Republic of the Philippines

Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board
Region III
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN
REFORM ADJUDICATOR
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
Branch II
Landline: (044) 600-6957 Email: darabbranch1ne@gmail.com
Facebook: DARAB Nueva Ecija

HEIRS OF CONSOLACION
FELICIANO IRENEO,
ANTHONY IRENEO, ET.AL.,
Rep. By their Attorney-in-fact,
ORLANDO F. GASCON,
Petitioners,

-versus- DARAB CASE NO.7499’NNE’22

RUBEN FELICIANO and EZE

GANZAGAN,
Respondents,

x-------------------------------------x

DECISION
Before US is a Petition1 for Ejectment filed by Heirs of Consolacion
Feliciano Ireneo, Anthony Ireneo (Petitioners) thru their representative
against Ruben Feliciano and Eze Ganzagan (Respondents).

The subject of the controversy is a parcel of agricultural land

located at Brgy. Labney, Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija with an area
of 2.8813 hectares, more or less, titled under the name Conchita
Feliciano Santos.

In the Petition, the petitioner thru counsel avers that: A long time
ago , the late Maximo Feliciano was first lessee of the said landholding
owned by the late Consolacion Feliciano Irineo. During that time, Land
Reform have already been instituted in the Philippines and Agricultural
Leasehold System have been implemented/enforced. In the year 1985,
the landowner took out her landholding from the lessee because he have

1 Dated April 22, 2022

DECISION
Santos., Et.Al., v. Feliciano., Page 2 of 7
DARAB Case No. 7500’NNE’22
X-------------------------------X

no financial capacity to sustain his leasehold; That the late Consolacion

Feliciano Irineo lent and entrusted her landholding to her cousin
Agripino Feliciano for him to cultivate/till her farmland temporarily, but
he did not return anymore instead he took hold of it as his possession;
That an Agriculture Leasehold Contract2 was established on the 28th of
May 1985 between the late Consolacion Feliciano and the late Agripino
Feliciano indicating all the terms and condition stipulated; Upon the
death of Agripino Feliciano his son Ruben Feliciano and son-in-law Eze
Ganzagan took over the landholding and they should abide by the terms
and condition of the existing contract and most particularly all pertinent
provision of R.A. 3844; That in 2004, rental payment by the respondents
suspended/ceased after a petition for Judicial Partition of land filed by
the late Consolacion Feliciano Irineo on February 10, 2004 and they are
claiming that it is part of their inheritance; That non-payment of
leasehold rentals is a violation of section 36, item 6, of R.A. 3844 and
Section 50 of R.A. 1199thus a ground or cause of dispossession of the
landholding; The supposed rental from 1998 to 2007 would be 15 cavans
per hectare on maincrop (4 croppings) and 6 cavans per hectare on
second crop (4 croppings). In 2008, the National Irrigation
Administration (NIA) have provided/constructed a permanent Irrigation
system in the area of augment rice productivity of the farm with the
introduction of the capital improvements to the farm to increase rice
production, consequently, the rental of the farmland shall be increased
proportionally making it 15 cavans per hectare per cropping (28 cropping
from 2008 to present).

Petitioner prays for the decision to be rendered in their favor and

for an Order be issued directing the respondents to vacate the subject
landholding and to pay the petitioner the back rentals from 2008.

Summons and Notices of Hearing was served upon the

respondents.

2 Annex A in the Petition

DECISION
Santos., Et.Al., v. Feliciano., Page 3 of 7
DARAB Case No. 7500’NNE’22
X-------------------------------X

An Answer was filed by the respondent through counsel wherein he

averred that: The petitioners and herein respondent are co-owners of
OCT- No. 1254. Herein respondent are the successors -in- interest of the
late Monica Feliciano (Monica), being the son of the late Agripino
Feliciano (Agripino) who was the compulsory heir and successor -in-
interest of Monica as evidenced by the hereto attached copy of the
Marriage Contract3, and copies of the Birth Certificates4; The late Monica
was one of the three (3) registered co-owners of the undivided area of
Three Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand Thirty-Four (348,034) square
meters of agriculture land situated in Barangay San Antonio, Nueva
Ecija as per its Original Certificate of Title 5; The claim of the petitioners
that herein respondent is bound by the alleged leasehold relationship is
totally misleading. First, petitioner had failed to point out the
landholding mentioned in the alleged lease contract; Second, the
allegations of the petitioner of the alleged judicial partition is a
categorical admission of the co-ownership of the undivided landholding,
as evidence by the dismissal in the Order in SPL Civil Case No. 9- SD
(2004)6; it is elementary in law that a landowner cannot be a tenant of
his own land, thereof, the late Agripino as successor in interest of Monica
Feliciano, one of the registered co-owners, and the herein respondent
which in his own rights is a successor -in- interest of the late Agripino to
the undivided landholding covered by OCT 1254 cannot be regarded as
tenants of their own land which they acquired by virtue of succession;
The instant petition is not an agrarian dispute on issue of tenancy
relation but purely on the issue of possession which the Board has no
jurisdiction. Under Article 539 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, it
provides: Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession;
and should be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to
said possession by means established by the laws and the Rules of
Court.

3 Annex 1 in the Answer

4 Annex 2 in the Answer
5 Annex 3 in the Answer
6 Annex 4 in the Answer
DECISION
Santos., Et.Al., v. Feliciano., Page 4 of 7
DARAB Case No. 7500’NNE’22
X-------------------------------X

In an Order dated June 27, 2022, the parties were given Fifteen
(15) days to file their respective Position Papers. Thereafter, the case will
be submitted for resolution. Both parties complied with the said Order.

A perusal of the records shows that the pertinent issue to be

resolved in this case pertains to:

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE

REMOVE FROM THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING

We rule in the NEGATIVE.

Aside from the admission of the petitioner in his Petition and

Position Paper that there is no tenancy relationship between him and the
respondent, it is also clear that the respondent cannot be a tenant to the
subject landholding due to the fact that he is a descendant and
successor-in-interest of the late Monica, the registered co-owner of the
subject landholding based on the pieces of documentary evidence
submitted by the respondent such as the Marriage Contract of Agripino,
Birth Certificate and the copy of the OCT No. O-1254.

In order for the ejectment due to non-payment of lease rental to

prosper, the petitioner must prove that there is a tenancy relationship
between the landowner and the tenant. Failure to do so, the Board must
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

In the case of Rodolfo Arzaga., Et.Al., v. Alice Salvacion Copias.,

G.R No. 152404. March 28, 2003, the Supreme Court held that:

“In Monsanto v. Zerna, it was held that for DARAB to

have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy
relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy
agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to
establish all its indispensable elements to wit: (1) the parties
are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
(2) subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural
land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is
DECISION
Santos., Et.Al., v. Feliciano., Page 5 of 7
DARAB Case No. 7500’NNE’22
X-------------------------------X

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
the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.”
The Supreme Court also explained in the case of Vicente Adriano
v. Alice Tanco., Et.Al., G.R No. 168164. July 5, 2010 that:

“Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises

between a landowner and a tenant once they agree,
expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation of a
land belonging to the landowner, as a result of which
relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working
on and cultivating the land.

The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be

presumed and allegations that one is a tenant do not
automatically give rise to security of tenure”
In the same jurisprudence, the high court also explained that it is
the duty of the petitioner to prove the existence of tenancy relationship
between him and the respondent, to wit:

“It is well to stress that Vicente has the burden of proving

his affirmative allegation of tenancy. It is elementary that
he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the
burden of proof. And if the petitioner upon whom rests
the burden of proving his cause of action fails to show
in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases
his claim, the respondents are under no obligation to
prove their exception or defense.”

In an action against his co-owner, the RTC has jurisdiction in the

instant case as held in a similar case decided by the Supreme Court in
Eduviges B. Almazan v. Perla E. Bacolod., Et.Al., G.R No. 227529.
June 16, 2021, to wit:

“There is no landlord-tenant relationship between

the petitioner and the respondents. Petitioner clearly
and categorically stated in his Complaint that he and his
CO-OWNERS acquired the subject property from their
grandfather Agapito.

xxxxx
DECISION
Santos., Et.Al., v. Feliciano., Page 6 of 7
DARAB Case No. 7500’NNE’22
X-------------------------------X

It bears stressing that there is no nexus or connection

between petitioner, his co-owners and Agapito, on the
one hand, and Erana on the other.
xxxxx
There being no relationship between the
petitioner, his co-owners, and predecessors-in-interest
with the respondents, then obviously, the element of
consent is likewise wanting.

xxxxx

In fine, the agrarian laws that grant the DARAB

exclusive jurisdiction to rule on agrarian disputes, as well
as those which provide the landless farmers security of
tenure and protect them against eviction from the
landholdings, are without a doubt, laudable. However,
these rights, sacred as they are, may not be enforced
against strangers or those who have not consented to the
relationship, personally or through their predecessors. In
the case at bar, justice would best be served by
allowing the parties to thresh out their allegations
and defenses in a full-blown HEARING BEFORE THE
RTC, WHICH HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ACTION to
quiet title Certainly a complete resolution of the case will
benefit both parties as it will finally settle their respective
rights over the subject property.

Considering that the respondent is not a tenant but a co-owner of

the subject landholding, the Board cannot take cognizance of the instant
case and no other recourse but to deny the Petition for ejectment.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, the instant

Petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.

JOSEPH NOEL C. LONGBOAN

Presiding Adjudicator
Copy Furnished:

SARPO Alfredo Bondoc

DAR-BALA, Cabanatuan City

Orlando F. Gascon
Ruben Feliciano
DECISION
Santos., Et.Al., v. Feliciano., Page 7 of 7
DARAB Case No. 7500’NNE’22
X-------------------------------X

Eze Ganzagan
Both of San Antonio, Science City of Munoz