LUCIA RODRIGUEZ AND PRUDENCIA RODRIGUEZ, 

, vs. TERESITA SALVADOR

[G.R. No. 171972. June 8, 2011.] DEL CASTILLO, J  : p

DOCTRINE: Agricultural tenancy is not presumed but must be proven by the person alleging it. Agricultural tenancy
relationships was absent because consent and sharing of harvest between parties was not sufficiently established,
thus MTC has jurisdiction and not DARAB in this case.

FACTS: May 22, 2003, Respondent Teresita Salvador filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, against petitioners
(mother – Lucia/ daughter – Prudencia) before (MTC) of Dalaguete, Cebu. 
Respondent alleged the ff:
1) Salvador as absolute owner of land  by virtue of Free Patent under Heirs of Cristino Salvador represented by
Teresita Salvador;
2) Rodriguez acquired possession of the land by mere tolerance of her predecessors-in-interest;  and after several
demands, petitioners refused to vacate the subject land. 
Petitioners interposed the defense of agricultural tenancy.

Lucia claimed that she and her deceased husband, Serapio, entered the subject land with consent and permission of
respondent's predecessors-in-interest, siblings Cristino and Sana Salvador
Agreement: Lucia and Serapio would devote the property to agricultural production and share the produce
with the Salvador siblings. 
Having tenancy relationship, petitioners argued Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) has jurisdiction over the case and not the MTC. 
MTC: dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because agricultural tenancy relationship exist between the
parties.
Respondent appeal to RTC> affirmed MTC’s decision> MR denied: remanding the case to the MTC for preliminary
hearing to determine whether tenancy relationship exists between the parties.
CA: favor of respondent: No tenancy relationship exists, Petitioners failed to prove that respondent or her
predecessors-in-interest consented to the tenancy relationship. Petitioner are occupying by mere tolerance, bounded
by implied promise to vacate the same upon demand by the respondent.  Failing to do so, petitioners are liable to pay
damages

ISSUE
1) W/N agricultural tenancy exists here.
2) W/N mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso facto  make the tiller an agricultural tenant.
3) W/N MTC has jurisdiction & CA has erred
4) W/N CA erred here.
3) W/N respondent is entitled to damages.

HELD
1) Agricultural tenancy relationship does not exists here.
Agricultural tenancy exists when all the following requisites are present:
1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
6) the harvest is shared between landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee.

Petitioners failed to prove consent and sharing of harvest between the parties. Thus, Agricultural tenancy must fail.
Petitioners’ affidavits are not sufficient to prove the existence of an agricultural tenancy.
Petitioners submitted evidences (Lucia & neighbor’s affidavits) to prove that an agricultural tenancy relationship
exists between the parties.
In the affidavit, petitioner Lucia declared that she and her late husband occupied the subject land with the
consent and permission of the original owners and that their agreement was that she and her late husband
would cultivate the subject land, devote it to agricultural production, share the harvest with the
landowners on a 50-50 basis, and at the same time watch over the land.
Under (witness) Alejandro Arias’s affidavit, petitioner have been cultivating the land since 1960;
that after the Serapio’s death, petitioner Lucia and her children continued to cultivate the subject
land; and that when respondent's predecessors-in-interest were still alive, he would often
see them and respondent get some of the harvest.
Under (witnesss) Conseso Muñoz’s affidavit, Lucia has been in peaceful possession and
cultivation of the subject since 1960 and the harvest was divided into 2 parts, 1/2 for the
landowner and 1/2 for petitioner Lucia.

CA is correct, the element of consent is lacking.

Except for the self-serving affidavit of Lucia, no other evidence was submitted to show that respondent's
predecessors-in-interest consented to a tenancy relationship with petitioners. Self-serving statements will not suffice
to prove consent of the landowner; independent evidence is necessary.

Petitioners failed to prove sharing of harvest. Petitioners should have presented receipts or any other evidence to
show that there was sharing of harvest and an agreed system of sharing between them and the landowners.

2) Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land will not  ipso facto  make the tiller an agricultural tenant.
It is incumbent upon a person who claims to be an agricultural tenant to prove by substantial evidence all the
requisites of agricultural tenancy.

3) The MTC has jurisdiction here & CA was correct in reversing and setting aside the dismissal of respondent's
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Because tenancy relationship does not exist here, Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board has no jurisdiction here.

4) Respondent is entitled to the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the
subject land.
Damages recovered are those which the respondent could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those
caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which she may have
suffered but which have no direct relation to her loss of material possession."