RODRIGUEZ V SALVADOR, 651 SCRA 429

Christopher Ronn Q. Pagco

 Contents
• Facts of the Case
• Issue(s)
• Petitioner’s and Respondent’s Arguments
• Lower Court’s Ruling
• SC Ruling
COMPLAINT (Plaintiff)
• In 2003, respondent Salvador filed a
complaint for Unlawful Detainer
against petitioners Rodriguez before
MTC Dalaguete Cebu
• Cause of Action:
– Respondent is the absolute owner
of a parcel of land
– Petitioner acquired possession of it
ANSWER (Defendant)
• DEFENSE OF AGRICULTURAL
TENANCY
– Petitioners entered but with consent
– Agreement was to devote property to
agricultural production and production
sharing
– Tenancy relationship exists
• LACK OF JURISDICTION BY MTC
– Since TR exists, DARAB has jurisdiction,
not MTC
MTC RULING
• Complaint Dismissed on Lack of Jurisdiction
– TR exists thru consent by P-I-I and binds the
respodents
– Tenurial arrangement is inferred from
respondents by receiving share of the
harvests
– Dispossession of agricultural tenants can only
be ordered by Court for causes expressly
provided under Sec. 36 of R.A. 3844
– MTC has no jurisdiction over UD cases
involving agricultural tenants
– DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction
RTC RULING
• MTC Decision is affirmed
– Same ratio as MTC
CA RULING
• RTC decision is set aside.
– No TR exists
– Petitioners’ witnesses’ testimony are
insufficient to establish status as agricultural
tenants
– Affidavits merely showed that petitioners are
occupying the subject land with the consent
of the original owners
– Since petitioners are tolerated by mere
tolerance, they are bound by an implied
promise to vacate the same upon demand
– Petitioners are likewise liable to pay damages
ISSUES RESOLVED
• W/N CA acted with grave abuse of
discretion in ruling that petitioners are
not tenants of the subject land
• W/N the CA ruling has factual and
legal basis and is supported with
substantial evidence
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
• Sec. 5 of R.A. 3844, tenancy may be
constituted by agreement of the parties
either orally or in writing, expressly or
impliedly.
• There was implied consent since
respondents’ P-I-I allowed them to cultivate
the land and share the harvest for more than
40 years
• CA also erred in disregarding affidavits of
witnesses who had personal knowledge of
the cultivation and sharing of harvest
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
• Petitioners are not agricultural tenants
because mere cultivation of an
agricultural land does not make the
tiller an agricultural tenant
• Respondents’ P-I-I merely tolerated
occupation of the subject land
SC RULING
• Petition is DENIED.
– Agricultural tenancy relationship
does not exist in this case.
– Respondent is entitled to the fair
rental value or the reasonable
compensation for the use and
occupation of the subject land
SC RULING
• NO TR exits. (Elements)
1. Parties: Landowner/Agri Tenant
2. Subject Matter: Agri land
3. Consent
4. Purpose: Agri Production
5. Personal cultivation on tenant
6. Shared Harvest
SC RULING
• Petitioners submitted evidence to prove TR exists
thru petitioner and her neighbour’s affidavits
– Agreed to agri production plus 50-50 shared harvest and watch over
the land
– Cultivation is since 1960
• Statements in the affidavits are not sufficient to
prove existence of Agri tenancy
• Consent is lacking
• No other evidence is submitted to show that
respondents’ P-I-I consent to the Agri Tenancy
• Independent evidence is necessary
SC RULING
• Petitioners submitted evidence to prove TR exists
thru petitioner and her neighbour’s affidavits
– Agreed to agri production plus 50-50 shared harvest and watch over
the land
– Cultivation is since 1960
• No consent was given.
• Sharing of harvest is not proved.
– Must have presented receipts or any other
evidence
• Independent evidence is necessary contrary to self-
serving affidavits of petitioners
• Mere occupation or cultivation of agri land will not
ipso facto make the tiller and agri tenant
SC RULING
• Respondent is entitled to fair rental value as
reasonable compensation
– Respondent may only recover the fair rental value
or the reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the leased property