DARAB Case No.

8947 December 5, 2001

PEPITA D. CALO vs. EMILIANA DE LA CALZADA

[DARAB Case No. 8947. December 5, 2001.]

PEPITA D. CALO, petitioner-appellee, vs. EMILIANA DE LA
CALZADA, respondent-appellant.
S Y L LA B U S

1. AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT; TENANCY RELATIONS;

HOW ESTABLISHED; TENANCY RELATIONS MAY BE
ESTABLISHED IMPLIEDLY — These facts evince that indeed, tenancy
relationship was impliedly established and once established, the tenant
thereof shall, under the law, be entitled to security of tenure as specifically
provided under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, as follows:
"Tenancy Relationship; How Established; Security of Tenure. — Tenancy
relationship may be established either verbally or in writing, expressly or
impliedly. Once such relationship is established, the tenant shall be entitled
to security of tenure as hereinafter provided."

DECISION
REYES, J p:

2. WHETHER OR NOT GERVACIO CALO VALIDLY WAIVED HIS

RIGHT AS TENANT IN FAVOR OF HIS CHILDREN WHILE HE WAS
STILL ALIVE; AND

This is an appeal by Emiliana de la Calzada from the decision dated August

30, 1999 of the Honorable OIC-Regional Adjudicator for CARAGA Region
XIII, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, a decision is rendered as follows:

1. That Pepita Calo is found to be a tenant on the landholding of the

respondent located at Sumilihon, Butuan City with an area of 1.5 hectares,
more or less. That as such, she is entitled to the peaceful possession of the
landholding.

2. That respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner and to stop

harassing her.
3. The MARO of Butuan City is directed to cause for the execution of a
leasehold contract between the parties in accordance with R.A. 3844 as
amended.
No pronouncement as to cost."

The instant appeal stemmed from an action for Declaration of Tenancy filed
by Petitioner-Appellee Pepita D. Calo, (Petitioner for brevity) against
Respondent-Appellant Emiliana de la Calzada, (Respondent for brevity).

Petitioner alleges, inter alia, that Respondent is the owner of a coconut land
consisting of three hectares, more or less, situated at Sumilihon, Butuan
City; that said landholding is tenanted by different persons, one of whom is
Gerbacio Calo, the father of Nobremio Calo, to whom herein Petitioner
married sometime in 1970; that thereafter, Gerbacio Calo accommodated
them to assume his area of work therein consisting of 1.5 hectares, more or
less; that since then, Petitioner performed the task of a bonafide tenant,
giving two-third’s (2/3) share, minus expenses, to the landowner in an
alternate basis, e.g. one harvest time is to be performed by Petitioner, next
harvest to be done by Respondent and such arrangement went on until the
early 1990’s without objection on the part of the Respondent; that as
humanitarian consideration, Respondent-landowner during the early 90’s
even shouldered the production expenses by ½; that sometime in 1997, the
late Greg de la Calzada, one of Respondent’s sons, suddenly and without
sufficient factual basis, accused Petitioner of irregularities in her activities in
the area, including the propriety of sharing, thus depriving her of the main
source of her livelihood without due process ; that this conflict was earlier
referred to the BARC Chairman of Sumilihon, Butuan City for possible
conciliation, but the same proved futile; and that as a tenant, Petitioner never
abandoned nor was remissed in her duty and obligation as such. Petitioner
therefore, prays that she be declared a tenant thereof and be entitled to all the
rights and obligations appurtenant thereto.

Respondent moved to dismiss the case or in the alternative, to require the

Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) to conduct a hearing.
Respondent presented, among others, the alleged investigation report
conducted by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Butuan
City on November 12, 1997.

On January 4, 1999, an Order was issued by the Honorable Adjudicator a

quo denying the aforesaid motion for lack of merit as the investigation
conducted by the MARO is merely recommendatory and cannot bind the
Adjudicator a quo.

In view thereof, Respondent filed her answer where she denied the material
allegations of Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner and Nobremio were
accommodated by Gervacio to work on the 1.5 hectare landholding not as
tenants, but as farm workers and the MARO Investigation Report dated
November 12, 1997 shows that the Petitioner is not a tenant of the
landholding; that without her knowledge and consent, and without giving
any share, the petitioner harvested coconut on December 11, 1997 and
March 11, 1998 and further posits the view, by way of special and/or
affirmative defenses, that the fact that tenant Gervacio Calo purportedly
ceded and surrendered the subject landholding to his children per
"Kamatuoran" is a matter not alleged in the petition, and therefore,
impertinent and immaterial; no law, much less, the Agricultural Land
Reform Code (RA 3844) nor the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA
6657), allows a tenant, while alive, to cede or transfer his right as such to his
children or any other person; that Petitioner is not the transferee nor
beneficiary of the illegal cession, transfer or surrender, for being not the son,
Nombremio Calo, thus, cession is still unavailing to her; that Gervacio Calo,
the tenant, already surrendered the landholding to Respondent per Affidavit
of Waiver; and that after realizing Petitioner’s tenancy claim, the Respondent
wanted Gervacio to choose one of his children to farm, but he did not do so,
because of the threat of NPA intervention in favor of Petitioner. Respondent
prays for the dismissal of the instant case.

On August 30, 1999, the aforequoted judgment was rendered by the

Honorable Regional Adjudicator.

Hence, this appeal.

The issues to be resolved in the present controversy boil down to:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS A TENANT ON THE

SUBJECT LANDHOLDING;

2. WHETHER OR NOT GERVACIO CALO VALIDLY WAIVED HIS

RIGHT AS TENANT IN FAVOR OF HIS CHILDREN WHILE HE WAS
STILL ALIVE; AND
3. ASSUMING THAT THE WAIVER DATED JUNE 12, 1990,
REITERATED ON JUNE 18, 1998 BY GERVACIO CALO IS VALID,
WHETHER OR NOT SAID WAIVER COULD BENEFIT GERVACIO'S
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, HEREIN PETITIONER.

As resolved by the Honorable Board a quo, the aforesaid issues shall

likewise be discussed jointly, the same being intertwined with each other.
Anent the issue of tenancy relationship, a perusal of the records shows that
herein Petitioner has assumed the task of Gervacio Calo, her father-in-law,
as a tenant of the subject landholding since June of 1990 when the latter
waived his right as such in favor of the former. Nowhere in the records can
be found that the landowner, herein Respondent, questioned such waiver nor
did she object to such an agreement. Verily, Respondent accepted the status
of Petitioner as a tenant thereto by implication as evidenced by photocopies
of the cash vouchers and temporary receipts issued by the copra buyers
showing consistently the name of Petitioner and at times that of Respondent.
The name of Gervacio Calo was never written therein. These facts evince
that indeed, tenancy relationship was impliedly established and once
established, the tenant thereof shall, under the law, be entitled to security of
tenure as specifically provided under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1199, as
amended, as follows:

"Tenancy Relationship; How Established; Security of Tenure. — Tenancy

relationship may be established either verbally or in writing, expressly or
impliedly. Once such relationship is established, the tenant shall be entitled
to security of tenure as hereinafter provided."

Respondent, moreover, argues that Petitioner was just a farmworker, since

she merely assisted her father-in-law, the late Gervacio Calo, in the farm.
Such argument is untenable.

As defined under Section 5 (0) of Republic Act 1199, as amended,

"Immediate farm household includes the members of the family of the
tenant, and such other person or persons, whether related to the tenant or not
who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him operate
the farm enterprise."
Such is not the situation of Pepita Calo in the case at bar, for as aptly found
by the Honorable Adjudicator a quo, there is no showing whatsoever that
Petitioner is dependent on Gervacio for support.

Finally, anent the issue of waiver, we likewise adhere to the findings of the
Adjudicator a quo that while the late Gervacio Calo has no legal basis to
waive his right as tenant in favor of Petitioner herein, the fact remains that
when the waiver was made in 1990, Petitioner substituted for the late
Gervacio Calo and since then, she performed all the acts of a tenant for
almost ten (10) years. As proofs thereof, are the pieces of evidence, thus
submitted and not rebutted by Respondent (Annex "A" to "J", Petitioner’s
Position Paper, pp. 66-68, Rollo) where the sharing of the parties and the
cash advances incurred by Petitioner to finance the harvesting were all
written in the name of Petitioner and not that of Gervacio Calo.

Moreover, Respondent’s declaration in her sworn statement, as well as that

of her son, Carlos (Annexes "5" and "6" respectively of Respondent’s
Position Paper, pages 51 to 60, Rollo) all the more bolstered the Board’s
finding that for the past years, it was Petitioner who did the farmwork and no
longer the late Gervacio Calo.

It would have been different if the original tenant and the landowner,
Respondent herein, clearly manifested their objection to the cultivation of
subject landholding by Petitioner. There was none.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, there being no cogent reason to

modify, reverse and/or set aside the appealed decision dated August 30,
1999, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
De los Reyes, Garcia, Quijano and Jusi, concur.
Braganza, Chairman and Moncupa, did not participate.

C o p y ri g h t De p a rt m e n t o f Ag r a r ia n Re f o rm 2 0 0 3