This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The DAR Secretary affirmed the validity of the EPs in favor of the respondents only "pursuant to the Order of the Regional Director."[67] We note, however, that the evidence to establish in the proceedings below that they or their predecessors had been tenants of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest to make them the rightful beneficiaries of the Dakila property was severely wanting. For tenancy to exist, there must be proof that: (1) the parties are the landholder and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is consideration;[68] and (6) there is a sharing of the harvests. All these requisites are necessary to create a tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more of them will not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant.[69] 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 the existing tenancy laws.[70] Here, the consent to establish a tenant-landlord relationship was manifestly absent. In view of the petitioner's repeated denial of the tenancy, the respondents ought then to establish the tenancy relationship, but did not do so. Tenancy could not be presumed, but must be established by evidence; its mere allegation is neither evidence nor equivalent to proof of its existence.[71] | |||||