Title
Ferrer vs. Carganillo
Case
G.R. No. 170956
Decision Date
May 12, 2010
Petitioner sought ejectment of tenants over alleged subleasing and unpaid rentals; SC ruled in favor on one case, dismissed others due to lack of evidence.
subleasing
lack of evidence
lease tenancy relationships
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170956)

Factual Background — General

This petition consolidated four separate ejectment and damages actions filed by Felisa R. Ferrer as landowner or representative of landowners against different respondents who were alleged to occupy or cultivate agricultural leasehold lands without the lessor’s consent. Each case arose from distinct tenancies and turned on whether the tenant had subleased or otherwise alienated possessory rights in violation of agrarian law, or whether the tenant had failed to deliver lawful shares or rentals to the lessor.

DARAB Case No. 7862 — Facts

In DARAB Case No. 7862, petitioner alleged ownership of a 6,000-square-meter lot under Tax Declaration No. 42-06462 in Brgy. Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan, with respondent Domingo Carganillo the instituted tenant. Petitioner contended that Domingo subleased or mortgaged his tenancy rights to his brother Sergio Carganillo for P15,000.00 and that Sergio was in actual possession and cultivation. The MARO legal officer, Dionisio G. Estimada, prepared an investigation report noting Domingo’s alleged admission of subleasing while applying for work abroad. Petitioner also submitted an affidavit of Angela N. Clarion and later presented an original document denominated the Katulagan reflecting a purported loan from Sergio to Domingo dated April 20, 1995.

DARAB Case No. 7862 — Proceedings Below

The PARAD required position papers and, after submission of affidavits on both sides, dismissed the complaint on April 8, 1998 for lack of clear and convincing proof of subleasing. The PARAD found the MARO investigation inconclusive and declined to accept it as dispositive. On appeal the DARAB affirmed, holding that the Katulagan was inadmissible because it had not been formally offered before the PARAD and concluding the evidence failed to establish subleasing. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed on August 22, 2005, treating the Katulagan as a promissory note evidencing indebtedness rather than a proof of mortgage or sublease.

DARAB Case No. 7862 — Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner asked the Court to reverse the denial of ejectment and to find that Domingo had subleased or mortgaged his leasehold rights to Sergio, thereby warranting their dispossession. Central legal questions were whether the DARAB and CA properly excluded or disregarded the Katulagan and whether petitioner had discharged the burden of proof required of an agricultural lessor under RA No. 3844, Section 37, to establish a lawful cause for ejectment.

DARAB Case No. 7862 — Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis

The Court held that the DARAB erred in treating the Katulagan as inadmissible simply because it was not formally offered before the PARAD. The Court explained that agrarian tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of evidence in the Rules of Court and that the DARAB Rules expressly provide that the Board and its adjudicators shall not be bound by those technical rules and that the Rules of Court shall not apply even in a suppletory character unless adopted by the Board. Accordingly, reliance on the People v. Mongado criminal-rule pronouncement concerning formal offer of evidence was misplaced. On the merits, the Court found that the confluence of evidence — the MARO investigation report stating Domingo’s admission, petitioner’s observation of Sergio’s actual possession and cultivation, the Katulagan evidencing indebtedness, and Clarion’s affidavit — constituted clear and convincing proof of subleasing. The Court rejected respondent testimony and barangay statements as weak or conclusory where they lacked factual basis and noted Domingo’s silence before the MARO investigator as tending toward admission. The Court applied Section 27(2) and Section 36(7) of RA No. 3844, which prohibit the employment of a sub-lessee and permit dispossession where subleasing is shown, and ordered the dispossession of Domingo and Sergio.

DARAB Case No. 7863 — Facts

In DARAB Case No. 7863, petitioner claimed ownership of a 4,667-square-meter parcel under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-51201. The instituted tenant during his lifetime was the late Isabelo Ramirez, who, petitioner alleged, subleased or mortgaged his tenancy to Soledad Agustin without petitioner’s consent. Isabelo died and petitioner contended that Soledad was a mere sublessee in actual possession.

DARAB Case No. 7863 — Proceedings Below

Soledad filed an answer denying that she was petitioner’s tenant and asserted that the lawful tenant was Isabelo’s widow, Marina O. Ramirez. The PARAD dismissed the complaint on April 13, 1998. On appeal, the DARAB promulgated a decision on January 7, 2004 dismissing petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB on August 22, 2005.

DARAB Case No. 7863 — Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

Petitioner sought to enlarge the record below through a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with new affidavits and a survey plan, but the Court held that such new evidence was not admissible in that procedural vehicle under the DARAB rules. On the merits, the Court found that petitioner failed to present substantial and corroborated evidence of subleasing against Soledad. The MARO investigation and an affidavit by Gelacio Gano were uncorroborated and insufficient to meet the burden of proof required of the agricultural lessor. The Court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Soledad Agustin.

DARAB Cases No. 7864 and No. 7865 — Facts

DARAB Case No. 7864 involved a 14,000-square-meter landholding whose tenant, Pedro Solis, allegedly failed to pay lease rentals for agricultural years 1995 to 1997 and whose widow, Marcelina Solis, succeeded to possession after his death without owner consent. DARAB Case No. 7865 involved a 6,830.5-square-meter parcel co-owned by petitioner and Irene Aguinaldo, where Marcelina was alleged to have failed to deliver the landowners’ share for a purported third cropping.

DARAB Cases No. 7864 and No. 7865 — Proceedings Below

Marcelina denied the allegations and submitted numerous notices of reaping and receipts, BARC certifications, bank deposit slips, and other documentary proofs demonstrating delivery of shares or deposit of proceeds on behalf of the landowners. The PARAD dismissed both complaints on April 14, 1998. The DARAB and the Court of Appeals affirmed these dismissals.

DARAB Cases No. 7864 and No. 7865 — Supreme Court’s Analysis

With respect to DARAB Case No. 7864 the Court first dismissed petitioner’s appeal for procedural noncompliance because petitioner failed to indicate the appealing party properly; the PARAD records showed that the owners of the 14,000-square-meter parcel were Rosa R. Pajarito, Elvira A. Madolora, and Anastacia F. Lagado, while petitioner had acted only as their representative. Independently of the procedural defect, the Court found petitioner had not proven non-payment of rentals. Marcelina produced receipts and other corroborating documents, and the PARAD correctly found petitioner’s evidence insufficient. In DARAB Case No. 7865 the Court analyzed the allegation of failure to deliver shares for third cropping and found petitioner failed to establish that the land regularly supported a third cropping or that the lease included a covenant for third cropping. Marcelina’s documentary evidence showed timely notices, receipts, and certification that shares were delivered or deposited

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms