SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 42183. May 3, 2000.]
EPIFANIO DELA TORRE AND ROMEO DELA TORRE, petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD AND LEVI MATEO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
ADEFUIN-DE LA CRUZ, B., J p:
Before this Court is a petition for review of (1) the Decision, promulgated on June 18, 1996, of the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board ("DARAB" for brevity) in DARAB Case No. 2080 (Reg. Case No. 127-BUL' 90), the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered the instant appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED and the assailed Resolution AFFIRMED.
"SO ORDERED."
(Decision, p. 17; Record, p. 559; Rollo, p. 76)
and (2) the Resolution dated September 9, 1996 of the same Board denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the said decision filed by the petitioners.
Stripped of its inconsequential, the facts of the case, as culled from the decision of the DARAB are as follows:
"Complainants-Appellants Epifanio dela Torre and Romeo dela Torre allege, in substance, that they are the owners of Lot No. 296 of the S.M. de Pandi Estate under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23555 with an area of two thousand eight hundred forty seven (2,847) square meters, located at Sta. Maria Bulacan and Lot No. 279 likewise of S.M. Pandi Estate under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23554 with an area of seven thousand three hundred eighty (7,380) square meters, also located at Sta. Maria, Bulacan. They inherited the said lands from their late father, Honorato dela Torre, who, during his lifetime, entered into an agricultural leasehold contract with Respondent-Appellee Levi Mateo, concerning Lot No. 279 for ten (10) cavans for the "panag-ulan." Defendant-Appellee herein, inspite of the demands and offer of settlement by Complainants-Appellants, continuously refuses to pay said rentals since 1983. Moreover, Defendant-Appellee, without permission from Complainants-Appellants, or their late father, occupied Lot No. 296 and constructed pig pens thereon which he uses to raise livestock; and that Complainants-Appellants' demands for the former to vacate Lot No. 296 and to demolish his pig pens were ignored. They pray, among others, that Defendant-Appellee be ejected from said lands in addition to payment of rentals since 1983.
"In answer, Defendant-Appellee admits the ten (10) cavans yearly rental, however, he claims that the leasehold contract was for the entire landholding which, in reality, appears to be consisting of only one (1) lot, there being no visible boundaries separating one lot from the other. He denies having failed to pay the lease rentals as he was religious in paying the same. Accordingly, Complainants-Appellants are the ones who refuse to accept payments in the last three (3) years which Defendant-Appellee is willing and ready to pay Complainants-Appellants if they would receive the said rentals. He denies having encroached into Lot No. 296 as he has been in possession of said lot since he started his cultivation. If ever there is a portion where he raise livestock, said portion is considered his homelot which he has a right to possess by virtue of the provision of Republic Act No. 3844. Thus, he prays for the dismissal of the case.
"Among other evidences submitted by Complainants-Appellants are the following:
"1. 'Sinumpaang Salaysay' (Exhibit "A") of Marciano San Luis, stating in effect that Defendant-Appellee Levi Mateo, in addition to the land he cultivates which is the subject of the instant case, likewise farms a land with an area of about three (3) hectares owned by his grandmother, Marcela Garcia; that the same Levi Mateo resides in an old house on the land of his grandmother aforenamed; and that affiant is farming a land adjacent to the land of Marcela Garcia;
"2. 'Sinumpaang Salaysay' (Exhibit B) of Complainant-Appellant Epifanio dela Torre, reiterating the allegations in the complaint; and, in addition, he states that because of the failure of Defendant-Appellee Levi Mateo to pay the rentals to his father, through Atty. Lauro G. Bernardo, he filed a complaint with the DAR at Sta. Maria, Bulacan; that pursuant to the complaint, an investigation was conducted by ART Carina Ignacio; that Levi Mateo owns a land which he personally cultivates; and that he lives in a house on a land he owns, about a kilometer away from the land in issue; SIacTE
"3. 'Kasunduan sa Pamumuwisan' (Exhibit "B-4") is a lease contract between Honorato dela Torre and Levi Mateo concerning a riceland located at Sta. Cruz, Sta. Maria, Bulacan with an area of point seventy five (.75) hectare;
"4. Letter (Exhibit "B-6") dated June 24, 1983 addressed to Agrarian Reform Team No. 03-11-094, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, from Atty. Lauro Bernardo, which is a complaint against Levi Mateo outlining the following cause of action:
"My client is complaining the following:
"1. The lessee for the past three (3) years has failed and disregarded and continuously fails and disregards the three (3) day notice to the Lessor before any threshing of harvesting of palay on the land;
"2. The Lessee does not pay the full lease rental agreed upon when it falls due and the non-payment of the full rental was not due to crop failure to the extent of 75% as a result of a fortuitous event;
"3. The land was substantially damaged or destroyed and has unreasonably deteriorated through the fault and negligence of the Lessee.
"4. A portion of the subject agricultural land, which is a bacod even before the commencement of the leasehold agreement is being utilized by the Lessee for livestock raising without the consent or authority and even notice to the Lessor. To the surprise of the Lessor, he discovered very recently that the Lessee has constructed buildings and introduced improvement on the land. Enclosed, please find some photos taken thereat.'
"5. Ocular Inspection Report, dated June 20, 1988 (Exhibit "B-8") of Carina S. Ignacio, ARTECH with the following findings:
"1. That since 1983 tenant is not giving lease rental to the landowner;
"2. That the tenant erected piggery pen without notifying the landowner. At present there are ten (10) additional piggery pen.
"3. That the restricted area of piggery waste is approximately 400-500 square meters more or less.
"4. Tenant is not notifying the landowner before harvesting and threshing.
"5. The tenant had the land bulldozed without asking permission from the landowner.
"6. That TD No. 30919 and TCT 23555 is not being cultivated by the tenant;
"7. As per assessment of the Municipal Assessor of Sta. Maria, the piggery consist of 189 sq. meters; 190 sq. m. Res. Lot. These land classification are excluded from the area being occupied by the tenant;
"8. That the tenant has the right and possession to 7,380 sq. meters under TD No. 219 and embraced by TCT No. 23554. His rental for the said land is ten cavans of palay at 46 kilos per cavan if dry and 50 kilos per cavan if wet.'
"On the other hand, Defendant-Appellee submitted the following evidences:
"1. Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exhibit "1") of Defendant-Appellee, among others, stating that he has been cultivating the subject land since 1950; that the land has an area of about one (1) hectare but the agreement relies only to point seventy five (.75) hectare portion thereof; that he religiously gave the rentals to the landowner, however, since 1987, the landowners refuse to receive the rental, hence, he was constrained to deposit said rentals with a ricemill in Goyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan; that the complaint is merely intended to harass him because the landowner want to eject him; and, in March 1991, the landowner, together with some people, constructed a house on a three hundred (300) square meter portion of the subject land against his objection;
"2. Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exhibit "2") of Lauro Lorenzo, declaring, among others, that the land in issue is planted to rice once a year; that Defendant-Appellee has a house on a three hundred square meter (300) square meter portion of said land at the back of which is a pig pen for four (4) cows; and that said portion was filled with big stones in 1991 by Defendant-Appellee upon the order of the landowner; and
"3. Receipts of Goyong Ricemill dated November 4, 1987; December 23, 1988; December 5, 1989 and December 20, 1990 (Exhibit "3", "3-A", "13-B", "13-C", respectively).
"Subsequently, an ocular inspection was ordered, conducted by Legal Officer, Romeo Cabalitan and, in his report, he states:
'2. That part of a property with an area of more or less seven thousand (7,000) square meters is presently planted with palay, allegedly by the tenant Mr. Levi Mateo with ten (10) cavans of palay per harvest as rentals to the landowner.
'3. That another portion of which, is allegedly the homelot of the alleged tenant Mr. Levi Mateo with an area of more or less three thousand (3,000) square meters wherein a house is erected and the same is being claimed by Mr. Levi Mateo to be his house.
'4. That within the homelot portion are pigpen in "U" shape allegedly constructed and owned by Mr. Levi Mateo, subdivided into several subdivisions, six (6) subdivisions on the right side and another six (6) on the center portion with an area of more or less ten by ten (10 by 10) square feet each, and on the left side are thirteen subdivisions with an area of more or less sixty (60) heads of live pigs and piglets being raised.
'5. Mr. Levi Mateo alleged that he has been cultivating and in actual possession over the subject land as tenant of the landowner from date he could no longer exactly remember, but prior to the election of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos as President of the Republic of the Philippines up to present.
'6. That Mr. Levi Mateo constructed the pigpens since the time he was designated as tenant over the subject landholding, and that the waste from the pigs raised therein were used as fertilizers for the riceland portion he cultivates to make it more productive and in order to augment his meager income as farmer.' EIAScH
(Decision, pp. 1-7; Rollo, pp. 60-66)
On June 23, 1992, Provincial Adjudicator Laureano A. Cacho (Adjudicator Cacho, for brevity) rendered a decision in DARAB Case No. 127-Bul'90, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Board finds justifiable cause for the ejectment of the tenant. Consequently, judgment is hereby rendered:
"1. Ordering defendant Levi Mateo and all other persons to vacate the premises in question for the peaceful and teventual (sic) takeover of the plaintiffs, their heirs or assigns;
"2. Ordering the defendant to pay his rental arrearages for six years period covering the agricultural years 1987 to 1992 or sixty (60) cavans at 45 kilos per cavan of palay, computed at 10 cavans per year.
"SO ORDERED."
(Decision, pp. 8-9; Record, pp. 199 & 201; Rollo, pp. 35-36)
Aggrieved with the said decision, defendant filed on July 13, 1992 his Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation dated July 13, 1992 (Record, p. 258), while the complainants filed on July 23, 1992 an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 20, 1992 was filed. (Ibid, pp. 275 & 277)
On March 4, 1993, the defendant filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion for the Issuance of Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction praying that an order be issued against the complainants and all other persons acting under their authority to forthwith cease and desist from intruding into the defendant's farmholding; from unloading construction materials; from constructing a fence, a house/hut and other improvements; from harassing, molesting, disturbing the defendant in his peaceful possession, or occupation and cultivation thereon; and, from committing acts tending to eject, oust and remove the defendant therefrom (Ibid, p. 305), which motion was overtaken by the transfer of Adjudicator Cacho whose position as Provincial Adjudicator was assumed by the new Provincial Adjudicator Jose V. Reyes who granted said motion in his Order dated March 9, 1993 (Ibid, p. 312; Rollo, p. 69).
On March 18, 1993, a "Motion to Lift/Set Aside Order dated March 9, 1993; and Opposition to the Unverified Urgent Ex-parte Motion for the Issuance of Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction," was filed by the complainants (Ibid, pp. 332-336).
On May 11, 1993, an "Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Expedite Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 13, 1992" was filed by the complainants (Ibid, p. 354).
On May 13, 1993, an Order was issued by Provincial Adjudicator Jose V. Reyes (Adjudicator Reyes, for brevity), directing DARAB Officer Homer M. Abraham, Jr. (Officer Abraham, for brevity) to proceed to the ricemill on May 17, 1993 and inquire whether the deposited palay reflected in the receipt is true or not, and to conduct an ocular and physical inspection of the landholding in question to determine the veracity of the allegation of the defendant's Motion for Contempt (Ibid, p. 362).
In compliance with the said order, Officer Abraham submitted his Ocular Inspection Report dated May 20, 1993 (Ibid, p 368), to which Report a Comment thereto dated June 7, 1993 was filed by the complainants on June 10, 1993 (Ibid, p. 414). Thereafter, a Manifestation relative to complainants' comments on the aforecited Ocular Inspection Report, dated July 19, 1993, was filed by the defendant on the same date. (Ibid, p. 427).
On September 27, 1993, a Resolution was issued by Adjudicator Reyes, the dispositive portion of which states, to wit:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Board finds justifiable reason to GRANT the said Motion for Reconsideration and setting aside the decision rendered on June 23, 1992. Consequently, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
"1. Ordering the defendant to pay his rental arrearages for six year period covering the agricultural year 1987 to 1992 of sixty (60) cavans at 45 kilos per cavan of palay computed at 10 cavans per year;
"2. Ordering the herein plaintiff and all other persons acting in his behalf to cease and desist from interfering, occupying, disturbing plaintiff peaceful possession over the disputed landholding;
"3. Ordering the MARO of Sta. Maria to execute a New Agricultural Leasehold Contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
"SO ORDERED."
(Resolution, p. 3; Record, p. 438; Rollo, p. 39)
On October 7, 1993, complainants filed their Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated September 27, 1993 (Record, p. 453), and on October 21, 1993, a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, dated October 19, 1993, was filed by the complainants. (Ibid, p. 464)
On November 15, 1993, a Resolution was issued by Adjudicator Reyes denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the complainants (Ibid, p. 470).
Dissatisfied with the said Resolutions of September 27, 1993 and November 15, 1993, complainants filed their appeal before the DARAB docketed as DARAB Case No. 2080, and submitted their Appeal Memorandum on February 17, 1994 (Record, p. 490; Rollo, pp. 50-55)
On May 16, 1994 a Supplemental Appeal Memorandum dated May 12, 1994 was filed by the complainant-appellants (Record, p. 506).
A Second Supplemental Appeal Memorandum, dated July 3, 1995, was filed later by the complainants-appellants to the DARAB (Record, p. 534; Rollo, 56)
On June 18, 1996, the assailed Decision of the DARAB earlier adverted to was rendered (Record, p. 575; Rollo, p. 60).
On July 18, 1996, complainants-appellants (herein petitioners) filed their Motion for Reconsideration dated July 17, 1996 of the aforesaid decision (Record, p. 588; Rollo, p. 78).
On September 9, 1996, the assailed Resolution denying the complainants-appellants' Motion for Reconsideration was issued by the DARAB.
Hence, the present petition for review by the petitioners who now submit for our consideration the following issues, to wit:
"I. RESPONDENT BOARD ERRED IN HOLDING PRIVATE RESPONDENT NOT TO VACATE THE LAND IN QUESTION INSPITE OF DELIBERATE NON-PAYMENT OF LEASE RENTALS;
"II. RESPONDENT BOARD ERRED IN MAINTAINING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO HOMELOT; cSEaDA
"III. RESPONDENT BOARD ERRED IN GIVING LEGAL CREDENCE TO THE REPORT OF HOMER ABRAHAM, JR.
"IV. RESPONDENT BOARD ERRED IN NOT TAKING JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENT "PAGPAPATUNAY DATED JULY 31, 1991" WHICH WAS USED AS BASIS IN THE ISSUANCE OF RESOLUTION DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 BY HON. JOSE V. REYES IS FAKE, SPURIOUS AND FALSIFIED."
(Petition, pp. 10, 13, 16-17; Rollo, pp. 11, 14, 16, 17-18)
Since the first, third and fourth issues are interrelated, all of which shall be discussed jointly.
Petitioners aver that during the lifetime of the Honorato dela Torre, father of herein petitioners, from whom they inherited the subject landholdings, the former had already been complaining to the Department of Agrarian Reform of the non-payment of rentals and the conversion of the parcel Lot No. 1 thereof into a commercial livestock; that in the Resolution of September 27, 1993, Adjudicator Reyes stated that since tenancy relation existed between the parties, private respondent should not be ejected from the disputed landholding. However, the petitioners were not questioning the existence of leasehold relations over the land in question but were trying to point out that the private respondent violated his tenurial obligations for deliberate non-payment of rentals and conversion of a portion of the subject landholding into a commercial piggery without the authority and consent of the petitioners-owners, hence, the private respondent should be ejected; that in the Resolution of September 27, 1993, it was also mentioned that private respondent deposited the rentals to the Guyong Rice Mill as shown by the "Pagpapatunay" which was allegedly executed by the owners Ceferino San Pedro ("Ceferino" for brevity) and Maria San Pedro ("Maria" for brevity), but it was not introduced as evidence during the hearing on the merits even if it appears from the date of the document that it was already existing when the case was being heard on the merits; that assuming that Ceferino executed the said "Pagpapatunay," the same is not binding to herein petitioners because the latter had no participation whatsoever in the execution thereof; that the decision rendered in Criminal Case No. 738-M-94 by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15, wherein private respondent was convicted of the crime of falsification of private document, proves that the "Pagpapatunay" was fake, spurious and falsified; that the petitioners apprised the respondent Board of the said judgment of conviction in their Supplemental Appeal Memorandum, yet the respondent Board stated in its decision that private respondent was still far from conviction; that the respondent Board never bothered itself to ascertain the veracity of the decision in spite of the certified true copy of the judgment of conviction duly furnished to it, by hastily issuing an order denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration based on no new matters raised in their motion; that the only duty of Officer Abraham in an ocular inspection was to proceed to the subject landholding and to report what his naked eyes had seen, and it was the duty of the court/board in an ocular inspection that such inspection should be conducted in the presence of both parties.
We are persuaded.
It is worth emphasizing that in the Decision dated June 23, 1992 rendered by Adjudicator Cacho (Record, p. 199), the Resolution dated September 27, 1993, rendered by Adjudicator Reyes (Record, p. 48), and the Decision promulgated on June 18, 1996 by the DARAB (Record, p 575; Rollo, p. 76) affirming the aforesaid Resolution, it was uniformly held that the defendant (herein private respondent) was in arrears in his lease rentals to the petitioners, thus ruling in this wise:
"Ordering the defendant to pay his lease rental arrearages for six years period covering the agricultural years of 1987 to 1992 of 60 cavans at 45 kilos per cavan of palay computed at 10 cavans per year."
for which reason, it could be concluded by this Court that the private respondent really failed to pay his lease rentals to the petitioners.
While in the complaint filed by the petitioners, it prayed that the payment of the lease rentals should commence from the year 1983 (Record, p. 8), what were granted in the decisions and the resolution mentioned above were only from the years 1987 to 1992. This fact was clearly explained by Adjudicator Cacho in his decision when he stated that:
". . .. Plaintiffs complaint that defendant Levi Mateo has been remiss in his obligation to pay his lease rentals since 1980. This is supported by the letter of Atty. Lauro G. Bernardo, for the plaintiff, dated June 24, 1983, Exhibit B-6, addressed to the Team Leader Rodolfo M. Beratio, complaining that "lessee for the past three (3) years has failed and disregarded and continuously fails and disregards the three (3) day notice to the lessor before any threshing or harvesting of palay on the land," to butress this accusation, defendant countered that the cause of action has already expired and defendant has been paying his lease rentals for the years 1987, 1988, 1990 as evidenced by the receipts issued by the ricemill where the alleged rentals was (sic) deposited. The contention of the defense is without merit. While it may be true that under R.A. 3844, Sec. 38 states:
'An action to enforce any cause of action under this code shall be banned if not commenced within three (3) years after such cause of action accrued.'
"This is only with regards to those lease rentals three years prior to January 19, 1990, the filing of the instant case or lease rentals before 1987. Hence, lease rentals for the agricultural year 1987 up to January 19, 1990 has not yet prescribed and those that accrued thereafter. Therefrom, from 1987 up to 1990 defendant Levi Mateo has a rental arrears of 30 cavans based on the ten cavans lease rentals. . ." (Emphasis supplied)
(Decision, p. 4-5; Record, pp. 204 and 205, Rollo, pp. 31-32)
Further, the fact that the private respondent was convicted of the crime of falsification of private document (Rollo, p. 160), by introducing as evidence the "Pagpapatunay" (Record, p. 281) which would prove that he had really deposited at the Guyong Rice Mill the alleged lease rentals for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion and so holds that the receipts allegedly issued by Guyong Rice Mill (Ibid, pp. 94-97) were also void and do not have any probative value at all, it having originated from a void source.
This conclusion was further corroborated by Ceferino, one of the owners of Guyong Rice Mill, in his "Sinumpaang Salaysay" (Ibid, p. 456) when he stated that:
"xxx xxx xxx
"(6) Na aking pinatutunayan na totoo ang lahat na sinalaysay ng aking apo na si Luzviminda S. P. Pangilinan sa kanyang sinumpaang salaysay.
"(7) Na ako kailan man ay hindi lumagda sa isang diumanong pagpapatunay na may petsa Hulio 31, 1991 na ipinadala ni Levi Mateo sa Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board sa Malolos, Bulacan."
Ergo, Adjudicator Cacho ruled in this wise, to wit: DHaEAS
"It is therefore safe to infer, that there is no lease rentals actually deposited on the said dates as it was only prepared in 1991. There could be no lease rentals that can be withdrawn (sic) because defendant did not tender the receipts to the plaintiffs which the latter cannot later on withdrawn because the Rice Mill has no duplicate at all. It therefore merits nothing."
(Decision, p. 6; Record, p. 203; Rollo, p. 33)
Again, it is important to note that the RTC judgment convicting the respondent of falsification of private document was affirmed by this Court (Tenth Division) on December 15, 1997 (Rollo, p. 138); and that the motion for reconsideration of the private respondent filed in G.R. No. 132948 entitled: "Levi Mateo y Guzman vs. People of the Philippines" has been denied with finality by the Supreme Court (Third Division) in its Resolution dated September 16, 1998 (Rollo, p. 162).
As to the validity of the Ocular Inspection Report conducted by Officer Abraham, which the private respondent claimed to have corroborated the "Pagpapatunay" (Record, p. 281), the same could likewise be considered void and does not have probative value at all, it having corroborated a falsified document.
In all this conclusion, Article 1422 of the New Civil Code applies which provides that:
'Art. 1422. A contract which is the direct result of a previous illegal contract is also void and inexistent."
Moreover, private respondent questioned the validity of the Ocular Inspection Report of Legal Officer Romeo E. Cabalitan (Record, p. 150) in his Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation stating that "Only a person of competent authority such as a duly licensed geodetic engineer" can determine the actual area of the portion devoted to palay and the portion occupied as homelot, and that "The legal officer cannot be considered as an expert on land surveys, hence his report cannot be given any value" (Record, pp. 219, 247). If this is so, the Ocular Inspection Report of Officer Abraham (Ibid, pp. 367-368) should not likewise be given any weight at all, both officers not having been an expert on land surveys.
As to the issue on homelot, petitioners argue that under Section 23 of R.A. 3844, a tenant/lessee is no longer entitled to homelot, while Section 24 of R.A. 3844 provides that the agricultural lessee/tenant shall have the right to continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any homelot he may have occupied upon the effectivity of the Code on August 8, 1963. The homelot referred to under Section 24 are those occupied prior to the year 1963 when R.A. 3844 was enacted; that private respondent is not entitled to Parcel No. 1 as a homelot because he became a tenant/lessee in the year 1973, over which, undoubtedly, it covered Parcel No. 2 which contains an area of 7,380 square meters; that it would already be obnoxious and unconscionable to consider Parcel No. 1 as homelot considering that the said lot consists of 3,000 square meters; that from the meaning of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1978, private respondent has no homelot to be transferred to him for purposes of Operation Land Transfer under P.D. 27; that Parcel No. 1 is not the homelot of private respondent because he became a tenant/lessee only over the 7,380 square meters in the year 1973 at the time that a tenant/lessee is no longer entitled to a homelot.
The argument is meritorious.
Anent the findings of both Provincial Adjudicators Cacho and Reyes that the private respondent failed to pay his lease rentals, even if the private respondent is considered as a lessee of the subject property under their "Kasunduan sa Pamumuwisan" (Record, p. 35), wherein he was under obligation, among others, to give his lease rental of ten cavans at forty-six kilos each, his being a lessee has been disturbed by his failure to comply with the aforesaid obligation. It is germane to stress the findings of Adjudicator Cacho in his Resolution dated June 23, 1992, to wit:
". . . The alleged receipts submitted by defendant Mateo to prove that he has deposited the rentals with Guyong Rice Mill dated November 4, 1987; December 23, 1988; December 15, 1989 and December 20, 1990 on the face alone appears to be spurious and polluted document. Alleged receipts show that the rentals deposited was ten (10) cavans at ten (10) kilos per every receipt which is quite unusual and irregular. A one cavan of palay normally weights (sic) at 40 to 50 kilos not mere ten kilos as shown by the receipts."
(Decision, p. 5 Record, p. 204; Rollo, p. 32)
Indeed, both provincial Adjudicator Cacho and Reyes consider the private respondent as an agricultural lessee of the subject property under their "Kasunduan sa Pamumuwisan" (Record p. 35) wherein said private respondent was under obligation, among others, to give his lease rental of ten cavans at forty-six kilos each per year. However, both adjudicators found said private respondent to have failed to comply with his said obligation. Emphatically, both Adjudicators Cacho and Reyes, as a matter of fact, ordered the private respondent "to pay his lease rental arreages for six years period covering the agricultural years of 1987 to 1992 of 60 cavans at 45 kilos per cavan of palay computed at 10 cavans per year."
On this matter, Adjudicator Cacho took into consideration the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" dated November 5, 1991 of Luzviminda Pangilinan (Ibid., p. 147) stating that the said four (4) receipts mentioned therein were issued in one (1) day sometime in the month of August, 1991, which receipts have no duplicate in the Guyong Rice Mill. The said "Sinumpaang Salaysay" is quoted in full, hereunder, as follows:
"SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY"
'AKO si LUZVIMINDA PANGILINAN, may sapat na taong gulang, dalaga at naninirahan sa Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, matapos na sumumpa sang-ayon sa batas ay malayang nagsasalaysay ng mga sumusunod:
"Na ako ay apo ng may-ari ng Guyong Rice Mill na matatagpuan sa Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan.
"NA isang araw ng Agosto 1991, itong si Levi Mateo ay lumapit sa akin sa Guyong Rice Mill at humingi sa akin ng apat na resibo ng Guyong Rice Mill.
"NA sa resibo ay kanyang hiniling sa akin na isulat ko na nuong Nobyembre 4, 1987, Disyembre 23, 1988, Disyembre 15, 1989 at Disyembre 20, 1990 na siya ay nagdeposito diumano sa bawat nasabing araw ng tigsasampung kaban na palay may kabuuang apat na pung kaban at ang mga nasabing kaban na palay ay deposito para kay Epifanio de la Torre.
"NA ang lahat ng nasabing mga resibo ay minsanang ginawa ko nuong nasabing isang araw ng Agosto 1991 sa kahilingan ni Levi Mateo at di-umano ayon sa kanya ay gagamitin lamang para sa kanyang record.
"NA ang nasabing mga resibo ay walang duplikado sa Guyong Rice Mill.
"KATAPUSAN NG SALAYSAY.
(Lagda)
LUZVIMINDA PANGILINAN
The private respondent's non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the "Kasunduan sa Pamumuwisan," being an agricultural lessee, could legally terminate his leasehold relationship with the petitioners. In fact, said private respondent's conviction for falsification of private document (Rollo, pp. 57, 138, 162) was a clear proof of his malicious intent of depriving the petitioners of their shares of ten (10) cavans per year, as required of him per their "Kasunduan sa Pamumuwisan." Apparently, the "Pagpapatunay" allegedly prepared by Ceferino and Maria was made at the instance of the private respondent himself in order to show that he had deposited his yearly lease rentals to petitioners at the Goyong Rice Mill. However, as earlier stated, said "Pagpapatunay" turned out to be spurious. Accordingly, Luzviminda executed her "Sinumpaang Salaysay" refuting the authenticity of said "Pagpapatunay," which, in effect, shows that no actual deposit in the Goyong Rice Mill was made. As aptly stated by Adjudicator Cacho, "there is no lease rentals actually deposited on the said dates as it was only prepared in 1991. There could be no lease rentals that can be withdrawn because, defendant did not tender the receipts to the plaintiffs which the latter cannot later on withdraw because the Ricemill has no duplicate at all. It therefore merits nothing." (Record, p. 203) Indubitably, private respondent, although from the start was acknowledge to be a lessee by the petitioners, has violated the terms and conditions under their "Kasunduan sa Pamumuwisan" Actually, paragraph 5 thereof was likewise violated by the private respondent, the import of which is quoted, to wit: DCcAIS
"5. NA kinakailangan magpatalastas ang MAGSASAKANG MAMUMUWISAN sa MAYPASAKANG-NAGPAPABUWIS sa palugit na tatlong (3) araw bago gapasin at gukin ang pananim."
(Record, p. 35)
In fine, We find merit in Adjudicator Cacho's decision that "defendant Levi Mateo has been remiss in his obligation to pay his lease rentals since 1980. This is supported by the letter of Atty. Lauro G. Bernardo, on behalf of Honorato de la Torre, dated June 24, 1983, addressed to Team Leader Rodolfo M. Beratio, complaining that the "lessee for the past three (3) years has failed and disregarded and continuously fails and disregards the three (3) day notice to the lessor before any threshing or harvesting of palay on the land." (Exhibit B-6; Record, p. 34)
Further, it was not disputed by the private respondent that the agricultural leasehold relationship between him and the late Honorato dela Torre (father of the petitioners) existed during the year 1973 (Record, p. 35). There being no tenant-lessor relationship that existed between the parties upon the effectivity of RA. 3844, otherwise known as the "The Agricultural Land Reform Code," which took effect on August 8, 1963, it follows that the private respondent was not entitled to a homelot. As held by Adjudicator Cacho, "The pigpens which are alleged to be a mere backyard piggery to give additional income to the tenant lessee is on the contrary a big one setting on a 3,000 sq. m. lot, containing 26 pigpens which can accommodate more or less 60 heads of live pigs and piglets. From the figures alone, the tenant-lessee is already embarking on a commercial scale piggery farm which is not what the law mandates." (Record, p. 202).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision dated June 18, 1996 and the Resolution dated September 9, 1996 of the DARAB, in DARAB Case No. 2080, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that the private respondent is declared to have ceased to be the agricultural lessee of the petitioners for having violated the terms and conditions set forth in their "Kasunduan sa Pamumuwisan," and that the order directing the parties to execute a New Agricultural Leasehold Contract at the Office of the MARO at Sta. Maria, Bulacan finds no justification, hence, the same is hereby ordered deleted.
SO ORDERED.
Aquino and Regino, JJ., concur.