Heirs of Jesus Escobal v. Aleth Pagtananan

 

Heirs of Jesus Escobal v. Aleth Pagtananan

G.R. No. 232411

March 14, 2022

 

FACTS:

The subject of the complaint involved three parcels of land situated in Sabang, Pagsanjan Laguna, registered under the name of Alipio Cobarrubias, who passed away in 1965 and was survived by his spouse, Brigida Limuaco, and their eight children. A complaint was filed by Jesus Escobal against Aleth Pagtananan, one of the coheirs and respondents, before the PARAD. Escobal asserts that he is a tenant of the coco lands, comprising approximately three hectares, having been asked by Amor Cobarrubias (one of Alipio's children) in the year 2000 to cultivate the land in exchange for 1/5 of the net harvest in cash. Escobal contends that, following Amor's death in 2005, Aleth Pagtananan, the respondent, unlawfully and forcibly took over the coconut harvesting without his consent. Additionally, Escobal alleges destruction of his residential farmhouse and the filing of an ejectment complaint against him. PARAD declared Jesus Escobal as the legitimate tenant of the property and Escobal's immediate reinstatement, directed the respondent to respect his peaceful possession, and mandated the computation of back shares and the execution of an Agricultural Leasehold Contract. The DARAB affirmed this decision. However, the CA overturned it, dismissing the complaint. Escobal's heirs sought reconsideration, but the CA denied it. The dispute revolves around Escobal's tenancy rights and possession of the property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the finding of the DARAB that Escobal is entitled to security of tenure as a tenant of the subject properties.

HELD:

No. The existence of an agricultural tenancy cannot be presumed. It must be clearly and convincingly established by the person arguing its existence. In this case, Escobal failed to allege and prove these acts on the part of the co-owners to establish the existence of an implied agency. Even assuming that agency exists, the designation of Amor as manager/overseer does not give her the authority to enter into a tenancy agreement. The basis of agency is representation, that is, in order to bind the principal, an agent must perform acts within the scope of her authority. Even assuming as true the petitioners' allegation that Amor has been designated to administer the subject property, the same is an agency couched in general terms and extends only to acts of administration and does not extend to acts of strict dominion such as entering into a tenancy agreement. "The right to hire a tenant is a personal right of the landowner." The delegation to another of the exercise of such power must be unmistakably made, and the grant of consent clearly expressed. In this light, the absence of delegation and/or manifestation of consent from the rest of the co-owners of the subject property rendered the tenancy agreement invalid.