Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB)

Office the Provincial Adjudicator, Branch III, Mabini Extension, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

PETROS I. LADIGNON,
LEONIDAS I. LADIGNON, CIRIO
I. LADIGNON, REYNANTE I.
LADIGNON, ROSSANA I.
LADIGNON, ELEONOR I.
LADIGNON, LEONORA I.
LADIGNON, GIL I. LADIGNON, for
himself and as Attorney-In-Fact of
all his co-petitioner,
Petitioners,

-versus- DARAB CASE NO.

13169’SNE’17

DANILO LUCIANO,RENATIO LUCIANO,

AURORA LUCIANO,LUZVIMINDA LUCANO.,
MARILOU LUCIANO, JOSEFINO LUCIANO,
ALBERTO LUCIANO, FRESHELLE LUCIANO,
MHIR LUCIANO, and all their respective spouses,
if any, and all other persons deriving authority
from them

Respondents,
x--------------------------------x

DECISION

This is a case for ejectment involving a landholding situated at Brgy.

Malioilo, Sta Rosa, Nueva Ecija, with an area of Five Thousand square
meters (5,000) which is a part and parcel of the Forty Seven Thousand
Forty Four (47,044) square meters landholding covered by Transfer
Certificate Title (TCT) No. NT – 318951 registered in the name of Spouses
Pedro Ladignon and Esperenza Ingalla.
Page 2 of 8
DECISION… DARAB Case No. 13169’SNE’17

Petitioners alleged that they are the children and heirs of the late
Spouses Pedro Ladignon and Esperanza Ingalla, who died respectively on
July 11, 2013 and June 23, 2013. According to them their deceased
parents, were the registered owner of 47,044 square meter landholding,
covering the one half (1/2) hectare portion which is the subject of this case.
They alleged that the said landholding was built with the respondents home
which was tolerated by their deceased parents out of liberality and human
consideration

However, at present even the children and other family members of

the respondents build their respective houses on the subject landholding
but they still tolerated the same because they have no intention yet to use
the said landholding

Recently, according to the petitioners when they decided to make use

of the landholding, oral and written demands were made upon the
respondents, to vacate the same but the latter refused to do so.

They further averred that as owners of the property they are entitled
to all the rights vested by the Civil Code of the Philippines and basic of
which are possession and enjoyment of the use of the property, because of
the respondents construction of houses over the premises.

It was also alleged that they have filled a civil action with the Regional
Trial Court but the defense on the existence of agrarian dispute was
interposed by the respondents.

They maintain that respondents are not tenants in the subject land
holding and there is no agrarian dispute to speak of. Hence, the instant
case for recovery of possession.
Page 3 of 8
DECISION… DARAB Case No. 13169’SNE’17

On September 9, 2017, this Board issued Summons and Notice of

Hearing wherein the respondents were directed to file a Sworn Answer
within fifteen (15) days.
The respondents filed their answer with Motion to Dismiss on October
30, 2017 praying for the dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action.

Respondents argued that their father is a tenant of the agricultural

land owner Nicanora Ladignon Flores over the one hectare tenanted land
previously planted with mango trees by the late Natanael Ladignon
Luciano. According to them Nicanora originally owned 13.9980 hectares
covered by TCT 63938, which was subdivided into two lots and the 4.7044
was registered in the name of Dionisio C. Ladignon, brother of Nicanora.
They contended that Natanel being too trusting to her first cousin
Nicanora never bothered to get a certification from the MARO that he is a
long time tenant of Nicanora since 1945.
From the foregoing, according to the respondents they inherited their
tenurial right from their father Natanel including the right to a homelot. To
prove that the respondents late father Natanel was a tenant to the subject
landholding, they submitted certification by the BARC CHAIRMAN, Vice
BARC Chairman to this effect.

The ultimate issue to be resolved is whether or not there is an

existing Agricultural Tenancy Relationship.

Agricultural tenancy is not presumed but must be proven by the person

alleging it.

It is clear as crystal that the respondents are the one who alleged that their
father Natanael Ladignon is a long time tenant and that after the death of
Natanael they acquired tenurial right by operation of law, therefore the
respondents has the burden of proof to show that there is an existing Tenancy
relationship between Natanael & Sps. Pedro & Esperanza.
Page 4 of 8
DECISION… DARAB Case No. 13169’SNE’17

In resolving this petition, this court cited the case of Welfredo Ceneze
vs. Feliciana Ramos(G.R. No. 172287) stated the principle that “tenancy is
not purely a factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does
upon the land; it is also a legal relationship. A tenancy relationship cannot
be presumed. There must be evidence to prove the presence of all its
indispensable elements, to wit: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the
landowner; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal
cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of the harvest. The absence of one
element does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, its cultivator or
planter, a de jure tenant.”

To support the claim of the respondent, respondent submitted a

Certification issued by the BARC Chairman proving that Natanael Ladignon
is a long time tenant of the landholding, but such certification is not binding
on this Court. The certification or findings of the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform (or of an authorized representative) concerning the presence or the
absence of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties are
merely preliminary or provisional in character; hence, such certification
does not bind the judiciary.

From our own assessment of the evidence at hand, we find that

respondents failed to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship
between the respondents and petitioners. To prove tenancy relationship,
the requisite quantum of evidence is substantial evidence, or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. The Certification of the BARC Chairman certainly does not
suffice. And that there is no showing of evidence about the share of the
harvest of mangoes by the respondents and for the fact that the
respondents does not show any evidence that their father Natanael is
Page 5 of 8
DECISION… DARAB Case No. 13169’SNE’17

paying lease rentals, and self-serving statements are inadequate.

Petitioners should have presented receipts or any other evidence to show that
there were payments for the lease rentals, sharing of harvest and that there was
an agreed system of sharing between them and the landowners. In this case,
petitioner failed to present a receipt for respondent's share in the harvest,
or any other solid evidence proving that there was a sharing of harvest.
Also the element of consent was absent, no other evidence was submitted to
show that respondents consented to a tenancy relationship with the petitioners,
mere tolerance does not suffice as consent. By themselves, they do not show
that the elements of consent of the landowner and of sharing of harvests
are present.

There being no tenancy relationship between the parties, the DARAB

did not have jurisdiction over the case.

WHEREFORE, In view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. This case is ordered REMANDED to the
Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, to determine the amount of damages
suffered by petitioners by reason of the refusal and failure of respondents to turn
over the possession of the subject land, with utmost dispatch consistent with the
above disquisition.

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, July 04, 2018.

Page 6 of 8
DECISION… DARAB Case No. 13169’SNE’17

ATTY. ARIEL D. MAGLALANG

Provincial Adjudicator

Copy furnished:

GIL LADIGNON
Brgy. Zamora,3101 Sta.Rosa, Nueva Ecija

ATTY. MARIO R. BENITEZ

Magsaysay Sur, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

ATTY. EDRALIN MATEO

183 First Street, Phase II, Kapt. Pepe, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

DANILO LUCIANO/RENATO LUCIANO/

AURORA LUCIANO/LUZVIMINDA LUCIANO/
MARILOU LUCIANO/JOSEFINO LUCIANO/
ALBERTO LUCIANO/FRESHELLE LUCIANO/
MHIR LUCIANO
All of Brgy. Berang, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija
Page 7 of 8
DECISION… DARAB Case No. 13169’SNE’17