VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 247: Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform

8/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANOTATED VOLUME 168
VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 247

Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
*
No. L-78214. December 5, 1988.
YOLANDA CABALLES, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRARIAN REFORM, HON. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ
and BIENVENIDO ABAJON, respondents.
Agrarian Law; Tenancy relationship, requisites of.—The

essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: 1. The parties
are the landowner and the tenant; 2. The subject is agricultural
land; 3. There is consent; 4. The purpose is agricultural
production; 5. There is personal cultivation; and 6. There is
sharing of harvests. All these requisites must concur in order to
create a tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of
one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator
thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. This is so because
unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he
is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land
Reform Program of the Government under
______________
* SECOND DIVISION
248
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
existing tenancy laws.
Same; Same; The fact of sharing alone, not sufficient to

establish a tenancy relationship; Private respondent’s status is
more of a caretaker rather than a tenant; Reason.—Therefore, the
fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbf2a1f384234ac10003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
relationship. Certainly, it is not unusual for a landowner to accept

some of the produce of his land from someone who plants certain
crops thereon. This is a typical and laudable provinciano trait of
sharing or patikim, a native way of expressing gratitude for favor
received. This, however, does not automatically make the tiller-
sharer a tenant thereof specially when the area tilled is only 60,
or even 500, square meters and located in an urban area and in
the heart of an industrial or commercial zone at that. Tenancy
status arises only if an occupant of a parcel of land has been given
its possession for the primary purpose of agricultural production.
The circumstances of this case indicate that the private
respondent’s status is more of a caretaker who was allowed by the
owner out of benevolence or compassion to live in the premises
and to have a garden of some sort at its southwestern side rather
than a tenant of the said portion. Agricultural production as the
primary purpose being absent in the arrangement, it is clear that
the private respondent was never a tenant of the former owner,
Andrea Millenes. Consequently, Sec. 10 of RA 3844, as amended,
does not apply. Simply stated, the private respondent is not a
tenant of the herein petitioner.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Courts; The remand of the case to

the lower court would not serve the ends of justice at all; Reasons.
—Notwithstanding our ruling that the private respondent is not a
tenant of the petitioner, we hold that the remand of the case to
the lower court for the resumption of the criminal proceedings is
not in the interest of justice. Remand to the Municipal Court of
Talisay, Cebu, would not serve the ends of justice at all, nor is it
necessary, because this High Tribunal is in a position to resolve
with finality the dispute before it. This Court, in the public
interest, and towards the expeditious administration of justice,
has decided to act on the merits and dispose of the case with
finality.
Same; Malicious Mischief; Elements of.—The elements of the

crime of malicious mischief are: 1. The offender deliberately
caused damage to the property of another; 2. The damage caused
did not constitute arson or crimes involving destruction; 3. The
damage was caused maliciously by the offender. After a review of
the facts and circumstances of this case, we rule that the
aforesaid criminal case
249
VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 249
against the private respondent be dismissed.
Same; Same; The private respondent cannot be held

criminally liable for malicious mischief in cutting the banana
trees; Reasons; Case at bar.—The private respondent can not be
held criminally liable for malicious mischief in cutting the banana
trees because, as an authorized occupant or possessor of the land,
and as planter of the banana trees, he owns said crops including
the fruits thereof. The private respondent’s possession of the land
is not illegal or in bad faith because he was allowed by the
previous owners to enter and occupy the premises. In other words,
the private respondent worked the land in dispute with the
consent of the previous and present owners. Consequently,
whatever the private respondent planted and cultivated on that
piece of property belonged to him and not to the landowner. Thus,
an essential element of the crime of malicious mischief, which is
“damage deliberately caused to the property of another,” is absent
because the private respondent merely cut down his own
plantings.
PETITION for certiorari to review the order of the

Department of Agrarian Reform.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
SARMIENTO, J.:
Before us is a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment

of an Order issued by the public respondent Ministry of
Agrarian Reform (MAR), now the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), through its then Minister, the Hon.
Heherson Alvarez, finding the existence of a tenancy
relationship between the herein petitioner and the private
respondent and certifying the criminal case for malicious
mischief filed by the petitioner against the private
respondent as not proper for trial.
The facts as gathered by the MAR are as follows:
The landholding subject of the controversy, which
consists of only sixty (60) square meters (20 meters x 3
meters) was acquired by the spouses Arturo and Yolanda
Caballes, the latter being the petitioner herein, by virtue of
a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 24, 1978 executed by
Andrea Alicaba Millenes. This landholding is part of Lot
No. 3109-C, which has a total area of about 500 square
meters, situated at Lawa-an, Talisay, Cebu. The remainder
of Lot No. 3109-C was subse-
250

quently sold to the said spouses by Macario Alicaba and the

other members of the Millenes family, thus consolidating
ownership over the entire (500-square meter) property in
favor of the petitioner.
In 1975, before the sale in favor of the Caballes spouses,
private respondent Bienvenido Abajon constructed his
house on a portion of the said landholding, paying a
monthly rental of P2.00 to the owner, Andrea Millenes. The
landowner likewise allowed Abajon to plant on a portion of
the land, agreeing that the produce thereof would be
shared by both on a fitfy-fifty basis. From 1975-1977,
Abajon planted corn and bananas on the landholding. In
1978, he stopped planting corn but continued to plant
bananas and camote. During those four years, he paid the
P2.00 rental for the lot occupied by his house, and delivered
50% of the produce to Andrea Millenes.
Sometime in March 1979, after the property was sold,
the new owners, Arturo and Yolanda Caballes, told Abajon
that the poultry they intended to build would be close to his
house and pursuaded him to transfer his dwelling to the
opposite or southern portion of the landholding. Abajon
offered to pay the new owners rental on the land occupied
by his house, but his offer was not accepted. Later, the new
owners asked Abajon to vacate the premises, saying that
they needed the property. But Abajon refused to leave. The
parties had a confrontation before the Barangay Captain of
Lawa-an in Talisay, Cebu but failed to reach an agreement.
All the efforts exerted by the landowners to oust Abajon
from the landholding were in vain as the latter simply
refused to budge.
On April 1, 1982, the landowner, Yolanda Caballes,
executed an Affidavit stating that immediately after she
reprimanded Abajon for harvesting bananas and jackfruit
from the property without her knowledge, the latter, with
malicious and ill intent, cut down the banana plants on the
property worth about P50.00. A criminal case for malicious
mischief was filed against Abajon and which was docketed
as Criminal Case No. 4003. Obviously, all the planting on
the property, including that of the banana plants, had been
done by Abajon. On September 30, 1982, upon motion of
the defense in open court pursuant to PD 1038, the trial
court ordered the referral of the case to the Regional Office
No. VII of the then MAR for a preliminary
251
VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 251

determination of the relationsip between the parties. As a

result, the Regional
1
Director of MAR Regional VII, issued a
certification dated January 24, 1983, stating that said
Criminal Case No. 4003 was not proper for hearing on the
bases of the following findings:
That herein accused is a bona-fide tenant of the land owned by

the complaining witness, which is devoted to bananas;
That this case is filed patently to harass and/or eject the tenant
from his farmholding, which act is prohibited by law; and
That this arose out of or is connected with agrarian relations.
From the said certification, the petitioner appealed to the

then MAR, now the respondent DAR. Acting on said
appeal, the respondent DAR, through its then Minister
Conrado
2
Estrella, reversed the previous certification in its
Order of February 3, 1986, declaring Criminal Case No.
4003 as proper for trial as “the land involved is a
residential lot consisting of only 60 square meters whereon
the house of the accused is constructed and within the
industrial zone of the town as evinced from the
Certification issued by the Zoning Administrator of Talisay,
Cebu.”
Upon motion for reconsideration filed by Abajon, the
respondent DAR, through its new Minister, 3 herein
respondent Heherson Alvarez, issued an Order dated
November 15, 1986, setting aside the previous Order dated
February 3, 1986, and certifying said criminal case as not
proper for trial, finding the existence of a tenancy
relationship between the parties, and that the case was
designed to harass the accused into vacating his tillage.
In the summary investigation conducted by the DAR,
the former landowner, Andrea Millenes, testified that
Bienvenido Abajon dutifully gave her 50% share of the
produce of the land under his cultivation. The grandson of
Andrea Millenes, Roger Millenes, corroborated the
testimony of the former, stating that he received said share
from Abajon. Roger Millenes fur-
_______________
1 Rollo, 11.
2 Id., 12.
3 Id., 13-17.
252

ther testified that the present owners received in his

presence a bunch of bananas from the accused representing
1/2 or 50% of the two bunches of bananas
4
gathered after
Caballes had acquired the property.
From these factual findings, the DAR concluded that
Abajon was a tenant of Andrea Millenes, the former owner,
who had testified that she shared
5
the produce of the land
with Abajon as tiller thereof. Thus, invoking Sec. 10 of RA
3844, as amended, which provides that “[T]he agricultural
leasehold relation under this Code shall not be
extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a
leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of
the legal possession of the landholding”; and that “(I)n case
the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal
possession of the landholding, the purhaser or transferee
thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to
the obligations of the agricultural lessor,” the MAR ruled
that “the new owners are legally bound to respect the
tenancy, notwithstanding their claim that the portion tilled
by Abajon was small, consisting merely of three (3) meters
wide and twenty 6
(20) meters long, or a total of sixty (60)
square meters.”
Hence, this petition for certiorari alleging that:
I. Respondents DAR and Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez

committed “grave abuse of power and discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction” in holding that
private respondent Abajon is an agricultural tenant
even if he is cultivating only a 60-square meter (3 x
20 meters) portion of a commercial lot of the
petitioner.
II. Public respondents gravely erred in holding that
Criminal Case No. 4003 7
is not proper for trial and
hearing by the court.
We hold that the private respondent cannot avail of the

benefits afforded by RA 3844, as amended. To invest him
with the status of a tenant is preposterous.
_____________
4 Id., 15.
5 Id., 16.
6 Rollo, 16.
7 Petition for Certiorari, 3-4; Id., 6-7.
253
VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 253

Section 2 of said law provides:
It is the policy of the State:

(1) To establish cooperative-cultivatorship among those who
live and work on the land as tillers, owner-cultivatorship and the
economic family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture
and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture to
industrial development;
x x x
RA 3844, as amended, defines an economic family-size farm

as “an area of farm land that permits efficient use of labor
and capital resources of the farm family and will produce
an income sufficient to provide a modest standard of living
to meet a farm family’s needs for food, clothing, shelter,
and education with possible allowance for payment of
yearly installments on the land, and reasonable
8
reserves to
absorb yearly fluctuations in income.”
The private respondent only occupied a miniscule
portion (60 square meters) of the 500-square meter lot.
Sixty square meters of land planted to bananas, camote,
and corn cannot by any stretch of the imagination be
considered as an economic family-size farm. Surely,
planting camote, bananas, and corn on a sixty-square
meter piece of land can not produce an income sufficient to
provide a modest standard of living to meet the farm
family’s basic needs. The private respondent himself
admitted that he did not depend on the products of the land
because it was
9
too small, and that he took on carpentry jobs
on the side. Thus, the order sought to be reviewed is
patently contrary to the declared policy of the law stated
above.
The DAR found that the private respondent shared the
produce of the land with the former owner, Andrea
Millenes. This led, or misled, the public respondents to
conclude that a tenancy relationship existed between the
petitioner and the private respondent because, the public
respondents continue, by operation of Sec. 10 of R.A. 3844,
as amended, the petitioner-
_______________
8 Section 166 (20).
9 Petition’s Reply Memorandum; Id., 67.
254

new owner is subrogated to the rights and substituted to

the obligations of the supposed agricultural lessor (the
former owner).
We disagree.
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are:
1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant;

2. The subject is agricultural land;
3. There is consent;
4. The purpose is agricultural production;
5. There is personal cultivation; and
6. There is sharing of harvests.
All these requisites must concur in order to create a

tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of
one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a
cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant.
This is so because unless a person has established his
status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of
tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform 10
Program of
the Government under existing tenancy laws.
Therefore, the fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to
establish a tenancy relationship. Certainly, it is not
unusual for a landowner to accept some of the produce of
his land from someone who plants certain crops thereon.
This is a typical and laudable provinciano trait of sharing
or patikim, a native way of expressing gratitude for favor
received. This, however, does not automatically make the
tiller-sharer a tenant thereof specially when the area tilled
is only 60, or even 500, square meters and located in an
urban area and in the heart of an industrial or commercial
zone at that. Tenancy status arises only if an occupant of a
parcel of land has been given its possession for the primary
purpose of agricultural production. The circumstances of
this case indicate that the private respondent’s status is
more of a caretaker who was allowed by the owner out of
benevolence or compassion to live in the premises and to
have a garden of some sort at its southwestern side rather
than a tenant of the said portion.
______________
10 Tiongson vs. CA, No. L-62626, July 18, 1984, 130 SCRA 482.
255
VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 255

Agricultural production as the primary purpose being

absent in the arrangement, it is clear that the private
respondent was never a tenant of the former owner,
Andrea Millenes. Consequently, Sec. 10 of RA of 3844, as
amended, does not apply. Simply stated, the private
respondent is not a tenant of the herein petitioner.
Anent the second assignment of error, the petitioner
argues that since Abajon, is not an agricultural tenant, the
criminal case for malicious mischief filed against him
should be declared as proper for trial so that proceedings in
the lower court can resume.
Notwithstanding our ruling that the private respondent
is not a tenant of the petitioner, we hold that the remand of
the case to the lower court for the resumption of the
criminal proceedings is not in the interest of justice.
Remand to the Municipal Court of Talisay, Cebu, would not
serve the ends of justice at all, nor is it necessary, because
this High Tribunal is in a position to resolve with finality
the dispute before it. This Court, in the public interest, and
towards the expeditious administration of justice, has
decided 11to act on the merits and dispose of the case with
finality.
The criminal case for malicious mischief filed by the
petitioner against the private respondent for allegedly
cutting down banana trees worth a measly P50.00 will take
up much of the time and attention of the municipal court to
the prejudice of other more pressing cases pending therein.
Furthermore, the private respondent will have to incur
unnecessary expenses to finance his legal battle against the
petitioner if proceedings in the court below were to resume.
Court litigants have decried the long and unnecessary
delay in the resolution of their cases and the consequent
costs of such litigations. The poor, particularly, are victims
of this unjust judicial dawdle. Impoverished that they are
they must deal with unjust legal procrastination which
they can only interpret as harassment
_______________
11 Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. vs. CA and Muyco, No. L-37783,
January 28, 1988; Francisco, et al. vs. The City of Davao, et al., No. L-
20654, December 24, 1964, 12 SCRA 628; Republic vs Security Credit and
Acceptance Cor., et al., No. L-27802, October 26, 1968, 25 SCRA 641.
256

or intimidation brought about by their poverty,

deprivation, and despair. It must be the mission of the
Court to remove the misperceptions aggrieved people have
of the nature of the dispensation of justice. If justice can be
meted out now, why wait for it to drop gently from heaven?
Thus, considering that this case involves a mere bagatelle,
the Court finds it proper and compelling to decide it here
and now, instead of further deferring its final termination.
As found by the DAR, the case for malicious mischief
stemmed from the petitioner’s affidavit stating that after
she reprimanded private respondent Abajon for harvesting
bananas and jackfruit from the property without her
knowledge, the latter, with ill intent, cut the banana trees
on the property worth about P50.00.
This was corroborated by a certain Anita Duaban, a
friend of the petitioner, who likewise executed an affidavit
to the effect that she saw the private 12
respondent
indiscriminately cutting the banana trees.
The Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that “any
person who shall deliberately cause to the property of
another any damage not falling within the terms of the
next preceding
13
chapter shall be guilty of malicious
mischief.”
The elements of the crime of malicious mischief are:
1. The offender deliberately caused damage to the

property of another;
2. The damage caused did not constitute arson or
crimes involving destruction;
3. The damage was caused maliciously by the
offender.
After a review of the facts and circumstances of this case,

we rule that the aforesaid criminal case against the private
respondent be dismissed.
The private respondent can not be held criminally liable
for malicious mischief in cutting the banana trees because,
as an authorized occupant or possessor of the land, and as
planter of the banana trees, he owns said crops including

the fruits
_______________
12 MAR Order dated November 15, 1986, 3; Rollo, 15.

13 Article 327, Revised Penal Code, as amended.
257
VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 257

thereof. The private respondent’s possession of the land is

not illegal or in bad faith because he was allowed by the
previous owners to enter and occupy the premises. In other
words, the private respondent worked the land in dispute
with the consent of the previous and present owners.
Consequently, whatever the private respondent planted
and cultivated on that piece of property belonged to him
and not to the landowner. Thus, an essential element of the
crime of malicious mischief, which is “damage deliberately
caused to the property of another,” is absent because the
private respondent merely cut down his own plantings.
WHEREFORE, the Order of public respondents dated
November 15, 1986 is SET ASIDE and Criminal Case No.
4003, is hereby DISMISSED. Let a copy of this decision be
sent to the Municipal Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu for
appropriate action. This Decision is IMMEDIATELY
EXECUTORY.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Padilla and

Regalado, JJ., concur.
Order set aside.
Notes.—Mere fact that a person was not the one who

seeded the land with coconuts does not mean that he could
not be a tenant. (Guerrero vs. CA, 142 SCRA 136.)
In agrarian cases, all that is required is submission of
“substantial evidence” not “preponderant evidence.”
(Bagsican vs. CA, 141 SCRA 226.
——o0o——
258
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 247: Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 247: Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 247: Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANOTATED VOLUME 168

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 247

YOLANDA CABALLES, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF

Agrarian Law; Tenancy relationship, requisites of.—The

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform

existing tenancy laws.

Same; Same; The fact of sharing alone, not sufficient to

relationship. Certainly, it is not unusual for a landowner to accept

Same; Same; Same; Same; Courts; The remand of the case to

Same; Malicious Mischief; Elements of.—The elements of the

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 249

Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform

against the private respondent be dismissed.

Same; Same; The private respondent cannot be held

PETITION for certiorari to review the order of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Before us is a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

quently sold to the said spouses by Macario Alicaba and the

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 251

determination of the relationsip between the parties. As a

That herein accused is a bona-fide tenant of the land owned by

From the said certification, the petitioner appealed to the

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ther testified that the present owners received in his

I. Respondents DAR and Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez

We hold that the private respondent cannot avail of the

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 253

Section 2 of said law provides:

It is the policy of the State:

RA 3844, as amended, defines an economic family-size farm

8 Section 166 (20).

9 Petition’s Reply Memorandum; Id., 67.

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

new owner is subrogated to the rights and substituted to

1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant;

All these requisites must concur in order to create a

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 255

Agricultural production as the primary purpose being

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

or intimidation brought about by their poverty,

1. The offender deliberately caused damage to the

After a review of the facts and circumstances of this case,

planter of the banana trees, he owns said crops including

12 MAR Order dated November 15, 1986, 3; Rollo, 15.

VOL. 168, DECEMBER 5, 1988 257

thereof. The private respondent’s possession of the land is

Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Padilla and

Order set aside.

Notes.—Mere fact that a person was not the one who

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like