PANTALEONA L. PALAHANG, DARAB CASE NO.

19750
Petitioner-Appellee Reg. Case No. X-2081-LN-2017

-versus-

Evelyn D. BANDOJO
Defendant-Appellant
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION
This is an Appeal1 from the Decision dated December 21, 2018
rendered by Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) Carlito A. Sabuga-a, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

1. DECLARING the existence of tenancy relationship between herein

parties;
2. ORDERING defendant to reinstate petition as bonafide tenant to the
subject landholding;
3. ORDERING defendant and/or any person acting for and on her
behalf to respect the peaceful enjoyment and cultivation of the
petitioner over the subject landholding
4. DIRECTING the MARPO of Tubod to account the share of harvest
that petitioner should have made from the time she was unlawfully
ejected (2014) up to date and the same be paid by defendant to
herein petitioner; and
5. DIRECTING the MARPO of Tubod with the assistance of the
Provincial Sheriff to facilitate the execution of a Leasehold Contract
between herein parties in accordance existing DAR Policies and
Regulation governing the execution thereof.

Other claims of damages are hereby denied for lack of factual and
legal basis.

SO ORDERED.

1
Pp. 258-264, Rollo.
DECISION DCN 19750
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Pantaleona P. Palahang, petitioner, alleged, among others that she
and her deceased husband Estelito Palahang are the original and
recognized tenants of the late Andres Ducay, grandfather of herein
defendant Evelyn D. Bandojo, as early as 1960’s

That the landowner, Andres Ducay died sometime on 1994 hence,

herein petitioner became the tenant of one of the landowner’s heirs,
Natividad Ducay Meca.

That Natividad Ducay Meca also died later and was then succeeded
by her son, Reynan Meca, whom the petitioner used to give and remit the
shares of the harvest.

The petitioner, being a tenant, religiously continued giving her shares

of the harvest as 2/3 in favor of the landowner and 1/3 as her share

That after sometime, Reynan Meca decided to sell the subject

landholding to his cousin, Evelyn Bandojo herein defendant and daughter
of Zacarias Ducay, one of the heirs of Andres Ducay.

That under herein defendant’s supervision of the sold landholding,

petitioner gives its share of the harvest to a certain Marlon Lai, a copra
buyer, whom herein defendant authorized.

That such arrangement continued until sometime in 2014 when a

certain Enrico Villarico directed herein petitioner to stop harvesting on the
said landholding as per instruction by herein respondent.

That petitioner even brought the matter before the Barangay of

Tubaran but no settlement has been achieved.
DECISION DCN 19750
Page 3 of 5 Pages
That since 2014 up to the present, herein petitioner was illegally
dismissed by herein defendant by not allowing the former to perform her
obligations. In fact, she posted a tarpaulin on the subject landholding
ordering anyone not to enter the same.

On the other hand, defendant counter-alleged; that there are four (4)
sets of families that were tasked verbally to harvest, process the coconuts
into copra and sell these to designated copra buyers there by getting 1/3 of
the copra proceeds with all labor and expenses shouldered by landowner
except for the exaction of the coconut meat intended for copra processing
and herein petitioner was not one of them.

That since Mr. and Mrs. Lope Ducay left their assigned area,
defendant (being the mortgagee of a portion of the landholding of Reynan
Meca) assigned then Mr Lope Dudcay’s area to Miss Liza Mae R. Villarico,
who at present is the one cultivating the said portion of the land and doing
the harvesting of coconuts and processing of copra the proceeds of which
are share proportionately between mortgagee and her.

That Mrs Natividad Ducay Meca, defendant’s paternal aunt, died on

September 8, 2011; Reynan Meca did not succeed his mother because
there were two (2) living heirs then Reynan and his sister Alna Meca de
gracia who both shared their mother’s income.

That if ever the late Mrs Meca had her own set of tenants, it is not
known to defendant.

That Mr. Reynan Meca decided to sell the subject landholding to

herein defendant, his cousin, but the sale has not yet been perfected due to
some internal conditions.
DECISION DCN 19750
Page 4 of 5 Pages
On December 21, 2018, the PARAD issued the assailed decision in
favor of petitioner.

On July 14, 2019, defendant filed their motion for reconsideration 2 but
was DENIED by a resolution3 dated February 19, 2019.

The ISSUE in this case is whether PARAD erred in rendering the

assailed DECISION

The Board rules petitioner is still a tenant on TCT No. 12938 because
defendants failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove Reynan Meca
acquired TCT No. 12938 as his own personal property and not merely an
inherited property from his mother Natividad Ducay-Meca.

Defendants’ dispute the property which petitioner’s tenancy right

attaches. They argue that petitioner Palahang is not a tenant on the land
covered by TCT No. 12,938 because the land was not inherited by Reynan
Meca from his mother but was his own personal property. They state that
TCT No. 12938 was covered under Original Certificate of Title (P-115) 215
pursuant to a Free Patent granted on February 12, 1955. They aver that
the land they purchased was not tenanted and petition’s tenancy right
attaches from a different land, specifically it attaches to Reynan Meca
mother’s undivided property which was OCT No. P-2410. However,
following the rule on substantial evidence, the Board cannot still reasonably
infer if the property vendor, Reynan Meca owned TCT No. 12938 in his
own personal capacity absent defendants actually tracing the original
certificate of title of TCT No. 12938. This is in order to determine who is the
person whom the property vendor, Reynan Meca, derived his title from. If it
is proven TCT No. 12938 is indeed traced to another person not being his
mother then there may be merit to defendants claim that the property was
Reynan Meca’s personal property and not an inherited property.

2
Pp. 236-257, Rollo.
3
Pp. 266, Rollo.
DECISION DCN 19750
Page 5 of 5 Pages

Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1529 provides the TCT contains

information as to where the property was originally registered.
Section 43. Transfer Certificate of Title. The subsequent certificate of
title that may be issued by the Register of Deeds pursuant to any
voluntary or involuntary instrument relating to the same land shall be in
like form, entitled "Transfer Certificate of Title", and likewise issued in
duplicate. The certificate shall show the number of the next previous
certificate covering the same land and also the fact that it was
originally registered, giving the record number, the number of the
original certificate of title, and the volume and page of the registration
book in which the latter is found.

The findings of the Board must be based on substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion4. In this case, his
petition will not prosper absent evidence purporting to a copy of OCT (P-
115) 215 to prove that Reynan Meca did indeed acquire the title any other
person than his parent.

Wherefore, premises considered the decision dated December 21,

2018 is hereby AFFIRMED.

4
Ang Tibay is 69 Phil. 635 (1940).