This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-07-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the parties do not appear to be the landowner and the tenants. While it appears that there was personal cultivation[34] by petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest of the subject landholding, what was established was that petitioners' claim of tenancy was founded on the self-serving testimony of petitioner Rodolfo Cornes that his predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the landholding for more than 30 years and had engaged in a "50-50" sharing scheme with JOSEFINA and JOSEFINA's grandmother, the previous owner thereof. Self-serving statements in pleadings are inadequate; proof must be adduced.[35] Such claims do not suffice absent concrete evidence to support them. The burden rests on the shoulders of petitioners to prove their affirmative allegation of tenancy, which burden they failed to discharge with substantial evidence. Such a juridical tie must be aptly shown. Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and from the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts.[36] The same rule applies to administrative cases. In fact, if the complainant, 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 respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense.[37] While it might have been shown and not contested that petitioners' predecessors-in-interest, namely JACINTO, PABLO, JUANITO and FRANCISCO[38] occupied the subject landholding as tillers thereof, the records support the fact that their occupancy was in the nature of hired laborers of JOSEFINA. This was the factual finding of the Provincial Adjudicator which was seconded by the Court of Appeals. On the other hand, there is evidence to support that the subject landholding was not tenanted. As can be gleaned from the Entry No. E-17-7182,[39] annotated on 2 June 1977 at the back of TCT No. 103275, covering the subject landholding in the name of JOSEFINA, the same was not tenanted. Moreover, Entry No. E-22-4361, dated 26 March 1982, also annotated on the aforesaid certificate of title, is explicit that the subject landholding is not tenanted. [40] Further, the records reveal that petitioners' predecesssors-in- interest, namely PABLO, JACINTO, FRANCISCO and JUANITO, executed an affidavit on 8 December 1988, attesting that they were working on the subject landholding as "hired laborers only." These facts taken together were deemed by both the Provincial Adjudicator and the Court of Appeals to be corroborative of the entries annotated on TCT No. 103275 that the subject landholding was indeed not tenanted, and that petitioners' predecessors-in- interest were hired laborers of JOSEFINA. Such type of occupation on the subject landholding does not create a presumption of tenancy in petitioners' favor. Clearly, the fact alone of working on another's landholding does not raise a presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy.[41] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, it would be fitting to mention that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised for the simple reason that the Court is not a trier of facts.[21] It is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.[22] This is especially true where the trial court's factual findings are adopted and affirmed by the CA as in the present case. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.[23] Here, both the RTC and the CA gave more credence to the respondents' title and found that the petitioners' occupation of the subject property was by the mere tolerance of the respondents. Accordingly, as far as this Court is concerned, these findings are already final. | |||||