GUERRERO V CA GR L-44570

FACTS:

1.     1969 | Apolinario Benitez was taken by defendants- spouses Manuel and Maria Guerrero to take care of their 60 heads of cows which were grazing within their 21-hectare coconut plantation situated in Aurora, Quezon.

2.     Plaintiff was allowed to put up a hut within the plantation where he and his family stayed.

3.     he was made to do some other similar chores even in the copra processing

4.     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.

5.     1973 | plaintiff 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.

6.     He felt aggrieved and he brought the matter to the attention of the Office of Special Unit in the Office of the President in Malacanang, Manila.

Office of the Pres: 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 republic Act No. 1199. The Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines.

7.     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.

8.     Defendant spouses, the Guerreros, then assigned defendants Rogelio and Paulino Latigay to do the gathering of the nuts and the processing thereof into copra. & demolished a part of the cottage where plaintiff and his family lived,

9.     Benitez filed this case for reinstatement with damages.

CA: tenancy relationship exists between the parties Manuel Guerrero, et al and Apolinario Benitez

The petitioners adopt the respondent court's findings of fact excepting, however, to its conclusion that tenancy relations exist between the petitioners and the respondents, thus:

ISSUE: W/N a tenancy relationship exists between the parties Manuel Guerrero, et al and Apolinario Benitez, et al. as to determine their respective rights and obligations to one another

HELD: YES

1.     Guerrero insists that Benitez was a mere farmhand or laborer who was dismissed as an employee from the landholding and not ousted therefrom as tenant. BUT BASED ON LAW:

"agricultural tenancy" as the 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 or ascertainable, either in produce or in money, or in both (Section 3, Republic Act 1199, The Agricultural tenancy Act, as amended.)

"share tenancy" exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural production wherein one party furnishes the land and the other his labor, with either or both contributing any one or several of the items of production, the tenant cultivating the land with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household, and the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant in proportion to their respective contributions (Sec. 4, RA 1199; Sec. 166(25) RA 3844, Agricultural Land Reform Code).

In contrast, a farmhand or agricultural laborer is "any agricultural salary or piece worker but is not limited to a farmworker of a particular farm employer unless this Code expressly provides otherwise, and any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a current agrarian dispute or an unfair labor practice and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular employment" (Sec. 166(15) RA 3844, Agricultural Land Reform Code).

1.     The records establish the private respondents' status as agricultural tenants under the legal definitions.

2.     Respondent Benitez has physically possessed the landholding continuously from 1969 until he was ejected from it.

a.     Such possession of longstanding 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. Respondent Benitez lives on the landholding. He built his house as an annex to the petitioner's copra kiln.

b.     A hired laborer would not build his own house at his expense at the risk of losing the same upon his dismissal or termination any time. Such conduct 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. The definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling, plowing or harrowing of the land. It 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.

The raising of coconuts is a unique agricultural enterprise. Unlike rice, the planting of coconut seedlings does not need harrowing and plowing. The fact that respondent Benitez, together with his family, handles all phases of farmwork from clearing the landholding to the processing of copra, although at times with the aid of hired laborers, thereby cultivating the land, shows that he is a tenant, not a mere farm laborer and they have an agreement to share the produce or harvest on a "tercio basis" that is, a 1/3 to 2/3 sharing in favor of the petitioner-landowners.

Their agreement also proved that benitez signed as a tenant, but the petitioners, however, contend that the word "tenant" in the aforequoted agreement was used to mean a hired laborer farm employee but since their relationship is guided by RA1199, their rela should be construed as landowner-tenant rel not an ER-EE rel.

Finally, comes the admission by the petitioners' counsel of the respondent's status as tenant:

ATTY. NALUNDASAN

Please remember that under the law, tenant is given the right to live in the holding in question. We admit him as tenant.

The respondent's status as agricultural tenant should be without question.

Once a tenancy relationship is established, the tenant has the right to continue working until such relationship is extinguished according to law.

The Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954 (Republic Act 1199),

the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963 (Republic Act 3844),

the Code of Agrarian Reforms (Republic Act 6389) and

Presidential Decree 1038 (Strengthening the Security of Tenure of Tenant Tillers in Non-Rice/Corn Producing Agricultural Lands) all provide for the security of tenure of agricultural tenants.

Ejectment may be effected only for causes provided by law, to wit:

l) Violation or failure of the tenant to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the tenancy contract or any of the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act;

2) The tenant's failure to pay the agreed rental or to deliver the landholder's share unless the tenant's failure is caused by a fortuitous event or force majeure;

3) Use by the tenant of the land for purposes other than that specified by the agreement of the parties;

4) Failure of the tenant to follow proven farm practices:

5) Serious injury to the land caused by the negligence of the tenant;

6) Conviction by a competent court of a tenant or any member of his immediate family or farm household of a crime against the landholder or a member of his immediate family. (Section 50, Rep. Act 1199).

None of the above causes exists in the case at bar. The respondent has been 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.