HEIRS OF ROMEO L.

FLORES,
Petitioners-Appellees,

-versus- DARAB CASE NO. 21327

(DARAB CASE NO. R-03-02-0037’2022)

TEOFILA R. JAJALLA,
Respondent-Appellant.
x-------------------------------------x

DECISION
Before the Board is an Appeal1 filed by respondent Teofila R.
Jajalla through counsel assailing the Decision dated 28 November
2022 rendered by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD) for Bulacan, Atty. Luis G. De Los Santos, Jr., the dispositive
portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered as follows:

1. DECLARING the existence of tenancy relationship

between the parties over the subject landholding;

2. ORDERING the respondent to recognize the

petitioners as tenants and respect their security of
tenure over the subject landholding;

3. DIRECTING the Municipal Agrarian Reform

Program Officer (MARPO) of Cluster 3 to assist the
parties in the execution of new Leasehold
Agreement between them; and

4. ORDERING the respondent not to perform any act

that tends to disturb the peaceful possession of the
petitioners over the subject land.

SO ORDERED.”

The facts of the case are as follows:

Involved in this case are two parcels of agricultural landholding

in Barangay Niugan, Angat, Bulacan consisting of an aggregate area
of 39,675 square meters. The first land has an area of 19, 675 square
meters covered by Tax Declaration No./ARP No. 2018-01008-0137 in
1
Dated 17 January 2023, Rollo.
DECISION DCN 21327
Page 2 of 9

the name of Teofilo Rivera and Gloria Octavio Rivera while the other
parcel of land has an area of 20,000 square meters covered by a Tax
Declaration No. 2018-01008-01512 also in the name of Teofilo Rivera
and Gloria Octavio Rivera.

On December 27, 2021, the petitioners Heirs of Romeo L.

Flores namely: Magdalena A. Flores, Nephtali A. Flores and Blessing
Flores-Cabrera, filed a Petition for Maintenance of Peaceful
Possession with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining
Order or Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against respondent Teofila
R. Jajalla involving the above-mentioned landholdings.

Petitioners alleged that for the 20,000 square meters,

petitioners have been in possession and in cultivation of the same
since 1978 and for the 19,675 square meters, they have been in
possession and in cultivation of the same since 1986.

Petitioners allege that Romeo L. Flores (Romeo) was a lawful

tenant and a qualified farmer beneficiary pursuant to applicable
agrarian reform laws of the subject landholdings owned by Teofilo
Rivera.

Teofilo passed away sometime in 2009 leaving as among his

heirs, Mrs. Gloria Octavio Rivera and their daughter Teofila Rivera
Jajalla, the respondent herein.

On August 23, 2018, respondent Teofila unilaterally and

coercively pressured and inveigled Romeo into signing a “Kasulatan
sa Paggawa ng isang Lagay na Lupa” Petitioners argue that the said
Kasulatan contains a provision regarding a 50-50 share which is
contrary to agrarian laws.

When Romeo died on April 1, 2020, petitioner Magdalena as

the surviving spouse together with their children Nepthali and
Blessing assumed the cultivation of the subject landholdings.

Petitioners further alleged that respondent threatens them that

the latter will employ all means, including force and violence just to be
able to take control over the agricultural landholdings and in fact, she
already attempted to fence the said properties.

The respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that

there was no Certification from Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
(BARC) but it was denied and the case was referred to the BARC
through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer.

In an Answer dated 28 July 2022, respondent through counsel

argues that as per Certification issued by the DAR MARO Cluster 3, it
DECISION DCN 21327
Page 3 of 9

stated therein that Teofilo Rivera has no registered landholding in

Barangay Niugan, Angat, Bulacan based from the master list of
farmer beneficiaries as of 31 December 1981. Accordingly, Romeo
was not a tenant of the late Teofilo Rivera. As such, the petitioners as
heirs cannot acquire better rights than that of their predecessor-in-
interest.

Respondent also argued that petitioners failed to established

the elements of tenancy which are essential in creating tenancy
relations, thus the former are not entitled to security of tenure.

On November 28, 2022, the Adjudicator a quo rendered the

assailed Decision finding the existence of tenancy relationship
between the parties.

Aggrieved, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with attached

Appeal Memorandum, hence, this appeal.

Respondent raised the following issues in the Appeal

Memorandum:

1. The adjudicator erred in granting the reliefs not prayed for in

the petition. Petitioners prayed that their possession over the
land should not be disturbed. Accordingly, it must first be
determined who among the heirs was the actual tiller of the
land whose possession should not be disturbed. In this case,
there was no allegation who among the petitioner is the
actual tiller;

2. The adjudicator erred in finding tenancy in favor of the

petitioners based on the “Kasunduan” entered into by
Romeo Flores and herein respondent Teofila Jajalla; and

3. The adjudicator failed to consider that Romeo L. Flores, the

predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has already died
and it follows thereon that the contract he executed has
already terminated alongside with the leasehold agreement.

The issues to be resolved are:

1. WHETHER THERE IS A TENANCY RELATION CREATED

BETWEEN ROMEO L. FLORES AND TEOFILA JAJALLA;
AND

2. IF THERE WAS, WHETHER SUCH TENANCY RELATION

WAS TERMINATED UPON ROMEO L. FLORES’ DEATH,
SUCH THAT, HIS HEIRS HAS NO RIGHT TO REMAIN IN
POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING.
DECISION DCN 21327
Page 4 of 9

For the first issue, the Board rules in the AFFIRMATIVE.

This Board finds petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, Romeo L.

Flores a bona-fide tenant of the two parcels of agricultural
landholdings in suit.

Jurisprudence is instructive that for tenancy to exist, the

following requisites must concur:

1. The parties are the landowner and tenant;

2. The subject matter is 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.2

The presence of all these elements must be proved by

substantial evidence and the burden of proof lies upon the one
claiming to be an agricultural tenant.

In this case, the first element is present. On one hand,

respondent Teofila Rivera Jajalla is the landowner as she inherited
the subject agricultural lands from his parents Teofilo Rivera and
Gloria O. Rivera. On the other hand, the petitioners are the heirs of
the alleged tenant Romeo L. Flores.

The 19,675 square meters landholding covered by Tax

Declaration No./ARP No. 2018-01008-0137 in the name of Teofilo
Rivera and Gloria Octavio Rivera; and the 20,000 square meters
landholding covered by a Tax Declaration No. 2018-01008-01512
also in the name of Teofilo Rivera and Gloria Octavio Rivera are both
agricultural lands situated in Barangay Niugan, Angat, Bulacan.
Therefore, the second element is satisfied.

In the “Kasulatan sa Paggawa ng Isang Lagay na Lupa” dated

August 23, 2018 executed by Teofila Jajalla and Romeo Flores, it
stated therein that they agreed for the cultivation on the 19,675
square meters landholding and a sharing arrangement of 50-50 both
on expenses and on the produce. There is consent between the
parties to the relationship and the purpose of their agreement is to
bring about agricultural production. “The principal factor in
determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent. Tenancy
2
Caluzor vs.Llanillo and the Heirs of the late Lorenzo Llanillo, and Mold Ex Realty Corporation, G.R. No.
155580, July 1, 2015
DECISION DCN 21327
Page 5 of 9

is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged

tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.” 3 The fact of
executing the said agreement shows that the parties have consented
to the relationship irrespective of some provisions therein which are
not in accordance with agrarian laws i.e the sharing system.
Nevertheless, the intent to enter into agricultural production was
present. Elements number three and four therefore are present.
Romeo L. Flores has been in possession and cultivation not
only of the 19,675 square meters land subject of the ‘Kasulatan’ but
also of the 20,000 square meters landholding. This was not
sufficiently disputed by the respondent other than arguing that Romeo
L. Flores was not a tenant of respondent’s father, Teofilo Rivera as
the latter has no registered owned landholding in Barangay Niugan,
Angat, Bulacan as per certification of the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer. The Sinumpaang Salaysay of Isidro C. Rivera, Loida Santos,
Siling Ignacio and Primo Melendrez sufficiently established the
presence of the element of personal cultivation. The affiants therein
attested that Romeo L. Flores has been personally cultivating the
landholdings with an aggregate area of 39,675 square meters subject
of this suit.

Lastly, on the element of harvest sharing, it is worthy to

scrutinize the evidence adduced. The petitioners posited that the
Kasulatan sa Paggawa ng Isang Lagay na Lupa” dated August 23,
2018 was a ploy to dispossess Romeo Flores who has been there as
tenant since he was instituted by the previous landowner Teofilo
Rivera. The Board sees that the said agreement was executed by the
landowner to state that the possession of Romeo Flores of the lands
is by mere tolerance.

The Kasulatan is materially reproduced as follows:

Kasulatan sa Paggawa ng Isang Lagay na Lupa

DAPAT MALAMAN NG LAHAT:

Ang Kasulatang ito ay ginawa sa pagitan nina:

TEOFILA R. JAJALLA, may sapat na gulang, Filipino at

naninirahan sa Niugan, Angat, Bulacan at dito ay tinatawag na
UNANG PANIG;

- at -

ROMEO FLORES, may sapat na gulang, Filipino at

naninirahan sa Angat, Bulacan at dito ay tinatawag na IKALAWANG
PANIG;
Saksihan; na;

3
Irene D. Ofilada vs. Spouses Ruben Andal And Miraflor Andal, G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015
DECISION DCN 21327
Page 6 of 9

Ang UNANG PANIG ang may-ari ng isang lagay na lupang

sakahan na nasasakop ng Tax Declaration/ ARP No. 2018-01008-
01375 na may kabuuang sukat na 19,675 metro kuwadrado na
matatagpuan sa Niugan, Angat, Bulacan;

Na ang IKALAWANG PANIG ay isang magsasaka na nais

sakahin ang nasabing lupa bilang upahang magsasaka;

Na ang UNANG PANIG ay pumayag na sakahin ng

IKALAWANG PANIG ang nasabing lupa sa ilalim ng mga sumusunod
na kondisyon:

1. Ang UNANG PANIG at IKALAWANG PANIG ay

nagkakasundong sasakahin ng IKALAWANG PANIG ang
nasabing lagay na parsela ng lupa;
2. Ang UNANG PANIG at IKALAWANG PANIG ay maghahati
(50/50) sa lahat ng gastusin sa pagsasaka;
3. Ang magkabilang PANIG ay maghahati (50/50) kung ano man
ang kinita/inani/itinanim sa nasabing isang lagay na parsela ng
lupa;
4. Kung ano man ang nakatanim at sino man ang kausap ng
IKALAWANG PANIG sa nasabing pagtatanim/pagsasaka ay
tatapusin na lamang hanggang maani ito; ang kasulatang ito ay
magkakabisa mla sa pagkakalagda nito;
5. Ang kasulatang ito ay may bisa sa loob ng dalawang taon;
6. Ang UNANG PANIG ay may karapatang ipatigil ang paggawa
sa nasabing lupa anumang panahon na naisin nito at ang
IKALAWANG PANIG ay susunod sa kagustuhan ng UNANG
PANIG at ang IKALAWANG PANIG ay titigil sa pagga sa
nasabing lupa;

The above agreement was an express consent of tenancy over

the indicated parcel of landholding. Section 5 and section 6 of
Republic Act No. 3844 states that the agricultural leasehold relation
shall be established by operation of law and, in other cases, either
orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly. The agricultural leasehold
relation shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding,
either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and
the person who personally cultivates the same.

In the said agreement, there was also a provision on how the

produce is shared by the landowner and the agricultural lessee.
However, such provision as to the 50-50 sharing system as well as
the extinguishment of the tenurial relation at the will of the landowner
are not in accordance with agricultural laws and jurisprudence.

The Agricultural Reform Code (R.A. No. 3844) provides that the
lease rental on ricelands and lands devoted to other crops shall not
be more than the equivalent of twenty-five (25) percent of the
average normal harvest during the three agricultural years
immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established after
DECISION DCN 21327
Page 7 of 9

deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting,
threshing, loading, hauling and processing, whichever are
applicable.4

The 50-50 sharing arrangement which is in the form of share

tenancy has been abolished by R.A. No. 3844 (amended by RA 6389),
thus, the agreement of the herein parties is null and void for being
contrary to the code. However, the law allows the tenant to continue
his possession of the land for cultivation, and states that there shall
be presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under the provisions of
this Code, without prejudice to the right of the landowner and the
former tenant to enter into any other lawful contract in relation to the
land formerly under tenancy contract. Section 4 of the Code states:

SEC. 4. Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy.—Agricultural share

tenancy, as herein defined, is hereby declared to be contrary to
public policy and shall be abolished: Provided,That existing share
tenancy contracts may continue in force and effect in any region or
locality, to be governed in the by meantime the pertinent provisions
of Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as
amended, until the end of the agricultural year when the National
Land Reform Council proclaims that all the government machineries
and agencies in that region or locality relating to leasehold
envisioned in this Code are operating, unless such contracts
provide for a shorter period or the tenant sooner exercises his
option to elect the leasehold system: Provided, further, That in order
not to jeopardize international commitments, lands devoted to crops
covered by marketing allotments shall be made the subject of a
separate proclamation that adequate provisions, such as the
organization of cooperatives, marketing agreements, or other
similar workable arrangements, have been made to insure efficient
management on all matters requiring synchronization of the
agricultural with the processing phases of such crops: Provided,
furthermore, That where the agricultural share tenancy contract has
ceased to be operative by virtue of this Code, or where such a
tenancy contract has been entered into in violation of the
provisions of this Code and is, therefore, null and void, and the
tenant continues in possession of the land for cultivation,
there shall be presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under
the provisions of this Code, without prejudice to the right of
the landowner and the former tenant to enter into any other
lawful contract in relation to the land formerly under tenancy
contract, as long as in the interim the security of tenure of the
former tenant under Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred
and ninety-nine, as amended, and as provided in this Code, is
not impaired: Provided, finally, That if a lawful leasehold tenancy
contract was entered into prior to the effectivity of this Code, the
rights and obligations arising therefrom shall continue to subsist
until modified by the parties in accordance with the provisions of
this Code. (amended by RA 6389)

Moreover, the tenancy relation cannot be terminated by mere

demand or at the will of the landowner. Notwithstanding any
4
Section 34, R.A. No. 3844
DECISION DCN 21327
Page 8 of 9

agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an

agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of
his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized
by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory grounded on
the violations listed on Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844.

The provisions in the “Kasulatan” which are contrary to agrarian

laws does not negate the existence of tenancy between the parties.

Going back to the element of harvest sharing, it has been held

that it is not enough that there is an established sharing system
between the parties, there must be an actual remittance of
landowner’s share or the payment of the so-called lease rentals by
the tenant to the landowner. The facts of this case reveal that the
landowner since she executed the above-quoted agreement in 2018,
she refused to receive the lease rentals prompting Romeo and his
heirs – herein petitioners to deposit in the bank the lease rentals.

To the mind of this Board, the unjustified refusal of the

landowner of the agreed rentals does not equate to non-payment of
lease rentals attributable to the petitioners. Thus, element number six
is attendant to this case.

This Board concurs with the Adjudicator’s finding that Romeo L.

Flores is a de jure tenant of Teofila Jajalla. The next issue to be
resolved would be whether the tenancy status of Romeo L. Flores
was terminated upon his death in April 2020.

The board rules that tenancy survives the death of the tenant
Romeo L. Flores.

Section 9 of the Code5 states that Agricultural Leasehold

relation is not extinguished by death of the tenant. The landowner is
given the right to choose within one month from the tenant’s death
who among the heirs will continue to cultivate the landholding and in
the event that the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice, the
priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established, to
wit:

SEC. 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by

Death or Incapacity of the Parties.—In case of death or permanent
incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the
leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the
person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by
the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or
permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving
spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or
(c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in order of
their age: Provided, That in case the death or permanent

5
R.A. No. 3844
DECISION DCN 21327
Page 9 of 9

incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural

year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural
year: Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor
fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the
priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established.

In the present case, the surviving spouse – petitioner

Magdalena A. Flores succeeded the tenancy status of Romeo L.
Flores by operation of law as there was no proof showing that
landowner Teofila Jajalla had exercise her right of choice within the
prescribed period. Petitioners Nephtali A. Flores and Blessing Flores-
Cabrera, the children of Romeo and Magdalena, are not tenants but
mere farm households who can aid their mother in the cultivation of
the subject landholdings during the duration of the tenancy.

With the foregoing discussions, this Board finds the questioned

Decision to be in order. However, for the guidance of the parties and
all persons concerned, we deemed it proper to modify the said
decision identifying and declaring who among the petitioners is the
tenant over the landholdings in dispute.

WHEREFORE, premises considered the Decision dated 28

November 2022 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows:

1. DECLARING the existence of tenancy relationship

between the late Romeo L. Flores and Teofila
Jajalla over the subject landholding;

2. DECLARING Magdalena Flores as tenant over

the subject landholdings who lawfully
succeeded Romeo Flores in accordance with
Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844;

3. ORDERING the respondent to recognize petitioner

Magdalena Flores as tenant and respect her
security of tenure over the subject landholding;

4. DIRECTING the Municipal Agrarian Reform

Program Officer (MARPO) of Cluster 3 to assist
respondent Teofila Jajalla and petitioner
Magdalena Flores in the execution of new
Leasehold Agreement between them; and

5. ORDERING the respondent not to perform any act

that tends to disturb the peaceful possession of the
petitioners over the subject land.

SO ORDERED.