VERDE vs.

MACAPAGAL
G.R. No. 151342; June 23, 2005
NATURE OF THE CASE: Petitioner brought this case before the Court via petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure whereas the
proper remedy for him was to file an appeal from the adverse decision of the Court
of Appeals under Rule 45 since the issue raised deals purely with a question of law.
Nevertheless, as the subject petition was filed within the prescribed fifteen-day
period, and in view of the substantial issue raised therein, the Court gave due
course to the same and treated it as a petition for review on certiorari.
FACTS:
1. Macapagal and Estrella were the owners of 2.5 hectares of agricultural land,
subject of this dispute, situated in Bulacan. After their demise, said piece of land
passed on to their children (respondents herein) who are now the pro-indiviso
owners of the same. On the other hand, petitioner is the leasehold tenant of the
subject land having succeeded his father, Francisco Verde, in the tenancy thereof.
2. Respondents initiated an action for ejectment against petitioner before the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in Bulacan. Respondents alleged in
their complaint that sometime in 1993, without their knowledge and consent,
petitioner mortgaged the subject land to dela Cruz upon the condition that the latter
would be the one to work on 1/2 of said property. When confronted regarding this
matter, petitioner not only admitted that he had, indeed, mortgaged the subject
land to dela Cruz but also asked for forgiveness from respondents and assured the
latter that he would pay them the agreed amount of rental. In addition, petitioner
purportedly guaranteed that he would redeem the mortgage immediately after the
1993 planting season and would never mortgage the property again. Apparently,
petitioner failed to fulfill his promise to respondents as dela Cruz still farmed the
subject land in 1994. Respondents went on to argue that petitioners mortgaging the
property to dela Cruz constituted abandonment which is a ground for termination of
agricultural leasehold relation under Section 8, Republic Act No. 3844, as amended.
3. Respondent then brought the matter before the BARC of Bulacan for conciliation.
However, proceedings before the BARC were ineffective as the parties failed to
reach an amicable settlement. Attached to the complaint was the joint sworn
statement executed by Sanciangco and Cruz who declared that in 1993, de la Cruz
was the one who attended to of the subject land by virtue of the contract of
mortgage between him and petitioner and that de la Cruz was still the one who
cultivated the subject land in 1994.
4. Petitioner filed his Anwer denying the material allegations of the complaint and
claimed that he only hired the services of de la Cruz and the latters carabao
because from 1993-1994, he did not have the means to own a beast of burden. He

also stated that from 1975 up to the filing of this action, he continues to occupy,
possess and cultivate the subject land as a bona fide tenant. However, Dela Cruz
maintained that in 1993 to 1994, he was hired to work on the land tenanted by
petitioner because during those years, the latter did not have a carabao. For their
part, Sayco and Cruz alleged that ever since the tenancy over the subject land was
transferred to petitioner by the death of his father, he had continuously farmed and
possessed said property.

DARAB Ruling: After filing a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the
Provincial Adjudicator, respondents then filed an appeal before the DARAB, which
affirmed the earlier ruling of the Provincial Adjudicator that petitioner did not give
up actually and absolutely his tenancy right over the subject land as the complaint
itself stated that petitioner was supposed to cultivate the property during the 19931994 agricultural seasons and that the alleged mortgage must not be mistaken
from personal loan, the latter referring to borrowed money where defendant then
was in dire need of financial help.
CA Ruling: Respondents filed an Appeal with the Court of Appeals. In the decision
assailed, the appellate court reversed and set aside the decision of the DARAB.
According to CA, Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 1199 prohibits a share-tenant from
employing a subtenant to work or furnish labor on the land subject of a tenancy
agreement. Moreover, jurisprudence dictates that there should be personal
cultivation by the tenant or by his immediate farm household or members of the
family of the lessee or other persons who are dependent upon him for support or
who usually help him in his activities. In the present case, as dela Cruz is clearly
not a member of petitioners immediate farm household nor did he depend upon
petitioner for support or helps the latter in operating the farm enterprise, the
requirement of personal cultivation is obviously lacking.
Hence, the recourse was raised by the petitioner.
ISSUE:
WON because of the hiring by the petitioner of Dela Cruzs services and that of his
carabao, the agricultural lease relationship between the parties in this case ceased
to exist.
Case for Petitioner: Petitioner argues that (a)being a bona fide tenant of the
subject land, he is entitled to security of tenure such that he cannot be
dispossessed of the land he had been tilling for around twenty years on the basis of
mere conjecture and hypothesis; (2) that the CA erred in reliance on the joint sworn
statement of Sayco and Cruz; (3) that dela Cruzs own affidavit sufficiently refuted
the allegations of the said joint sworn statement; (4) that as dela Cruz was
supposedly a party to the alleged contract of mortgage, the appellate court should

have given credit to his affidavit instead of depending on the statements of

Sanciangco and Cruz; (5) that an agreement involving mortgage of real rights of a
leasehold tenant must be reduced into writing pursuant to the statute of frauds,
otherwise, said agreement cannot bind third parties; (6) that respondents were not
able to substantiate their claim that he had abandoned the subject land more so
since he continues to till the same; and (7) that under RA No. 3844, the agricultural
lessee is required to notify the agricultural lessor of his intention to abandon the
leaseholding; wherein this case, he claims that said notification is lacking.

Case for Private Respondent: Respondents contend that Petitioners intent to

abandon the subject property was manifested when he mortgaged the landholding
to dela Cruz and allowed the latter to till said property from 1993 up to 1994 in
contravention of Rep. Act No. 1199 which limits personal cultivation of a tenanted
land to the tenant himself and to his immediate household. Also, respondents argue
that Rep. Act No. 3844, as amended, requires the agricultural lessee to provide the
agricultural lessor with a notice only in case of voluntary abandonment. However,
as this case involves involuntary abandonment, the prescribed notice under the law
does not apply.
SC RULING with RATIO: NO. Under Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 1199, a tenant is
required to perform the following tasks: (1)The preparation of the seedbed which
shall include plowing, harrowing, and watering of the seedbed, the scattering of
seeds, and the care of the seedlings; (2) The plowing, harrowing, and watering of
the area he is cultivating, except final harrowing of the field as an item of
contribution specified in Section thirty-two of this Act; (3) The maintenance, repair
and weeding of dikes, paddies, and irrigation canals in his holdings; (4) The pulling
and bundling of the seedlings preparatory to their transplanting; (5) Care of the
growing plants; (6) Gathering and bundling of the reaped harvest; (7) The piling of
the bundles into small stacks; (8)The preparation of the place where the harvest is
to be stacked; (9) Gathering of the small stacks and their transportation to the place
where they are to be stacked; and (10)Piling into a big stack preparatory to
threshing. As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the use of a carabao, for which
petitioner hired the services of dela Cruz, is only one phase of farm labor
which is supposed to be rendered by a tenant. Cultivation does not refer
solely to the plowing and harrowing of the land. The fact that a tenant or an
agricultural lessee for that matter employs farm laborers to perform some aspects
of farm work does not preclude the existence of an agricultural leasehold
relationship provided an agricultural lessee does not leave the entire process of
cultivation in the hands of hired helpers. Section 27(2) of Rep. Act No. 3844 permits
the agricultural lessee, in case of illness or temporary incapacity, to avail himself of
the services of laborers, incapacity being any cause or circumstance which prevents
the lessee from fulfilling his contractual and other obligations under the Code.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 18

December 2001 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Decision of the DARAB
dated 30 October 2000 is REINSTATED. No costs.