Barredo v. Besas (G.R. No.164695; December 13, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: HEIRS OF JOSE BARREDO, namely, LOLITA BARREDO, ANNALIZA BARREDO and MARICHU BARREDO-EPE, represented by MARICHU BARREDO-EPE, Petitioners, v. LAVOISER BESAS, Respondent.
FACTS: Estrella Javier owned and operated J.M. Javier Builders Corporation, a logging company located in Sta. Filomena,IliganCity, where Jose Barredo was employed as a heavy equipment mechanic. Sometime in 1978, Barredo was terminated from his employment due to the closure of Javierscompany which experienced business reverses. This prompted Barredo to file with the then Ministry of Labor a case for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages against Javier. The parties, however, amicably settled the dispute. Complying with the terms of the settlement, Javier allowed Barredo to stay and remain at the bunkhouse of the company. Three years after, onApril 24, 1981, another Order was issued by the Ministry of Labor ordering Javier to pay Barredo separation pay. OnOctober 27, 1995, Javier sold the three parcels of land to LavoiserBesas as evidenced by a deed of sale. Consequently, three new Transfer Certificates of Title were issued to Besas. After selling the properties, Javier ordered Barredo to vacate the land. Javier, nevertheless, gave to the wife of Barredo the sum ofP10,000.00 as a form of financial assistance. Subsequently, a fence was constructed around the land and Besas introduced substantial improvements thereto such as a modern rice mill, warehouses, and office buildings.
In the intervening time, however, Barredo, claiming that he was an agricultural tenant of Javier, filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) a claim for his right of pre-emption and redemption under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The complaint was elevated to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Regional Adjudicator ofIliganCity. The Regional Adjudicator rendered a DecisiondismissingBarredos complaint. Onappeal, the DARAB issued a Decision ruling in favor of Barredo. Both Javier and Besas appealed the decision of the DARAB to the CA. The CA issued a Decision ruling in favor of Javier and Besas.
ISSUE: Is Barredo an agricultural tenant and, therefore, enjoys security of tenure?
FACTS: Estrella Javier owned and operated J.M. Javier Builders Corporation, a logging company located in Sta. Filomena,IliganCity, where Jose Barredo was employed as a heavy equipment mechanic. Sometime in 1978, Barredo was terminated from his employment due to the closure of Javierscompany which experienced business reverses. This prompted Barredo to file with the then Ministry of Labor a case for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages against Javier. The parties, however, amicably settled the dispute. Complying with the terms of the settlement, Javier allowed Barredo to stay and remain at the bunkhouse of the company. Three years after, onApril 24, 1981, another Order was issued by the Ministry of Labor ordering Javier to pay Barredo separation pay. OnOctober 27, 1995, Javier sold the three parcels of land to LavoiserBesas as evidenced by a deed of sale. Consequently, three new Transfer Certificates of Title were issued to Besas. After selling the properties, Javier ordered Barredo to vacate the land. Javier, nevertheless, gave to the wife of Barredo the sum ofP10,000.00 as a form of financial assistance. Subsequently, a fence was constructed around the land and Besas introduced substantial improvements thereto such as a modern rice mill, warehouses, and office buildings.
In the intervening time, however, Barredo, claiming that he was an agricultural tenant of Javier, filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) a claim for his right of pre-emption and redemption under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The complaint was elevated to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Regional Adjudicator ofIliganCity. The Regional Adjudicator rendered a DecisiondismissingBarredos complaint. Onappeal, the DARAB issued a Decision ruling in favor of Barredo. Both Javier and Besas appealed the decision of the DARAB to the CA. The CA issued a Decision ruling in favor of Javier and Besas.
HELD: Section 3 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines defines agricultural tenancy 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, either in produce or in money, or in both."There is a tenancy relationship between parties if the following essential elements concur:
From the Court's assessment of the evidence at hand, Barredo had failed to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between him and Javier. In the first place, it is undisputed that Barredo was an employee of Javier in the latters logging business. Barredo, like his co-employees, was allowed to live in the bunkhouse of the company for his convenience. Clearly, therefore, the relationship of Javier and Barredo was one between an employer and an employee, and not between a landowner and a tenant. The continued stay of Barredo in the premises of the company was the result of the Order of the then Ministry of Labor which recognized the terms of the amicable settlement of Barredo and Javier in their labor dispute. It cannot be therefore claimed that such order converted the relationship of Barredo and Javier into one of tenancy as clearly Barredos stay in the property was by mere tolerance and was ordered by the Ministry of Labor. Moreover, the inexistence of tenancy relations is bolstered by the fact that Barredos stay was free of charge.
[1] The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;All the foregoing requisites must be proved by substantial evidence and the absence of one will not make an alleged tenant a de jure tenant. Unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure or covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws.
[2] The subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
[3] There is consent between the parties to the relationship;
[4] The purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
[5] There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
[6] The harvest is shared between landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee.
From the Court's assessment of the evidence at hand, Barredo had failed to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between him and Javier. In the first place, it is undisputed that Barredo was an employee of Javier in the latters logging business. Barredo, like his co-employees, was allowed to live in the bunkhouse of the company for his convenience. Clearly, therefore, the relationship of Javier and Barredo was one between an employer and an employee, and not between a landowner and a tenant. The continued stay of Barredo in the premises of the company was the result of the Order of the then Ministry of Labor which recognized the terms of the amicable settlement of Barredo and Javier in their labor dispute. It cannot be therefore claimed that such order converted the relationship of Barredo and Javier into one of tenancy as clearly Barredos stay in the property was by mere tolerance and was ordered by the Ministry of Labor. Moreover, the inexistence of tenancy relations is bolstered by the fact that Barredos stay was free of charge.