WELFREDO CENEZE vs. FELICIANA RAMOS G.R. No. 172287 January 15, 2010 Nachura, J.:

Facts: Petitioner Welfredo Ceneze filed an action for declaration as bona fide tenant-lessee of two parcels of agricultural land owned by respondent Feliciana Ramos located in Lelemaan, Manaoag, Pangasinan. Petitioner alleged that in 1981, Julian Ceneze Sr., petitioner’s father, transferred his tenurial rights over the landholding to him with the consent and approval of respondent and that, since then, petitioner had been in actual and peaceful possession of the landholding until April 12, 1991, when respondent forcibly entered and cultivated the land for the purpose of dispossessing the petitioner of his right as tenant.

Respondent denied that a tenancy relationship existed between her and petitioner, asserting that she had never instituted petitioner as a tenant in any of her landholdings. She averred that petitioner had never been in possession of the landholding, but admitted that it was Julian, Sr. who was the tenant of the landholding. After Julian Sr., his wife and his son Julian Jr. migrated to the U.S.A. she reported on April 8, 1991, to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Manaoag, Pangasinan, the abandonment of the landholding by Julian, Sr., his wife and his son, Julian, Jr.

On December 19, 1997, the Provincial Adjudicator rendered a decision in favor of petitioner for it find the petitioner a bona fide tenant-lessee of the landholding. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the decision.

Respondent elevated the case to the CA through a petition for review. On December 29, 2005, the CA resolved the petition in favor of respondent landowner and dismissed petitioner’s complaint. Likewise, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition for review was filed.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner had tenancy relationship with respondent.

Held: The petition is not meritorious.

In resolving this petition, the Court is guided by 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.

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 petitioner failed to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between him and respondent. To prove a tenancy relationship, the requisite quantum of evidence is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a From our own assessment of the evidence at hand, we find that petitioner failed to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between him and respondent. To prove a 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 and the affidavits of Julian, Sr. and of the tenants of the adjacent landholdings certainly do not suffice. By themselves, they do not show that the elements of consent of the landowner and of sharing of harvests are present.

In any case, the fact alone of working on a landholding does not give rise to a presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. Substantial evidence requires more than a mere scintilla of evidence in order that the fact of sharing can be established; there must be concrete evidence on record adequate enough to prove the element of sharing. To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must be presented, because self-serving statements are inadequate. 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.

To recap, petitioner is not a de jure tenant entitled to security of tenure. There being no tenancy relationship between the parties, the DARAB did not have jurisdiction over the case. We, therefore, sustain the ruling of the CA, dismissing petitioner’s complaint.