G.R. NO. 147081 - PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, VS. FRANCISCO GARCIA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated February 28, 1995 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered as follows: Affirming the coverage of the land in question under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. No. 27; Declaring the sale and transfer of the subject property under OLT coverage to respondent-appellee Bank as null and void ab initio for lack of legal and factual basis; Directing the respondent-appellee Bank to turn-over the questioned landholding to petitioner-appellant; Directing the MARO of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija to facilitate the generation of the necessary Emancipation Patent (E.P.) pursuant to the pertinent laws and guidelines. [7] PDB elevated the case to the CA which affirmed in toto the decision of the DARAB Appeal Board. Hence this petition. The main issues before us are as follows: 1) whether or not Garcia was an agricultural lessee of the predecessors of PDB under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27); 2) whether or not the transfer of the subject land to PDB was valid and 3) whether Garcia can redeem the land under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 (RA 3844), as amended by RA 6389. The land subject of this case is covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) pursuant to PD 27 [8] which laid down a system for the purchase by small farmers of the lands they tilled. Landowners of agricultural lands which were devoted primarily to rice and corn and exceeded the minimum retention area were compelled to sell their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions through the intercession of the government. A qualified tenant farmer was then issued a CLT. [9] On the first issue, PDB insists that the existence of a tenancy relationship between Garcia and Braulia Ortiz Cruz was never raised as an issue by Garcia because the latter only dwelt on his right of redemption. [10] However, in resolving the issue of the right of redemption, the question of tenancy must first be resolved. The existence or non-existence of a tenancy relationship was a question of fact resolved by the DARAB-Cabanatuan City against Garcia but decided in his favor by the DARAB Appeal Board and the CA. The CA held that: On the outset, it should be borne in mind that whether the respondent was indeed a tenant or laborer is a question of fact. In this regard, jurisprudence has provided the following requisites for tenancy relationship: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests. All these must concur to establish the juridical relationship of tenancy. There is no better and eloquent proof of the existence of the tenancy relationship between the respondent and Braulia Ortiz than the issuance in the former's favor of CLT No. 0-089665 over the subject parcel of land. Obviously, the afore-enumerated requisites have been met; otherwise, the said CLT coul