Joson Vs Mendoza

[G.R. No. 144071.
August 25, 2005]
SPOUSES ALEJANDRO A.
JOSON AND LOURDES
SAMSON,petitioners,
vs.
REYNALDO MENDOZA
AND AGAPITO
LAQUINDANUM,responde
nts.
CHICO-NAZARIO,J.:
This is a petition for review questioning

the Decisiondated 27 January 2000 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47437
affirming the Decision dated 21 July 1997
of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB
Case No. 3414, which modified
theDecision dated 24 January 1995 of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD) and ordered the parties to
maintain thestatus quoon the landholding
in question. Petitioners, likewise, find
objectionable the Resolutiondated 05 July
2000 denying therein motion for
FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioners are the registered owners of a
parcel of riceland with an area of
approximately 1.25 hectares, located at
Barrio Bagongbayan, Malolos, Bulacan,
and covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-89652 of the Registry of Deeds
of Bulacan.Respondents Reynaldo
Mendoza and Agapito Laquindanum, on
the other hand, claim to be the actual
and lawful tillers of the land.
On 22 September 1987, petitioners

and Pastor Mendoza, father of
respondent Reynaldo Mendoza,
entered into an Agricultural
Leasehold Contract
covering the said parcel of
land where the lessee
bound himself to pay
20cavansofpalayat 46
kilos percavanto the
lessor per cropping.
hence, it is not possible for

him to work as a tenant in the
Philippines, thereby virtually
abandoning the land. They
alleged further that they
have not given their

consent to either
respondent Agapito
Laquindanum or respondent
Pastor Mendoza and

respondents, in their Answer,
denied the material
allegations of the complaint
averring that Pastor Mendoza
still possessed all the
qualifications required of
an agricultural tenant
according to law, and that
he did not abandon nor
24 January 1995 PARAD

DECISION
WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is

hereby rendered:
1. Ordering the petitioner to recognize Reynaldo
Mendoza as his new tenant;
2. Ordering the MARO of Malolos, Bulacan to
execute a new Agricultural Leasehold Contract
in favor of Reynaldo Mendoza;
3. Ordering petitioner to cease and desist in
interfering/molesting herein respondents
peaceful occupation over the subject
landholding;
4. No pronouncement of costs.
petitioners appealed the PARAD Decision to the

DARAB.
The DARAB held that although the agricultural
lessee Pastor Mendoza has, indeed, abandoned
the landholding in question and although the
other appellees are not tenant-farmers on the
subject land but are mere farm workers or actual
tillers thereon, petitioners are, nonetheless,
barred from recovering possession of the
landholding in question, although they are the
owners thereof, in view of the passage of
Republic Act No. 6657 ,which grants to the said
appellees the protection of being secured in their
farming activities in the landholding in question.
DARABS DECISION
WHEREFORE, in conformity with the above-stated
ruling of the Hon. Supreme Court in the aforequoted case, the assailed Decision dated January
24, 1995 is hereby MODIFIED. The parties
plaintiffs-appellants as landowners and defendantappellees Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito
Laquindanum are enjoined to observe thestatus
quoon the landholding in question, that is, said
appellees to work on the said land and pay the
lease rentals while the appellants to maintain them
in peaceful possession and tilling on the said
landholding, subject to whatever disposition the
Department of Agrarian Reform may take on the
land in question.
Ruling of the Court of

Appeals
On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered a

Decision affirming the decision of the DARAB.
Without expressly debunking the finding of the
DARAB that petitioners gave no consent, whether
express or implied, to the respondents
tillage of petitioners land, the Court of Appeals
found that petitioners were, nevertheless,
estopped from now asserting ignorance of
Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito Laquindanums
occupancy and tillage of the land in controversy
inasmuch as they have been receiving lease
rentals from Reynaldo Mendoza for years.
The Issue
whether or not the Court of Appeals erred
(1) when it made its own findings in lieu of the
Agrarian Court;
(2) when it ruled in favor of the respondents despite
the fact that they were not claiming any right of their
own as landless peasants but as mere farm workers
for fee of tenant Pastor Mendoza and not of
petitioners who have not consented thereto or
despite the fact that they were notde jurefarm
workers entitled to the benefits of CARL; and
(3) when it required petitioners, instead of
respondents who are claimants of being landless
tillers/peasants, to present proof that they are
landless tillers/peasants.
FIRST ISSUE
petitioners plead that in agrarian cases, the
power of appellate review is limited to
questions of law as the findings of fact of
the DARAB, when supported by substantial
evidence, shall be binding upon the Court of
Appeals. Hence, the appellate court cannot
make its own findings of fact and substitute the
samein lieuof the findings of the DARAB, unless
there was grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the DARAB. Consequently, petitioners
ascribe error on the appellate court in making its
own finding that they were estopped from
questioning the authority of respondents to till
their land. The Court of Appeals held that
petitioners have been receiving the rentals from
This finding of implied consent on

the part of petitioners to the
tillage of their land by
respondents is, according to
petitioners, repugnant to the
DARABs finding that there was no
such consent to the tillage,either
express or implied.
Malate v. Court of Appeals

In appeals in agrarian cases, the only
function required of the Court of
Appeals is to determine whether the
findings of fact of the Court of
Agrarian Relations 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
Reyes v. Reyes
appellate court cannot

make its own findings of
fact and substitute the
same for the findings of
fact of the DARAB
THIRD ISSUE
[I]t could be saidthat the petitioners failed to
show convincing evidence to contradict the
claim of respondents Reynaldo Mendoza and
Agapito Laquindanum that they are landless
beneficiaries. All that the petitioners could present
were mere allegations which were not supported
by any concrete evidence to prove their
claim.Thus,We are inclined to uphold the ruling of
the DARABthatrespondents Reynaldo and Agapito
are entitled to the benefit of the doubt that they
are indeed landless tillers, they being qualified
beneficiaries in accordancewith Sections 22 and
25 of the CARP. . .(Court of Appeals' disquisition)
SECTION 25. Award Ceilings for Beneficiaries.

Beneficiaries shall be awarded an area not
exceeding three (3) hectares which may cover a
contiguous tract of land or several parcels of land
cumulated up to the prescribed award limits. For
purposes of this Act, a landless beneficiary is one
who owns less than three (3) hectares of
agricultural land. The beneficiaries may opt for
collective ownership, such as co-ownership or
farmers cooperative or some other form of
collective organization: Provided, That the total
area that may be awarded shall not exceed the
total number of co-owners or member of the
cooperative or collective organization multiplied
by the award limit above prescribed, except in
meritorious cases as determined by the PARC.
Title to the property shall be issued in the name
True, it is a basic rule of evidence that he

who alleges something must prove the
same. In this case, we agree with petitioners
that inasmuch as respondents, not
petitioners, are the ones claiming to be
landless peasants, they must prove such
claim. This, however, is a question of fact
which the DARAB had already ruled upon. The
DARAB found that the evidence on record
points to respondents being the actual
occupants and tillers of the land in
question and we find no reversible error
in such finding.
the Court of Appeals committed

serious error when it arrogated upon
itself the power of declaring
respondents as apt beneficiaries
under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) when it held:
Thus, We are inclined to uphold
the ruling of the DARAB that
respondents Reynaldo and
Agapito are entitled to the
benefit of the doubt that they
are indeed landless tillers,they
being qualified beneficiaries in
Observe that nowhere in the DARAB

Decision was it held that respondents
were proper beneficiaries of the
CARP.In fact this matter of whether
or not respondents were proper
beneficiaries of the CARP was a total
non-issue before any of the
proceedings in the DARAB or in the
PARAD. This power to pinpoint
beneficiaries is reserved to the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
Lercana v. Jalandoni,
where the Court ruled that the
identification and selection of
CARP beneficiaries are matters
involving strictly the
administrative implementation of
the CARP, a matter exclusively
cognizable by the Secretary of
the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), and beyond the
SECOND ISSUE
the proper administrative official must resolve
first the question of beneficiaries under CARP. The
Court of Appeals, in adopting the findings of the
DARAB, did not declare respondents as
beneficiaries under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in relation
to the disputed landholding. The DARAB, in
the dispositive portion of its decision, left to the
concerned DAR Offices the determination of
who are or should be the CARP
beneficiaries. At this juncture, petitioner ought
to be reminded only that the identification and
selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters
involving strictly the administrative
implementation of the CARP, a matter
petitioners fault the appellate court for

branding respondents as landless tillers. We
empathize with petitioners. Indeed, this is a
phrase that automatically makes them
beneficiaries under the CARP, a determination
still to be made by the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform. Moreover, we noted that the DARAB
avoided tagging respondents as landless
tillers, because of its specific implication. Thus,
it limited itself to terms such as actual tillers
and actual occupants or workers. We must,
therefore, leave it at that, so as not to
influence the outcome of the administrative
determination by the DAR.
The main issues raised before

the DARAB may be summed
as: (1) whether or not
there was abandonment
on the part of the original
tenant which can serve as
basis to declare him as
out of status as leasehold
tenant by petitioners; (2)
whether or not respondents
were lawful tenants of
The DARAB, per evidence on

record, made the distinct finding
there was
abandonmenton the
that
basis of the copy of a letter from

the Office of the Secretary of
Justice of the United States of
America. For his part, Pastor
Mendoza, the original tenant, did
the DARAB properly found that they were

not. Their tillage of the subject landholding
was without the consent of petitioners, as
the DARAB found from the records.
Nonetheless, armed with the knowledge that
under the present state of laws, even the
actual occupants or tillers may actually have
rights as beneficiary of the CARP, the DARAB
took the precautionary measure of preserving
thestatus quoand defer to the DARs turf the
determination of the issue as to who should be
the beneficiary of the landholding in question.
We could not but agree.
DARAB DECISION
Under the fact and circumstances of the case, therefore, the
plaintiffs-appellants cannot recover possession of the
landholding in question, although they are the owners
thereof and although the appellee-agricultural lessee Pastor
Mendoza has indeed abandoned the landholding in
question and although the other appellees are not
tenant-farmers on the subject land but are mere
farmworkers or actual tillers thereon, in view of the
passage of Rep. Act No. 6657 which grants to the said
appellees the protection of being secured in their farming
activities in the landholding in question. The parties
appellants and appellees Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito
Laquindanum are thus bound to observe thestatus quoon
the subject riceland holding, including the appellee Pastor
Mendoza therefrom.
WHEREFORE, in conformity with the above-stated

ruling of the Hon. Supreme Court in the aforequoted case, the assailed decision dated January
24, 1995 is hereby MODIFIED.The parties
plaintiffs-appellants as landowners and
defendant-appellees Reynaldo Mendoza and
Agapito Laquindanum are enjoined to observe
the status quo on the landholding in question,
that is, said appellees to work on the said land
and pay the lease rentals while the appellants to
maintain them in peaceful possession and tilling
on the said landholding, subject to whatever
disposition the Department of Agrarian Reform
may take on the land in question.
WHEREFORE,the instant petition

isPARTLYGRANTEDand the Decision
dated 27 January 2000 and the Resolution
dated 05 July 2000 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 47437 are hereby
MODIFIEDto conform to the findings and
conclusions of the DARAB. The Decision
dated 21 July 1997 of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in
DARAB Case No. 3414 is hereby
REINSTATED. In the interest of justice, we
certify this case and its records to the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform for the
immediate determination of whether or
not respondents are appropriate
THANK YOU!
PRINCESS RUTH B. ADRIANO

Joson Vs Mendoza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joson Vs Mendoza

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joson Vs Mendoza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 144071.

August 25, 2005]

This is a petition for review questioning

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 22 September 1987, petitioners

hence, it is not possible for

have not given their

Pastor Mendoza and

24 January 1995 PARAD

WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is

petitioners appealed the PARAD Decision to the

Ruling of the Court of

On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered a

This finding of implied consent on

Malate v. Court of Appeals

appellate court cannot

SECTION 25. Award Ceilings for Beneficiaries.

True, it is a basic rule of evidence that he

the Court of Appeals committed

Observe that nowhere in the DARAB

petitioners fault the appellate court for

The main issues raised before

The DARAB, per evidence on

basis of the copy of a letter from

the DARAB properly found that they were

WHEREFORE, in conformity with the above-stated

WHEREFORE,the instant petition

You might also like