[O.P. Case No. 3648.  January 28, 1993.]

DOMINADOR DELA CRUZ, appellant, vs. PEDRO VALENCIA, appellee.

D E C I S I O N

          This is an appeal of Dominador de la Cruz, through counsel, from the order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), dated June 2, 1987, as reiterated in another order of January 8, 1988, affirming the certification issued by the Regional Director, Region III, DAR, on October 29, 1986, couched in this wise:

          "Finding the existence of tenancy relationship between the party-litigants over the landholding subject of the above-entitled case and therefore, this case to be falling within the purview of Presidential Decree Nos. 316/1038.

          Wherefore, the subject is hereby certified as not proper for trial."

          On November 3, 1980, Dominador dela Cruz and Pedro Valencia entered into a contract denominated as "KASUNDUAN SA KASAMANG ARENDAHAN" (hereinafter referred to as Kasunduan), involving a fishpond located at Abucay, Bataan.

          On January 21, 1986, a complaint for rescission of contract and recovery of possession was filed by Dela Cruz against Valencia and Ben Estacio with the Regional Trial Court of Bataan, Branch III, at Balanga, Bataan, docketed as Civil Case No. 5342. As later amended, the complaint seeks the ejectment of Valencia and Estacio, as sub-lessee of Valencia, from the fishpond area. The trial court ordered the referral of the case to the DAR for a preliminary determination of the relationship between the contending parties and a certification as to whether or not the case is proper for trial pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 316 in relation to PD 1038.

          After investigation, Director Prescillano Lapuz of Agrarian Reform, Region III, issued the order adverted to above. Under date of December 8, 1986, Dela Cruz filed a motion for reconsideration, which Director Lapuz treated as an appeal to the DAR. In his opposition to the motion, Valencia alleged, among others, that the motion was filed out of time. In his rejoinder to the opposition, Dela Cruz submitted a xerox copy of Registry Receipt No. 10343, dated December 9, 1986, as evidence of the date of mailing of his motion.

          On June 2, 1987, Undersecretary Jose Medina of Agrarian Reform issued an order dismissing the motion on the following grounds:

1.         A tenancy relationship exists between the parties, all elements and requisites for such relation being present; and

2.         The motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period prescribed under Ministry Administrative Order (MAO) No. 2-84, s. of 1984.

          Dela Cruz now seeks a review of the DAR order under two (2) assignment of errors, one relating to the timeliness of Dela Cruz's motion for reconsideration of the order of Director Lapuz, and the other on the question of whether there exists an agricultural tenancy relationship between him and Valencia.

          As records tend to reveal, Dela Cruz received a copy of the Lapuz order on November 25, 1986. Under MAO No. 2-84, s. 1984, Dela Cruz had 15 days from receipt of the order, or up to December 10, 1986, within which to appeal or to move to reconsider. While the motion was stamped "Received" on December 12, 1986, Dela Cruz has submitted a registry receipt tending to show that he sent by registered mail his motion for reconsideration on December 8, 1986. The rule obtains that the date of mailing of motions/pleadings shall be considered as the date of their filing (Pastor v. Echavez, 79 SCRA 220, 227 [1977]). Accordingly, we find that the motion for reconsideration aforementioned was seasonably filed within the 15-day reglementary period.

          The substantive issue in this case is whether there exists an agricultural tenancy relationship between Dela Cruz and Valencia.

          The action of Director Lapuz was based mainly on the recommendation of Atty. Eulogio M. Mariano, who conducted the summary investigation, the affidavits of witnesses, and the proceedings and discussions during the course of the summary investigation.

          The agricultural tenancy of Valencia appears to Us as having been established by the following:

1.         In his "SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY," dated October 6, 1986, one Ben Estacio stated:

          "Na simula noong Mayo, 1983 ako mismo ang nakapakyaw ng mga isda sa palaisdaang pinag-aalagaan at pinag-aanihan ni G. Pedro Valencia.

xxx                    xxx                    xxx

          Na pagkatapos na mahuli ko ng lahat ang mga isda ay umalis na ako sa nasabing palaisdaan at si G. Pedro Valencia ay magsisimula na namang magbuhos, mag-alaga at magpalaki ng isda."

2.         Pictures showing Valencia actually doing farmworks on the fishpond, together with the members if his family and farmhelps.

3.         In his "SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY," dated September 23, 1986, agrifino Caragay stated, to wit:

          "Na si Pedro Valencia at ang kanyang anak ang siyang nakikita kong personal na nagtra-trabaho, gumagawa at naglilinis ng nasabing palaisdaan at sila rin ang gumagastos sa lahat ng kakailanganin sa nasabing palaisdaan at kailanman ay hindi nakasama o tumulong sa paggawa si Dominador dela Cruz.

          Na nalalaman ko ang mga bagay na ito sapagkat ako ay kanilang nakakasama sa paghuhuli ng mga isda sa nasabing palaisdaan."

4.         During the direct examination Agrifino Caragay testified that:

Atty. Baluyot            "Q.              And what kind of work does Pedro Valencia performs in this fishpond owned by Dominador dela Cruz situated in Tabing-Ilog?

A. Caragay                A.                He is cleaning the fishpond and sometimes he hires hands for helps in performing this."

          [Transcript of record, Sept. 23, 1986, page 7]

          On cross-examination Mr. Agrifino Caragay was asked the question, to wit:

          Atty. Banzon "Q. The question is that he stated in his affidavit, I QUOTE, 'NA SI PEDRO VALENCIA AT ANG KANIYANG ANAK ANG SIYANG NAKIKITA KONG PERSONAL NA NAGTRATRABAHO, GUMAGAWA AT NAGLILINIS NG NASABING PALAISDAAN AT SILA RIN ANG GUMAGASTOS SA LAHAT NG KAKAILANGANIN SA NASABING PALAISDAAN AT KAILANMAN AY HINDI NAKASAMA OR TUMUTULONG SA PAGGAWA SI DOMINADOR DELA CRUZ, UNQUOTE' Why? Inspite of the fact that you admitted that they are joined and together in the working."

"A.       What I mean is that DOMINADOR DELA CRUZ and Pedro Valencia have really executed an agreement. But what I say is that Mr. Pedro Valencia is the only one personally working and cultivating the subject land."

          [Transcript of record, Sept. 23, 1986, pages 12-13]

5.         Testimony of Mr. Moises Valerio, as witness in the "KASUNDUAAN," as follows:

Atty. Baluyot "Q. We are proving tenancy here. Who worked on this land?

A.        It is Pedro Valencia and his son."

          [Transcript of record, Sept. 23, 1986, page 19]

6.         The "SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY" of Mr. Marcos Caragay, dated September 23, 1986, to the effect that Pedro Valencia is the only one working on the fishpond, to wit:

          "Na nalalaman ko rin na si Dominador dela Cruz ay siyang gumagawa at nakaposisyon sa palaisdaan sa tabing-dagat at si Pedro Valencia Naman ang siyang gumagawa at nagtratrabaho sa palaisdaan sa tabing-ilog."

          The foregoing affidavits, statements, and/or testimonies of seemingly disinterested witnesses who were residing and/or working in the vicinity of the fishpond, plus the testimony of Valencia himself, all attest to the fact that Valencia is an agricultural tenant over the fishpond in question.

          Dela Cruz urges that the "Kasunduan" he and Valencia executed established a civil law lease relationship and that they work on the fishpond on a joint venture basis by quoting the provisions of the "Kasunduan", to wit:

          "Na kami, DOMINADOR DELA CRUZ at PEDRO VALENCIA ay magsasama sa paggawa, paggamit, pamomosession, pangingisda at pag-aani sa mga nasabing palaisdaan sa loob ng sampung (10) taon na ang mga lupon sa Tabing-Ilog ay magmumula sa unang araw ng Abril, 1983 at matatapos sa huling araw ng March 1993 at ang para naman sa lupon sa Tabing-Dagat ay magmumula sa taong 1981 at magtatapos sa taong 1991."

          The terms of the contract reveal that the contract is a tenancy agreement. The provisions of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 1199 is illuminating:

          "Sec. 6.         Tenancy Relationship; Its definition. Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landholder and a tenant once they agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake  jointly the cultivation of land belonging to the former, either under the share tenancy or leasehold tenancy system, as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the land, until and unless, he is dispossessed of his holdings for any of the just causes enumerated in Section Fifty or the relationship is terminated in accordance with Section Nine." (Emphasis ours.)

          To circumvent the land reform program, landowners often-times file a court action for the rescission of contract, making it appear that a tenancy agreement is a civil law lease contract. Such practice must be curbed. Tenants must be protected from this practice; hence, the injunction prescribed under PD Nos. 316 and 1038 against ejecting or harassing a tenant of an agricultural land without a certification from the Secretary of Agrarian Reform that the case is proper for trial.

          WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appeal of Dominador dela Cruz is hereby DISMISSED.

          SO ORDERED.

          Manila, Philippines.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) RENATO C. CORONA

Assistant Executive Secretary
for Legal Affairs