbar,however,wefindwiththerespondent
court that there was such a compelling reason. A careful examination of the record reveals that, indeed, the trial court
misappreciatedthefactswhenitruledthatthepetitionerwasatenantoftheprivaterespondent.

Thecircumstancethatthefindingsoftherespondentcourtdonotconcurwiththoseofthetrialcourtdoesnot,of
course,callforautomaticreversaloftheappellatecourt.Precisely,thefunctionoftheappellatecourtistoreview
and,ifwarranted,reversethefindingsofthetrialcourt.Disagreementbetweenthetwocourtsmerelycallsonus
tomakeaspeciallycarefulstudyoftheirrespectivedecisionstodeterminewhichofthemshouldbepreferredas
moreconformabletothefactsathand.
TheCourthasmadethiscarefulstudyandwillsustainthedecisionoftherespondentcourt.
ThecontractofemploymentdatedJuly5,1970,writteninTagalogandentitled"KasunduanngUpahangAraw,"
readspertinentlyasfollows:
1. Ang Unang Panig ay siyang mayari at nagtatangkilik ng isang lagay na lupa, sinasaka, na
tumatayo sa Nayon ng Baclaran, Cabuyao, Laguna, na siyang gagawa at sasaka sa lupa,
samantalangangIkalawangPanigaymagigingupahanatkatulongsapaggawanglupa.
2.AngUnangPanigaygustongipagpatuloyangpagbubungkalatpaggawangbukidnabinabanggit
saitaasatangIkalawangPanigaymayibignamagpaupasapaggawasahalagangP5.00sabawat
araw, walong oras na trabaho gaya ng mga sumusunod: Patubigan ng linang pagpapahalabas ng
mga pilapil pagpapaaldabis sa unang araw ng pagaararo pagpapalinis ng damo sa ibabaw ng
pilapil pagpapakamot (unang pagpapasuyod), pagpapahalang at pagpapabalasaw (ikalawa't
ikatlong pagpapasuyod) isang tao sa pagsasabog ng abono una sa pagpapantay ng linang bago
magtanimisangtaosapagaalagangdapogupasaisangtaongmagbobombanggamotlabansa
pagkapitngmgakulisap(mayroonatwala)sanagweweederupasamgataonamaggagamasat
magpapatubigngpalaymagsasapawngmgapilapilatibapa.
3.AngUnangPanigatangIkalawangPanigaynagkasundonaanghuliaygagawasabukidayonsa
nabanggitsaitaasbilangkatulongatupahanlamang.AngUnangPanigbukodsasilaanggagawaat
magsasaka ay maaaring umupa ng iba pang tao manggagawa sa upahang umiiral sangayon sa
batas katulad ng pagaararo, pagpapahulip, pagpapagamas, pagbobomba, pagweweeder,
pagsasabog ng abono, pagbobomba ng gamot, pagpapatubig at iba pang mga gawain. Maaaring
alisinangIkalawangPanigsapagpapatrabahosaanomangorasngUnangPanig.
4. Ipinatatanto ng Ikalawang Panig na siya ay hindi kasama sa bukid kundi upahan lamang na
binabayaransabawa'tarawngkanyangpaggawasabukidnanabanggit.
Itisnotedthattheagreementprovidesthat"angIkalawangPanig(meaningGelos)aymayibignamagpaupasa
paggawa sa halagang P5.00 sa bawa't araw, walong oras na trabaho" (The Second Party desires to lease his
servicesattherateofP5.00perday,eighthoursofwork)andthat"IpinatatantongIkalawangPanignasiyaay
hindikasamasabukidkundiupahanlamangnabinabayaransabawa'tarawngkanyangpaggawasabukidna
nabanggit.''(TheSecondPartymakesitknownthatheisnotafarmtenantbutonlyahiredlaborerwhoispaidfor
everydayofworkonthesaidfarm.)
Thesestipulationsclearlyindicatethatthepartiesdidnotenterintoatenancyagreementbutonlyacontractof
employment. The agreement is a lease of services, not of the land in dispute. This intention is quite consistent
with the undisputed fact that three days before that agreement was concluded, the former tenant of the land,
LeocadioPunongbayan,hadexecutedaninstrumentinwhichhevoluntarilysurrenderedhistenancyrightstothe
privaterespondent.5Italsoclearlydemonstratesthat,contrarytothepetitioner'scontention,Alzonaintendedtocultivate
thelandhimselfinsteadofplacingitagainundertenancy.

The petitioner would now disavow the agreement, but his protestations are less than convincing. His wife's
testimonythatheisilliterateisbeliedbyhisowntestimonytothecontraryinanotherproceeding. 6Herclaimthat
they were tricked into signing the agreement does not stand up against the testimony of Atty. Santos Pampolina, who
declared under his oath as a witness (and as an attorney and officer of the court) that he explained the meaning of the
document to Gelos, who even read it himself before signing it. 7 Atty. Pampolina said the agreement was not notarized
because his commission as notary public was good only for Manila and did not cover Laguna, where the document was
executed.8Atanyrate,thelackofnotarizationdidnotadverselyaffecttheveracityandeffectivenessoftheagreement,which,significantly,Gelosand
hiswifedonotdenyhavingsigned.

Gelos points to the specific tasks mentioned in the agreement and suggests that they are the work of a tenant
andnotofamerehiredlaborer.Notso.Theworkspecifiedisnotpeculiartotenancy.Whatatenantmaydomay
alsobedonebyahiredlaborerworkingunderthedirectionofthelandowner,asinthecaseatbar.Itisnotthe
natureoftheworkinvolvedbuttheintentionofthepartiesthatdeterminestherelationshipbetweenthem.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/may1992/gr_86186_1992.html

2/4

8/4/2016

G.R.No.86186

AsthisCourthasstressedinanumberofcases, 9"tenancyisnotapurelyfactualrelationshipdependentonwhatthe
allegedtenantdoesupontheland.Itisalsoalegalrelationship.Theintentoftheparties,theunderstandingwhenthefarmer
isinstalled,andasinthiscase,theirwrittenagreements,providedthesearecompliedwithandarenotcontrarytolaw,are
evenmoreimportant."

Gelos presented receipts 10 for fertilizer and pesticides he allegedly bought and applied to the land of the private
respondent, but the latter insists that it was his brother who bought them, being an agriculturist and in charge of the
technical aspect of the farm. Moreover, the receipts do not indicate to which particular landholding the fertilizers would be
appliedand,aspointedoutbytheprivaterespondent,couldrefertotheotherparcelsoflandwhichGeloswastenanting.

Thepetitioner'spaymentofirrigationfeesfrom1980to1985totheNationalIrrigationAdministrationonthesaid
landholdingisexplainedbythefactthatduringthependencyoftheCARcase,theAgrarianReformOfficefixeda
provisional leasehold rental after a preliminary finding that Gelos was the tenant of the private respondent. As
such,itwashewhohadtopaytheirrigationfees.Incidentally,Section12,subpar.(r)ofPD946providesthatthe
Secretary's determination of the tenancy relationship is only preliminary and cannot be conclusive on the lower
court.
It is noteworthy that, except for the selfserving testimony of the petitioner's wife, the records of this case are
bereftofevidenceregardingthesharingofharvestbetweenGelosandAlzona.Nolessimportantly,astheCourt
ofAppealsobserved,thepetitionerhasnotshownthathepaidrentalsonthesubjectpropertyfrom1970to1973,
beforetheirdisputearose.
A tenant is defined under Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 1199 as a person who himself and with the aid
availablefromwithinhisimmediatefarmhouseholdcultivatesthelandbelongingtoorpossessedbyanother,with
thelatter'sconsent,forpurposesofproduction,sharingtheproducewiththelandholderunderthesharetenancy
system, or paying to the landholder a pricecertain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the
leaseholdtenancysystem.(Emphasissupplied)
Forthisrelationshiptoexist,itisnecessarythat:1)thepartiesarethelandownerandthetenant2)thesubjectis
agriculturalland3)thereisconsent4)thepurposeisagriculturalproduction5)thereispersonalcultivationand
6)thereissharingofharvestorpaymentofrental.Intheabsenceofanyoftheserequisites,anoccupantofa
parcelofland,oracultivatorthereof,orplanterthereon,cannotqualifyasadejuretenant.11
Ontheotherhand,theindicationsofanemployeremployeerelationshipare:1)theselectionandengagementof
theemployee2)thepaymentofwages3)thepowerofdismissaland4)thepowertocontroltheemployee's
conductalthoughthelatteristhemostimportantelement.12
Accordingtoawellknownauthorityonthesubject, 13 tenancy relationship is distinguished from farm employerfarm
workerrelationshipinthat:"Infarmemployerfarmworkerrelationship,theleaseisoneoflaborwiththeagriculturallaborer
asthelessorofhisservicesandthefarmemployerasthelesseethereof.Intenancyrelationship,itisthelandownerwhois
the lessor, and the tenant the lessee of agricultural land. The agricultural worker works for the farm employer and for his
laborbereceivesasalaryorwageregardlessofwhethertheemployermakesaprofit.Ontheotherhand,thetenantderives
hisincomefromtheagriculturalproduceorharvest."

The private respondent, instead of receiving payment of rentals or sharing in the produce of the land, paid the
petitionerlumpsumsforspecifickindsofworkonthesubjectlotorgavehimvales, or advance payment of his
wagesaslaborerthereon.Thepetitioner'swifeclaimsthatAlzonamadeherhusbandsigntheinvoicesallatone
time because he allegedly needed them to reduce his income taxes. Even assuming this to be true, we do not
thinkthatmadethesaidpaymentsfictitious,especiallysosincethepetitionerneverdeniedhavingreceivedthem.
The other issue raised by the petitioner, which is decidedly legal, is easily resolved. There being no tenancy
relationship,thecontentionthattheprivaterespondent'scomplainthasprescribedunderSection38ofR.A.3844
must also fail. That section is not applicable. It must be noted that at the very outset, Alzona rejected the
petitioner'sclaimofagriculturaltenancyandimmediatelyinstitutedhisactionforunlawfuldetainerinaccordance
withSection1,Rule70oftheRulesofCourt.Asithappened,thesaidcasewasheldnotproperfortrialbythe
MinistryofAgrarianReform.Hethenresortedtootherremediesjustsohecouldrecoverpossessionofhisland
and, finally, in 1979, he yielded to the jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations by filing there an
action for declaration of nontenancy. The action, which was commenced in 1979, was within the tenyear
prescriptiveperiodprovidedunderArticle1144oftheCivilCodeforactionsbasedonawrittencontract.*
TheCourtquoteswithapprovalthefollowingacuteobservationsmadebyJusticeAliciaSempioDiy:
It might not be amiss to state at this juncture that in deciding this case in favor of defendant, the
lower court might have been greatly influenced by the fact that defendant is a mere farmer who is
almost illiterate while plaintiff is an educated landlord, such that it had felt that it was its duty to be
vigilantfortheprotectionofdefendant'sinterests.Butthedutyofthecourttoprotecttheweakand
theunderprivilegedshouldnotbecarriedouttosuchanextentastodenyjusticetothelandowner
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/may1992/gr_86186_1992.html

3/4

8/4/2016

G.R.No.86186

whenevertruthandjusticehappentobeonhisside.Besides,defendant'seconomicpositionvisavis
theplaintiffdoesnotnecessarilymakehimtheunderprivilegedpartyinthiscase,forastestifiedby
plaintiffwhichdefendantneverdenied,thesmalllandinquestionwastheonlylandholdingofplaintiff
when he and his father bought the same, at which time he was just a lowly employee who did not
even have a house of his own and his father, a mere farmer, while defendant was the agricultural
tenantofanotherpieceoflandandalsoownshisownhouse,asarisaristore,andacaritela.Plaintiff
also surmised that it was only after defendant had been taken into its wings by the Federation of
Free Farmers that he started claiming to be plaintiff's agricultural tenant, presumably upon the
Federation'sinstigationandadvice.Andwecannotdiscountthispossibilityindeed,consideringthat
during the early stages of the proceedings this case, defendant even counterproposed to plaintiff
thathewouldsurrenderthelandinquestiontothelatterifplaintiffwouldconveytohimanotherpiece
oflandadjacenttothelandinquestion,almostoneha.inarea,thatplaintiffhadalsoacquiredafter
buyingthelandinquestion,showingthatdefendantwasnotasignorantashewouldwanttheCourt
tobelieveandhadtheadviceofpeopleknowledgeableonagrarianmatters.
ThisCourthasstressedmorethanoncethatsocialjusticeoranyjusticeforthatmatterisforthedeserving,
whetherhebeamillionaireinhismansionorapauperinhishovel.Itistruethat,incaseofreasonabledoubt,we
arecalledupontotiltthebalanceinfavorofthepoor,towhomtheConstitutionfittinglyextendsitssympathyand
compassion.Butneverisitjustifiedtopreferthepoorsimplybecausetheyarepoor,ortorejecttherichsimply
becausetheyarerich,forjusticemustalwaysbeserved,forpoorandrichalike,accordingtothemandateofthe
law.
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED and the petition is DENIED, with
costsagainstthepetitioner.Itissoordered.
Narvasa,C.J.,GrioAquino,MedialdeaandBellosillo,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Exhibit"D."
2Rollo,p.16pennedbyJudgeClementeM.Soriano.
3Ibid.,p.21pennedbySempioDiy,J.,withHerreraandFrancisco,JJ.,concurring.
4182SCRA778.
5Exhibit"C."
6TSN,July22,1986,pp.1013.
7TSN,January23,1985,pp.13153738.
8Ibid.,pp.21,32.
9Gonzales,Jr.v.Alvarez,182SCRA15SeealsoMagnoAdamosv.Bagasao,162SCRA747
Tuazonv.CA,118SCRA484.
10Exhibits"2"and"2A"to"2H."
11Barandav.Baguio,189SCRA194PrudentialBankv.Hon.FilomenoCapultos,181SCRA159
Caballesv.DepartmentofAgrarianReform,168SCRA247.
12Deforiav.NLRC,194SCRA525SingerSewingMachineCo.v.Hon.Drilon,193SCRA270
BrotherhoodLaborUnityMovementinthePhilippinesv.Zamora,147SCRA49.
13Alcantara,PhilippineLaborandSocialLegislationAnnotated,Vol.1,1991RevisedEdition,p.47
citingDeLosReyesv.Espineli,etal.,30SCRA574.
*NotArticle555ascitedbytheappealeddecision.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/may1992/gr_86186_1992.html

4/4