Case Digest (G.R. No. 172287)
Facts:
Welfredo Ceneze v. Feliciana Ramos, G.R. No. 172287, January 15, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Welfredo Ceneze sued respondent Feliciana Ramos before the Provincial Adjudicator seeking a declaration that he was the bona fide tenant-lessee of two adjacent agricultural parcels in Lelemaan, Manaoag, Pangasinan (aggregate area 12,000 sq. m.). He alleged that in 1981 his father, Julian Ceneze, Sr., transferred his tenurial rights in the lands to petitioner with respondent’s consent and that petitioner had remained in actual and peaceful possession until respondent forcibly entered and cultivated the land on April 12, 1991 to dispossess him.Respondent denied that petitioner was her tenant, admitting instead that Julian, Sr. was her tenant and that after he migrated (1985) she allowed his wife, and later his son Julian Ceneze, Jr., to cultivate the land; she said she migrated to the USA in 1988 and, after Julian Jr. likewise left in 1991, she took possession and reported abandonment to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer on April 8, 1991. The parties disputed whether the essential elements of an agricultural tenancy — including owner’s consent and sharing of produce — existed between petitioner and respondent.
The Provincial Adjudicator rendered judgment for petitioner on December 19, 1997, declaring him a bona fide tenant and ordering respondent to maintain his peaceful possession; that decision relied on a BARC certification, an affidavit of Julian, Sr., and a joint affidavit of neighboring tenants. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the Provincial Adjudicator’s decision on April 21, 2004. Respondent filed a petition for review to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on December 29, 2005 reversed and dismissed petitioner’s complaint;...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner prove the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship with respondent?
- If petitioner failed to prove tenancy, did the DARAB have jurisdiction over the c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)