G.R. NO. 143598 - EPITACIO SIALANA, VS. MARY Y. AVILA (DECEASED) SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, JAMES AVILA, EDWARD AVILA, JEORGE AVILA AND MILAGROS AVILA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing reasons, the instant suit is hereby DISMISSED for want of merit. Accordingly, [petitioner and his spouse] are directed to give the amounts of P6,094.29, P859.00 and the undeposited amount of P238.60, and P360.65 to the respondents to whom it is rightfully due for the mere use of the land in question. [7] The Regional DARAB found that although the petitioner and his spouse occupied the property in question, they failed to prove by substantial evidence that the landowners had given their prior consent; that the self-serving statements of petitioner cannot establish the tenancy relationship; and that the petitioner and his spouse delivered the shares of the produce not to respondents but to Alfonso Canoy and her mother, a certain Diosdada "Nang Daday" Canoy, the overseers appointed by respondents; that Alfonso Canoy turned over the shares to his mother and no other. Aggrieved, petitioner and his spouse appealed to the DARAB. On June 10, 1998, the DARAB promulgated its Decision reversing the Regional DARAB, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and a new judgment rendered: Declaring [petitioner and his spouse] as de jure tenants in the questioned landholding; and Ordering [respondents] to refrain from committing any act/acts that will disturb the peaceful possession of the [petitioner and his spouse] over the landholding in controversy or dispossess them from the same. SO ORDERED.