Guerrero v. CA GR L-44570, 30 May 1986 (142 SCRA 136) Second Division, Gutierrez (p): 4 concurring, 1 taking no part.

Facts: On 8 August 1963, RA 3844 abolished and outlawed share tenancy and put in its stead the agricultural leasehold system. In 1969, Apolinario Benitez was taken by Manuel and Maria Guerrero to take care of their 60 heads of cows which were grazing within their 21-hectare coconut plantation situated at the Subprovince of Aurora, Quezon. Benitez was allowed for that purpose to put up a hut within the plantation where he and his family stayed. In addition to attending to the cows, he was made to clean the already fruitbearing coconut trees, burn dried leaves and grass and to do such other similar chores. Harvest time which usually comes every 3 months. For his work related to the coconuts, he shared 1/3 of the proceeds from the copra he processed and sold in the market. For attending to the cows he was paid P500 a year. On 10 September 1971, RA 6389 amending RA 3844 declared share tenancy relationships as contrary to public policy. Sometime in the early part of 1973, Benitez was refrained from gathering nuts from the 10-hectare portion of the 16-hectare part of the plantation from where he used to gather nuts. He felt aggrieved by the acts of defendants and he brought the matter to the attention of the Office of Special Unit in the Office of the President in Malacaang, Manila. This led to an execution of an agreement whereby defendants agreed to let plaintiff work on the 16-hectare portion of the plantation as tenant thereon and that their relationship will be guided by the provisions of RA 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines). In July 1973, he was again refrained from gathering nuts from the 10-hectare portion of the plantation with threats of bodily harm if he persists to gather fruits therefrom. The Guerreros assigned Rogelio and Paulino Latigay to do the gathering of the nuts and the processing thereof into copra. Defendants Guerreros also caused to be demolished a part of the cottage where Benitez and his family lived, thus, making the Benitez feel that they meant business. Hence, the case for reinstatement with damages. Issue: Whether Benitez is a tenant within the meaning of the tenancy law to warrant reinstatement to the plantation Held: Longstanding possession is an essential distinction between a mere agricultural laborer and a real tenant within the meaning of the tenancy law, a tenant being one who has the temporary use and occupation of land or tenements belonging to another for the purpose of production. A hired laborer who built his own house at his expense at the risk of losing the same upon his dismissal or termination any time, is more consistent with that of an agricultural tenant who enjoys security of tenure under the law. Cultivation is another important factor in determining the existence of tenancy relationships. Cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling, plowing or harrowing of the land but also includes the promotion of growth and the care of the plants, or husbanding the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry. Agreement to share the produce or harvest on a tercio basis that is, a 1/3 to 2/3 sharing in favor of the landowners bolsters the tenancy claim. The agricultural laborer works for the employer, and for his labor he receives a salary or wage, regardless of whether the employer makes a profit. On the other hand, the share tenant participates in the agricultural produce. His share is necessarily dependent on the amount of harvest. Once a tenancy relationship is established, the tenant has the right to continue working until such relationship is extinguished according to law. In the present case, besides these indications, the agreement made on 2 May 1973 is clear and categorical term that the Benitez is a tenant. Arguing that the intent was different, being that of a hired farmhand, the law existing at that time the agreement was made militate against the

claim. Benitez did not commit any of the causes that would warrant his ejectment, and thus, was unlawfully deprived of his right to security of tenure and the Court of Agrarian Reforms did not err in ordering the reinstatement of respondent as tenant and granting him damages therefor. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and affirmed the CA decision. No costs.