Verde vs. Macapagal

The Court held that personal cultivation by the tenant or members of his immediate farm household is an essential, non-negotiable element of an agricultural tenancy relationship; a tenant who surrenders possession and allows a third party to perform all phases of cultivation for an extended period abandons the landholding, thereby extinguishing the tenancy relationship and forfeiting his right to recover possession without the landholder's consent.

The dispute arose between pro-indiviso landowners (respondents) and their leasehold tenant (petitioner) over 2.5 hectares of agricultural land in Palapala, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. The controversy centered on whether the tenant's arrangement with a third party, Aurelio dela Cruz, who cultivated the land from 1993 to 1994, constituted a mere hiring of labor and equipment or an abandonment of the tenancy through mortgage or surrender of possession.

• Respondents are the pro-indiviso owners of 2.5 hectares of agricultural land located in Palapala, San Ildefonso, Bulacan, which they inherited from their parents Vicente F. Macapagal and Irenea R. Estrella.
• Petitioner Celso Verde is the leasehold tenant of the disputed land, having succeeded his father, Francisco Verde, in the tenancy thereof.
• On July 14, 1995, respondents filed an ejectment case before the PARAD, alleging that in 1993, petitioner mortgaged the subject land to Aurelio dela Cruz without respondents' knowledge, with the condition that dela Cruz would cultivate one-half portion of the property.
• Respondents claimed that petitioner admitted to the mortgage, begged for forgiveness, and vowed not to mortgage the property again, but dela Cruz continued farming the land in 1994.
• Respondents argued that this act constituted abandonment under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended.
• Respondents presented the joint sworn statement of Albino Sanciangco and Monico Cruz, attesting that dela Cruz farmed one-half of the land in 1993 by virtue of a mortgage contract with petitioner and that respondents confronted petitioner about the arrangement.
• Petitioner denied the mortgage allegations, claiming he merely hired dela Cruz for the latter's carabao which he lacked in 1993 and 1994.
• Petitioner presented dela Cruz's sworn statement and joint sworn statements of Petronilo Sayco and Oscar Cruz, claiming petitioner continuously farmed and possessed the property.
• In his Position Paper before the PARAD, petitioner maintained dela Cruz was merely a hired helper for carabao services.
• However, in his pleadings before the Court of Appeals, petitioner admitted that he allowed dela Cruz to possess and cultivate the landholding to pay for a personal loan, significantly deviating from his earlier defense.
• The PARAD and DARAB ruled in favor of petitioner, finding no abandonment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding abandonment and ordering ejectment.
• The Supreme Court initially reversed the Court of Appeals on June 23, 2005, but granted respondents' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2008.

• Petitioner argued that he merely hired Aurelio dela Cruz and the latter's carabao for agricultural years 1993 to 1994 because he lacked the means to own a carabao during those years, constituting temporary incapacity under Section 27(2) of Republic Act No. 3844.
• He contended that hiring farm laborers to perform some phases of farm work does not amount to abandonment, citing Section 38 of Republic Act No. 1199 which enumerates various acts a tenant may perform.
• He maintained that he continuously possessed and cultivated the land, presenting affidavits of witnesses and a Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) certification dated August 4, 1995, to support his claim of continuous tenancy.
• He asserted that he never relinquished personal cultivation and that the tenancy relationship remained valid.

• Respondents argued that petitioner mortgaged the land to dela Cruz from 1993 to 1994, and as consideration, dela Cruz tilled the land, constituting relinquishment and abandonment of the landholding under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3844.
• They contended that the affidavits of petitioner's witnesses should not be given weight because the witnesses failed to appear before the PARAD for clarificatory questioning, depriving respondents of the opportunity to cross-examine and test the truthfulness of the allegations.
• They asserted that their witnesses' positive assertions regarding the mortgage and dela Cruz's cultivation should prevail over petitioner's bare denials.
• They argued that surrendering possession and cultivation to a third party for two years, allowing the third party to perform all farm work, amounts to abandonment and terminates the tenancy relationship.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the affidavits of petitioner's witnesses may be relied upon despite the failure to subject them to clarificatory questioning during the hearings at the provincial adjudicator level.
  • Whether the PARAD violated respondents' right to due process by deciding the case without asking clarificatory questions to the parties and their witnesses.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether petitioner's act of allowing Aurelio dela Cruz to possess and cultivate the subject landholding from 1993 to 1994 constituted abandonment of the landholding under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3844.
  • Whether the tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondents was extinguished by abandonment.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that proceedings before the Department of Agrarian Reform are summary in nature and not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence, to the end that agrarian reform disputes are adjudicated in a just, expeditious, and inexpensive manner.
  • Due process in administrative proceedings requires only an opportunity to explain one's side, which was accorded to the parties through the submission of pleadings and supporting affidavits.
  • The failure of the PARAD to ask clarificatory questions was a mere procedural lapse that did not deprive it of jurisdiction, as the pleadings and evidence were sufficient to enable it to render judgment.
  • The Court noted that respondents were given multiple opportunities to have clarificatory questions asked but ultimately manifested their consent to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration without such hearing, thereby waiving their right to insist on this procedural requirement.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that petitioner abandoned the landholding.
  • The Court established that abandonment requires: (a) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property; and (b) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect.
  • The Court found critical inconsistencies in petitioner's pleadings: before the PARAD he claimed dela Cruz was merely a hired helper for carabao services, but before the Court of Appeals he admitted allowing dela Cruz to possess and cultivate the land to pay for a personal loan.
  • The Court held that personal cultivation by the tenant or members of his immediate household is an essential requisite of tenancy; a tenant may employ farm laborers for some phases of work but cannot leave the entire process of cultivation in the hands of hired helpers.
  • The Court found that petitioner surrendered possession and cultivation to dela Cruz for at least two years without personally cultivating the land himself, constituting abandonment under Section 8(1) of Republic Act No. 3844.
  • The Court held that once the tenancy relationship is extinguished by abandonment, the tenant cannot recover possession without the landholder's consent, and the Motion for Reconsideration was granted, reinstating the Court of Appeals' Decision.

• Abandonment of Agricultural Landholding — Abandonment requires proof of: (a) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property; and (b) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. The intention to abandon implies a departure with the avowed intent of never returning, resuming, or claiming the right and interest abandoned. In this case, the tenant's surrender of possession and cultivation to a third party for two years demonstrated the requisite intent and external act of abandonment.
• Personal Cultivation as a Requisite of Tenancy — Personal cultivation by the tenant himself or any member of his immediate farm household is an essential element of an agricultural tenancy relationship. While a tenant may employ farm laborers to perform some phases of farm work, he may not leave the entire process of cultivation in the hands of hired helpers. The tenant must perform some general industry in the caring of plants.
• Summary Nature of DAR Proceedings — Proceedings before the Department of Agrarian Reform are summary in nature, and the department is not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence. Due process in such administrative proceedings requires only an opportunity to explain one's side through the submission of pleadings and evidence, not necessarily oral hearings or clarificatory questioning.

• "The intention to abandon implies a departure, with the avowed intent of never returning, resuming or claiming the right and the interest that have been abandoned."
• "What is critical in abandonment is intent which must be shown to be deliberate and clear. Moreover, the intention must be exhibited by a factual failure or refusal to work on the landholding without a valid reason."
• "Persons who do not actually work the land cannot be considered tenants. He who hires others whom he pays for doing the cultivation of the land ceases to hold, and is considered as having abandoned the land within the meaning of Sections 4, 5 and 8 of Republic Act No. 1199."
• "Once the agricultural tenant abandons the landholding, his tenancy relationship with the landholder comes to an end. It cannot be reinstated simply by the former tenant's demand for or even actual recovery of possession of the landholding, absent the landholder's consent."
• "When the tenancy relationship is extinguished by volition of the tenant, he may no longer recover possession of the property in question for such would be repulsive to justice, fairness and equity."

• Quismundo v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that proceedings before the Department of Agrarian Reform are summary in nature and not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence.
• Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission — Cited for the rule that due process in administrative proceedings requires only an opportunity to explain one's side.
• Corpuz v. Spouses Grospe — Cited for the definition and requisites of abandonment: clear and absolute intention to renounce and external act carrying such intention into effect.
• Oarde v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the enumeration of the six essential elements of a tenancy relationship.
• Cuaño v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that hiring farm laborers on a temporary or occasional basis does not negate the element of personal cultivation.
• Carag v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that absent the requisite of personal cultivation by the alleged tenant, no tenancy relationship can exist.
• Spouses Samatra v. Vda. de Pariñas — Cited for the requirement that a tenant must perform some general industry in the caring of plants and cannot leave the entire cultivation process to hired helpers.
• Gagola v. Court of Agrarian Relations — Cited for the principle that abandonment extinguishes the tenancy relationship.
• Gabriel v. Pangilinan — Cited for the statutory definitions of tenant and leasehold tenancy under Republic Act No. 1199, emphasizing the requirement of personal cultivation or cultivation by immediate farm household.
• Jacinto v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that once tenancy is extinguished by abandonment, the tenant cannot recover possession without the landholder's consent.

• Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) — Provides the grounds for extinguishment of agricultural leasehold relation, including abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural lessor.
• Section 27(2) of Republic Act No. 3844 — Allows an agricultural lessee, in case of illness or temporary incapacity, to avail himself of the services of laborers.
• Section 28 of Republic Act No. 3844 — Enumerates causes for termination of leasehold by the agricultural lessee during the agricultural year.
• Section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844 — Enumerates exceptions to the rule that an agricultural lessee shall continue in enjoyment and possession of his landholding, including substantial violation of contract terms or Code provisions.
• Section 38 of Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act) — Enumerates the various acts which a tenant is required to perform, establishing that cultivation is not limited to plowing and harrowing.
• Sections 4, 5(a), and 8 of Republic Act No. 1199 — Define leasehold tenancy, "tenant," and limit the landholder-tenant relationship to the person who actually works the land himself with aid from his immediate farm household.