G.R. No. 136831 - CAROLINA LIQUETE GANZON,VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FLORISCO BANHAW, HONORATO BANHAW, ROLANDO BANHAW, IGMEDIO PAMA, ANGELINO ABELITA, RENATO ABELITA AND AMABLE ABELITA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs complaint is hereby DISMISSED. Likewise, in the absence of cogent evidence in support of defendants claim for damages, their counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED. [4] Petitioner, not satisfied with the decision of the trial court, pursued the case with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 35417). Meantime, it would appear that the DAR Secretary, acting on the referred case (Civil Case No. 16822) for preliminary determination, issued an order, dated 14 August 1991 or barely four months following the RTC decision dismissing petitioners case, holding that: A perusal of the Contract of Lease entered into by and between Carolina L. Ganzon, Plaintiff, and Florisco Banhaw, one of the defendants on July 11, 1974 shows that the same is a civil law lease contract and not an agricultural lease, the term or period of which was for three (3) years commencing from the crop year 1974-1975 up to and including the crop year 1976-1977. The consideration for the said contract is an annual payment of 220 cavans of palay by the lessee to the lessor payable within the month of February of every year. One important condition embodied in the contract is that the lessee cannot sub-lease the subject land to any other person. x x x x x x x x x Under the facts of this case, the investigation reports revealed that the lessee instituted his two children, namely, Nolasco and Honorato, both surnamed Banhaw, as well as his son-in-law, Amable Abelita, as tenants on the landholding in question. In the same manner, Angelino Abelita (another co-defendant) was instituted as tenant in the same landholding by the same Florisco Banhaw. Renato Abelita, son of Angelino Abelita, was instituted tenant therein by his father. We agree with the findings of the Regional Director which we find to be supported by substantial evidence that herein defendant Florisco Banhaw is a civil law lessee on the landholding in question and therefore he could not institute as tenants his co-defendants Honorato Banhaw, Nolasco Banhaw, Renato Abelita and Amable Abelita not only because they are immediate members of his farm household but because of the fact that under the expressed terms of the contract, the lessee cannot sublease the land to other persons. The same argument holds true in respect to the employment of Messrs. Angelino Abelita and Igmedio Pama. The argument that tenancy relation can be created with the consent of the lawful owner, lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor of the landholding is untenable. It is worthy to mention the case of Gabriel vs. De Leon where the Court ruled that `in order to determine the real intention and purpose of the parties in entering into this contract of lease, recourse has to be made to the clear and unequivocal provisions of the contract. [5] Petitioner gave stress to these pronouncements, made by then DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong, before the Court of Appeals to show that the trial court erred in its finding that respondents were