[O.P. Case No. 4813. May 10, 1993.]
ENRIQUE GUERRA, ET AL., appellants, vs. HEIRS OF MARIANO OLGADO, ET AL., appellees.
D E C I S I O N
"Finding no reversible error in the Order under review, the instant Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners Enrique Guerra, et al., is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, as far as this Office is concerned this case is considered closed."
TENANTS CLT's No. AREA/HECTARES
"1. Dominador Labrador under investigation 0.17
0.61
0.92
0.34
2. Porferio Gasis 074942 0.86
3. Miguel Arce under investigation 0.82
4. Manuel Daza 074942 2.73
074946 2.90
5. Rodolfo Guevarra under investigation 0.57
6. Crispin Laborte under investigation 0.35
0.35
0.07
0.21
7. Ricardo Albarca 102008 3.35
102012 0.39
0.39"
"OBSERVATIONS:
xxx xxx xxx
9. That the only issue . . . is . . . whether or not the farmholdings in question will be excluded from Operation Land Transfer by virtue of the Salaysay of Affidavits executed by the persons concerned to the effect that they are mere agricultural workers on the said farmholdings.""RECOMMENDATION:
1.) Adjustment of the extent of individual ownership of the petitioners over the subject farmholdings based on the aforementioned Tax Declarations.
2.) If and when the Salaysay and/or affidavits of the persons concerned will be considered by the higher authorities of the MAR as valid, the farmholdings effected by the said affidavits must be EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF OPERATION LAND TRANSFER (as per P.D. # 27 and LOI # 474) and the CLTs issued be recalled and cancelled.
3.) The MARDO # 19 may further investigate this case insofar as the areas of Rodolfo Guevarra, and Manuel Daza are concerned, to determine whether the same can also be Excluded from Operation Land Transfer."
On May 5, 1988, the DAR issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued:1. Granting the instant petition for exemption of their landholdings situated in Barangays Gubat and Alawihao, Daet and Sto. Niño, Talisay, Camarines Norte and Barangay Tagotonan Mercedes, Camarines Sur from coverage of Operation Land Transfer;
2. Recalling/canceling the Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the abovementioned farmers for reasons mentioned above.
SO ORDERED."
In issuing the aforesaid order, the DAR Secretary ruled that:
". . ., this Office finds the above report and recommendation to be well-taken and so holds the instant petition to be meritorious for it was shown that the above-mentioned farmers are not tenants of the subject landholdings but merely agricultural workers/laborers as indicated in their 'Magkasamang Malayang Salaysay' and 'Malayang Salaysay', dated December 13, 1982 and December 29, 1982, respectively. As such agricultural workers/laborers, they are paid on 'pacquiao' basis and that they never signed any 'leasehold contract' because they knew that they are not bona-fide tenants of the herein petitioners. On this score, the Supreme Court ruled:
'On the other hand, an agricultural laborer is one who works for the farm employer. For this labor, he receives a salary or wage, regardless of whether the employer makes a profit. A laborer doers not assume possession of the land he works. He reports for work at stated hours after which he is free to leave and is relieved of all responsibilities (Somera vs. Calman, 105 Phil 431; De los Reyes vs. Espineli, et al. 30 SCRA 574; De Leon vs. Rodriguez, CA-G.R. No. 24080-R, Aug. 30, 1966; Leynas vs. VGA. De Katigbak, CA-G.R. No. 39285-R, April 22, 1969). Micua vs. Bascos, CA-G.R. No. SP-03995, August 9, 1976'."
"The above averment is explicit, Mariano Olgado is not a tenant of Enrique because he (Mariano) is now the tenant of Rosalio Guerra, the present landowner who bought said land from Enrique Guerra on August 20, 1969. When the above averment was made, Enrique Guerra was no longer the owner of the land presently tenanted by Mariano Olgado. Consequently, the 'Malayang Salaysay' was erroneously appreciated by Secretary Juico the Municipal Trial Court of Daet (Decision, Exh. 1) in favor of the Guerras' not in favor of Mariano Olgado which should be the case.
"While Enrique Guerra claims that Mariano Olgado was only his paid worker during the period when the ownership of the land was vested in him, Rosalio Guerra, the present owner claimed otherwise. Rosalio Guerra in a sworn statement entitled 'Declaration of Ownership of Agricultural Lands,' (Exh. 2) dated December 1972, acknowledged Mariano Olgado as his tenant over the some 1.5230 hectares riceland in his (Rosalio) landholding.
"The affidavits entitled 'Malayang Salaysay' (Exh. 'E') signed by Mariano Olgado was prepared and acknowledged by Atty. Oscar T. Osorio, now MTC judge at Daet, Camarines Norte. It was in Judge Oscar T. Osorio's sala that Civil Case No. 1938 for Forcible Entry with Damages was filed against Ruperto Olgado, one of the children of Mariano Olgado, Defendant Ruperto Olgado in his answer made averments that this father was a registered tenant of Rosalio Guerra, having been awarded Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-045807. The question of tenancy having been raised in the answer, Judge Osorio should have caused the referral of this case with the DAR in order to satisfy the mandate of PD 316 which provides that in cases of ejectment wherein the issue of tenancy is raised, the same should first be referred to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative for preliminary determination of the relationship between the contending parties, and, to determine whether the case is proper or not for trial. Judge Osorio failed to make the corresponding referral and continued to hear and decide the case despite defendant's vigorous protestations.
"Being the former lawyer of the plaintiff, Judge Osorio should have inhibited himself in trying Civil Case No. 1938 for any decision that he may render adverse to the defendant will always be construed as tainted with bias.
xxx xxx xxx
"Crispin Laborte is the tenant of Librado Guerra since both are parties to the 'Kasunduan Buwisan sa Sakahan,' (Exh. 3) executed on February 1, 1986, wherein the former was bound by the provisions of the Contract to deliver twenty five (25) cavans of palay for the 'tambay' and twenty two (22) cavans for the 'Habagat'.
"In fact prior to the 'Kasunduan', Crispin Laborte was already giving the leasehold share to the Landowner. Laborte's payment is evidenced by several receipts (Exh. 4 & 5) duly acknowledged by one E. Guerra.
"Rodolfo Guerra is an allocatee in T.A. Case No. D-1269. He succeeded Ricardo Abarca after the latter died. The reallocation is contained in the order dated September 16, 1988 (Exh. 6).
"The petitioners questioned the status of Ricardo Abarca as a bonafide tenant in their landholding by submitting a 'Malayang Salaysay' (Exh. 7) executed by Ricardo Abarca on September 1982, contents of which state that he is not the tenant of Librado Guerra. As a consequence of this admission Rodolfo Guevarra will have in right to succeed to the tenancy left behind by Ricardo Abarca. We do not agree with this contention. In the Landowner Production Agreement (LTPA) and tenants undertaking to the Land Bank, (Exh. '9-10'; OLT Form No. 4), and the accompanying sheet, he was found out to have overpaid the amount of his amortization payment by One Thousand Seven Hundred Nineteen and 22/100 Pesos, (Exh. 10).
"Rodolfo Guevarra likewise on several occasions, deposited with the barangay, his leasehold payments (Exh. 11, 11-A, 11-B, 11-C) for the reason that owner Enrique Guerra does not issue him a receipt whenever he gives his leasehold payments.
"Another glaring finding is the fact that in the Malayang Salaysay signed by Ricardo Abarca, Enrique Guerra, the former owner of the land in question is still the listed owner in the certification issued by the Provincial Assessor on September 21, 1982 (Exh. 12) despite the claim by Librado Guerra that the same land was transferred to him on August 20, 1969. From this certification, it can be gleaned that no transfer has thus been effected and that any purported sale made thereby was simulated and fictitious.
"Miguel Arce on several occasions caused the payment of his leasehold rental to the landowner as evidenced by Exh. 3 to 3E, 4 yo 4-M.
"Porfirio Gasis:
"Porfirio Gasis was an acknowledged tenant by Rosalio Guerra as appearing in the Declaration of Ownership, (Exh. 2) of Agricultural Lands signed by Rosalio Guerra."
"1. Placing the tenanted ricelands subject matter of this petition and owned by Enrique, Rosalio and Librado, all surnamed Guerra under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer and maintaining the validity of all Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the farmer-beneficiaries therein;
"2. Declaring Crispin Laborte, Rodolfo Guevarra, Miguel Arce, Porfirio Casis and the late Mariano Olgado as bona fide tenants over their respective cultivations and, therefore, qualified to become farmer-beneficiaries. In the case of the late Mariano Olgado, his successor to the landholding shall be determined in accordance with the guidelines set forth in DAR Administrative Order No. 14 dated October 28, 1988.
SO ORDERED."
"In determining the nature of the relationship of the parties in the instant case, it would be well to review the concept of a share tenant as against that of an agricultural worker.
Share tenancy or agricultural tenancy is defined 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 the members of his immediate farm household, and the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant in production to their respective contributions (Sec. 4, RA 1199; Sec. 166 (25), RA 3844, Agricultural Land Reform Code.)
"On the other hand, the Court has defined an agricultural workers as follows:
'. . .. A 'farm worker' is any agricultural wage, salary or piece worker but is not limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless this Code (Agricultural Land Reform Code, supplied) explicitly states 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.' The term includes 'farm laborer and/or farm employer'. An 'agricultural worker' is not a whit different from a farm worker.
'From the definition of a 'farm worker' thus fashioned, it is quite apparent that there should be an employer-employee relationship between the farm employer and the farm worker. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following: (1) selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. It is this last element that constitutes the most important index of the existence of relationship.'
"The above-mentioned characteristics of an agricultural worker or farm worker do not exist in share tenancy.
Further, in one case, the Court compared an agricultural worker with a share tenant, and set out the following distinctions, among others, between the two:
'. . .. The agricultural laborer workers for the farm employer, and for his labor he receives a salary or wage, regardless of whether the employer makes a profit. On the other hand, the share tenant participates in the agricultural produce. His share is necessarily dependent on the amount of the harvest.
'Since the relationship between farm employer and agricultural laborer is that of employer and employee, the decisive factor is the control exercised by the former over the latter. On the other hand, the landholder has the 'right to require the tenant to follow those proven farm practices which have been found to contribute towards increased agricultural production and to use fertilizer of the kind or kinds shown by proven farm practices adapted to the requirements of the land'. This is but the right of a partner to protect his interest, not the control exercised by an employer. . . .'"
By authority of the President:
(SGD.) RENATO C. CORONA
Assistant Executive Secretary
for Legal Affairs