*

G.R. No. 130260. February 6, 2006.

HILARIA RAMOS VDA. DE BRIGINO, petitioner, vs.

DOMINADOR RAMOS AND FILOMENA RAMOS,
respondents.

Tenancy Law Definition of Agricultural Tenancy Essential

Requisites for Tenancy Relationship.Republic Act No. 1199, also
known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines, defines
agricultural tenancy as: [T]he physical possession by a person of
land devoted to agriculture belonging to, or legally possessed by,
another for the purpose of production through the labor of the
former and of the members of his immediate farm household, in
consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest
with the latter, or to pay a price certain, either in produce or in
money, or in both. The essential requisites of tenancy relationship
based on the foregoing definition, as cited in cases of recent
vintage, are: 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant
or agricultural lessee 2) that the subject matter of the
relationship is an agricultural land 3) that there is consent
between the parties to the relationship 4) that the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural production 5) that
there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
agricultural lessee and 6) that the harvest is shared between the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

547

VOL. 481, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 547

Ramos Vda. de Brigino vs. Ramos

Same Same To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any

other evidence must be presented.In the present case, there is no
dispute as to the presence of the foregoing elements, but the
conflict lies in the elements of consent and sharing. To prove such
sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must be
presented.
Same Same The question of whether there was an implied
tenancy and sharing are basically questions of fact and the
findings of the Court of Appeals and the Boards a quo are,
generally, entitled to respect and nondisturbance, as long as they
are supported by substantial evidence Definition of Substantial
Evidence.It is a timehonored rule that the question of whether
there was an implied tenancy and sharing are basically questions
of fact and the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Boards a
quo are, generally, entitled to respect and nondisturbance, as long
as they are supported by substantial evidence. And substantial
evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary
evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, and where the
findings of facts of the agrarian court are supported by
substantial evidence, such findings are conclusive and binding on
the appellate court.
Same Same Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship
dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land It is also
a legal relationship.There exists substantial evidence on record
to boost the findings of the Boards and the Court of Appeals that
petitioner and her husband consented to respondents cultivation
of the land in the concept of tenants and that the element of
sharing is present, as shown by the receipts for the period of
19911992. Indeed, tenancy is not a purely factual relationship
dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is
also a legal relationship. Here, all the essential requisites of
tenancy relationship are obtaining.
Remedial Law Appeals Findings of fact of administrative
agencies and quasijudicial bodies, which have acquired expertise
because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are
generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.The above findings of the DARAB are
entitled to great weight, nay, finality considering that the findings
of the Boards are unquestionably factual issues that have been
discussed and ruled

548

548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos Vda. de Brigino vs. Ramos

upon by them and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We cannot
depart from such findings. Findings of fact of administrative
agencies and quasijudicial bodies, which have acquired expertise
because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are
generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by
the Court of Appeals. Such findings deserve full respect and,
without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or
reversed.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Renan B. Castillo for petitioner.

Jaime P. Batalla for respondents.

CHICONAZARIO, J.:
1
This petition assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated 25 January 1996 in CAG.R. SP No. 38618 entitled,
Serafin Brigino, et al. v. Dominador Ramos, et al., which
affirmed that of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB)Central Office in DARAB
Case No. 1968. The DARABCentral Office had affirmed
the ruling of the Provincial Adjudicator of Malolos,
Bulacan, in Reg. Case No. 403Bul92, declaring
respondents the lawful tenants of a parcel of land in
Bulacan owned by Hilaria Ramos Vda. de Brigino and her
spouse, the late Serafin Brigino, and thus respondents are
entitled to security of tenure.
The details, as richly told by the DARAB, are beyond
dispute:
On 10 July 1992, petitioner and her spouse filed a
petition for Annulment and/or Cancellation of Agricultural
Leasehold Contract against herein respondents Dominador
Ramos and

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. with Associate

Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, concurring. Rollo, pp.
2432.

549

VOL. 481, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 549

Ramos Vda. de Brigino vs. Ramos
Filomena Ramos before the Provincial Adjudicator of
Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner and her spouse alleged that
they are the registered owners of the subject landholding
with an area of 11,451 square meters located at Malibong
Bata, Pandi, Bulacan. The petition further stated that
petitioner is the sister of respondent Dominador Ramos
while respondent Filomena Ramos is the surviving spouse
of another brother named Pedro Ramos. The petition
likewise averred that in the early months of 1991,
petitioner and her spouse discovered that respondent
Dominador and Pedro Ramos were able to register with the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) two documents both
entitled, Kasunduan ng Pamumuwisan dated 29 June
1973, without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner
and her spouse as the signature of petitioner in those
documents were forged. Hence, petitioner and her spouse
prayed that said documents 2
be declared void and the
subject land as untenanted.
On 31 August 1993, after attempts to amicably solve the
dispute failed, the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator ruled for
respondents. Despite the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) finding that the signatures of petitioner in the
Kasunduan ng Pamumuwisan were forgeries, the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (PARAD) opined
that the forgery does not suffice to render said documents
null and void inasmuch as petitioner and her spouse are
estopped from denying the existence of said documents in
view of the fact that petitioners spouse had issued rental
receipts to respondents, which receipts strongly prove that
they are occupying the subject land in the concept of
tenants and that implied tenancy was, accordingly,
perfectly established. The PARAD further disposed that
such being the case, security of tenure must be accorded
respondents
3
in tune with Section 7 of Republic Act No.
3844. It held:

_______________

2 Rollo, pp. 6970.

3 Id., p. 70.

550

550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos Vda. de Brigino vs. Ramos

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered declaring respondents as bonafide and lawful tenants
and to maintain
4
in peaceful possession and cultivation of the
landholding.

Disgruntled, petitioner and her spouse appealed the

PARADs Decision with the DARAB in DARAB Case No.
1968 which affirmed in toto the decision of the PARAD,
with the following fallo of the Decision:

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed

Decision the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The assailed 5 Decision, dated August 31, 1993, is hereby
Affirmed IN TOTO.

Unfazed, petitioner and her spouse elevated the matter to

the Court of Appeals, which on 25 January 1996, affirmed
the ruling of the DARAB. The dispositive portion of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals provides:

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for review is hereby 6

DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.

Hence, the present petition for review, petitioner faulting

the appellate court in finding that there was an implied
tenancy relationship between her and respondents,
positing that the essential requirements of a tenancy
contract did not obtain in the case. Particularly, petitioner
assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals on the
following argument:

THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE

COURT OF APPEALS IN CAG.R. NO. 38618 ENTITLED SPS.
SERAFIN BRIGINO AND HILARIA RAMOS VERSUS
DOMINADOR RAMOS AND FILOMENA RAMOS IN EFFECT
IS AN AFFIRMATION OF THE ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION
OF THE DARAB ON THE FINDINGS OF SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH
THE APPLI

_______________

4 Id., p. 66.
5 Id., p. 75.
6 Id., p. 31.

551

VOL. 481, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 551

Ramos Vda. de Brigino vs. Ramos
CABLE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT
AND IS7
BASED ON ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION FROM
FACTS.

The issue of whether or not respondents are bona fide

tenants of the subject landholding is the bedrock of the
petition.
Petitioner ardently claims that the NBI report that the
questioned signatures and the standard/sample
handwriting/signatures of Hilaria Ramos were not written
by one and the same person stands to mean that the
signatures of petitioner in the questioned documents, i.e.,
the Kasunduan sa Pamumuwisan dated 09 June 1973, are
forged. Thus, according to petitioner, there was no consent
on her part to allow respondents to till the land in question
and that absent the essential element of consent and
sharing between the parties, no tenancy relationship can
exist between them. Petitioner contends further that the
receipts allegedly signed by her husband and her daughter
could not be interpreted to constitute tenancy relationship
between her and respondents, these harvests being, at best,
gifts from respondents. In sum, petitioner avers that
respondents are not legitimate tenants but mere usurper of
rights having falsified the signature of the petitioner.
Accordingly, she says that mere cultivation of the land by
usurper cannot confer upon him by any legal right to work
the land as tenant8
and enjoy the protection of security of
tenure of the law.
Republic Act No. 1199, also known as the Agricultural
Tenancy Act of the Philippines, defines agricultural
tenancy as:

[T]he physical possession by a person of land devoted to

agriculture belonging to, or legally possessed by, another for the
purpose of production through the labor of the former and of the
members of his immediate farm household, in consideration of
which the former

_______________

7 Id., pp. 1314.

8 Id., pp. 1415.

552

552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos Vda. de Brigino vs. Ramos
agrees to share the harvest with the latter, or9 to pay a price
certain, either in produce or in money, or in both.

The essential requisites of tenancy relationship based on 10

the foregoing definition, as cited in cases of recent vintage,
are:

1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or

agricultural lessee 2) that the subject matter of the relationship
is an agricultural land 3) that there is consent between the
parties to the relationship 4) that the purpose of the relationship
is to bring about agricultural production 5) that there is personal
cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee and 6)
that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant
or agricultural lessee.

In the present case, there is no dispute as to the presence of

the foregoing elements, but the conflict lies in the elements
of consent and sharing. To prove such sharing of 11harvests, a
receipt or any other evidence must be presented.
The appellate court, the DARAB and the PARAD found
that an implied tenancy was created when petitioner and
her spouse acquiesced in the taking over and cultivation of
the land by respondents. The sharing is evidenced by the
receipts given by petitioners spouse and petitioners
daughter to respondents for the period of 19911992. The
Court of Appeals and the Boards went on to rule that
petitioner and her spouse were estopped from denying this
implied tenancy in view of the fact that they had accepted
shares of harvests from respondents.

_______________

9 Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 1199 Ludo and Luym Development

Corporation v. Barreto, G.R. No. 147266, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA
391.
10 Ambayec v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162780, 21 June 2005, 460
SCRA 537, 542 Rimasug v. Martin, G.R. No. 160118, 22 November 2005,
475 SCRA 703 Ludo and Luym Development Corporation v. Barreto,
supra.
11 Sumawang v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 150106, 08 September 2004, 437
SCRA 622, 629.

553

VOL. 481, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 553

Ramos Vda. de Brigino vs. Ramos
At the outset, it is a timehonored rule that the question of
whether there was an implied tenancy and sharing are
basically questions of fact and the findings of the Court of
Appeals and the Boards a quo are, generally, entitled to
respect and nondisturbance, 12
as long as they are supported
by substantial evidence. And substantial evidence has
been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and
its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary
evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, and where the
findings of facts of the agrarian court are supported by
substantial evidence, such findings
13
are conclusive and
binding on the appellate court.
We find no compelling reason to apply the exception of
nonconclusiveness of their factual findings inasmuch as
their findings are based on substantial evidence.
More importantly, the Boards and the appellate court
distinctly found that apart from the Kasunduan ng
Pamumuwisan, there exists other evidence on record,
taken together, which substantially establishes the fact of
implied tenancy or that the tillage of the land was with
the personal knowledge of petitioner, who is thereby
estopped from claiming otherwise.
It is glittering from the petition itself that petitioner had
personal knowledge of the fact that her husband, the late
Serafin Brigino, and their daughter, a certain Dra. Cinco,
had issued receipts to respondents for the produce that
they had given corresponding to petitioners share of the
harvest of the land being tilled by respondents. We find to
be far from tenable the contention of petitioner that said
shares of the harvests covered by the receipts were merely
gifts from

_______________

12 Ludo and Luym Development Corporation v. Barreto, supra note 9.

13 Bagsican v. Court of Appeals, 225 Phil. 185, 188 141 SCRA 226, 229
230 (1986). J. Milagros A. German, Rulings from the SCRA in Agrarian
Cases, p. 80.

554

554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos Vda. de Brigino vs. Ramos
14
respondents. Far from the gullible victim that she now
claims to be, petitioner had, from the start, consented to
respondents tillage of the land in question and had
unswervingly received her proper share of the harvest. 15
The fact that petitioner and respondents are siblings
and that the latter are in actual possession16 and cultivation
of the subject farmland since the 1960s a fact which
petitioner does not denyare telltale signs of respondents
contention that petitioner had consented to their tillage of
the land as far back as the 1960s and they have since then
been giving her share of the harvest, although the practice
of requiring receipts for the shares of petitioner started
only in 1991, when respondents ceased to be in petitioners
good graces and in anticipation of a looming legal brawl.
Indeed, as explained by respondents, it is not uncommon
for siblings to balk at formalities and legalities, such as
requiring receipts, it being commonly resorted to among
families only in case of a brewing rift between them and in
anticipation of a legal scuffle. And, if indeed, respondents
were deforciants of the land, why did petitioner, who knew
all along of respondents possession and cultivation thereof,
wait until 1992 before she sought the ejectment of
respondents from the said premises?
In fine, there exists substantial evidence on record to
boost the findings of the Boards and the Court of Appeals
that petitioner and her husband consented to respondents
cultivation of the land in the concept of tenants and that
the element of sharing is present, as shown by the
receipts for the period of 19911992. Indeed, tenancy is not
a purely factual relationship dependent on what the
alleged tenant does upon the

_______________

14 Rollo, pp. 1112.

15 Respondent Filomena Ramos represents her husband who is also the
brother of petitioner.
16 Rollo, p. 27.

555

VOL. 481, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 555

Ramos Vda. de Brigino vs. Ramos
17
land. It is also a legal relationship. Here, all the essential
requisites of tenancy relationship are obtaining.
As adroitly enunciated by the DARAB

x x x In short, the tenancy relationship based on alleged forged

documents was nonetheless legitimized by an implied contract
clearly established by all the facts taken together.
Having established their status as de jure tenants, respondents
are entitled to security of tenure x x x. As elucidated in the case of
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals x x xsecurity of tenure of a
tenant is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they
value as life itself and deprivation of their landholdings 18
is
tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood.

The above findings of the DARAB are entitled to great

weight, nay, finality considering that the findings of the
Boards are unquestionably factual issues that have been
discussed and ruled upon by them and affirmed by the
Court of Appeals. We cannot depart from such findings.
Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi
judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because
their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are
generally accorded not only respect,19
but finality when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Such findings deserve
full respect and, without justifiable
20
reason, ought not to be
altered, modified or reversed.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 25 January
1996 in CAG.R. SP No. 38618 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.

_______________

17 Ambayec v. Court of Appeals, supra note 10, p. 546.

18 Rollo, p. 75.
19 Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. v. DSM Construction and Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 153310, 02 March 2004, 424 SCRA 179, 197
Villaflor v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 524, 562 280 SCRA 297, 330
(1997).
20 Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 609 397 SCRA 549, 562 (2003).

556

556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JanDec Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), YnaresSantiago,

AustriaMartinez and Callejo, Sr., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

 Note.The sharing arrangement taken together with
other factors characteristic of tenancy have been shown to
be present in the case at bar. (Rupa, Sr. vs. Court of
Appeals, 323 SCRA 153 [2000])

o0o

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.