Hilario vs. IAC (G.R. No.

70736)
J. Gutierrez Jr. | March 16, 1987

DOCTRINE: Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder
thus, tenancy relation does not exist where a usurper cultivates the land.

FACTS:

 Baltazar was working on the land pursuant to a contract executed between him and Socorro Balagtas involving
a 2-hectare property. After Socorro's death, the landownership was transferred to her daughter (Corazon
Pengzon).
 Subsequently, (Petitioners) Hilarios started cultivating a 4,000-sq m portion of the property and enjoined
Baltazar from entering the same, claiming that they acquired the landholding from PNB after a foreclosure
proceeding.
 Baltazar filed a complaint with the Court of Agrarian Relations, alleging that he had been in continuous
possession as a share tenant of a parcel of land.
o However he further testified that he previously relinquished 1.5 ha of the 2 ha to Ocampos &
Mendozas, and what remained under his cultivation was ½ ha owned by Pengzon.
o When Soccoro died, No new contract was executed, but Baltazar insisted that the old contract was
continued between Pengzon and himself.
 On the other hand, Corazon Pengzon testified that she only owned 2 parcels of land which does not include
the portion being cultivated by Baltazar
o AND further explained that she did not get any share from the produce of the land and she would not
have accepted it knowing that she did not own the property anymore.
 IAC reversed CAR. Thus, Hilarios filed this petition for review.

ISSUE & RATIO:

Whether there is a landowner-tenant relationship. – NO. Baltazar is not a tenant because the requirement of
CONSENT was absent.

 The requirements set by law for the existence of a tenancy relationship, to wit: (1) The parties are the landholder
and tenant; (2) The subject is agricultural land; (3) The purpose is agricultural production; and (4) There is
consideration; have not been met by the Baltzar as he is, firstly, not a tenant because no consent was given by
landowner Pengzon.
 Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder through lawful means
and not by imposition or usurpation, thus, mere cultivation of the land by usurper cannot confer upon him any legal
right to work the land as tenant and enjoy the protection of security of tenure of the law. (Tiongson v. CA)
 Unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he
covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws

RULING: Since there is no tenancy relationship established, plaintiff (Baltazar) is declared not to be a tenant on
the landholding described in the complaint and he is ordered ejected therefrom.