LEONARDA L. MONSANTO, petitioner, vs.

JESUS AND TERESITA

ZERNA AND COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
[G.R. No. 142501. December 7, 2001]
FACTS:
Respondent spouses, Jesus and Teresita Zerna, were charged with qualified
theft in Criminal Case No. 5896, filed before Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), which was later re-raffled and transferred to Branch 4 of Lanao del Norte.
The accused were overseers of some banana plants on a land principally
devoted to coconut trees owned by Leonarda Monsanto, herein petitioner, in Buruun, Iligan City. Sometime on February 25, 1995 to March 1995, having access to
said land, the accused confederated, with intent to gain and grave abuse of
confidence reposed in them by the owner, unlawfully and feloniously, harvested
and processed coconuts into copra, which earned them PHP 6,162.50. The accused
deposited to the barangay captain, PHP5, 162.50, less PHP 1,000.00 for labor
incurred during the process.
The RTC acquitted the spouses of the charge of qualified theft on July 24,
1996, absence the intent to gain, evinced by their act of depositing the proceeds of
the copra to the barangay captain. However, the court ruled that the accused are
not tenants of the petitioner, and the cash deposited to the barangay captain
belongs to the private complainant.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration to recover the sum of
PHP1, 000.00. On September 4, 1996, the trial court granted the motion and
ordered private respondents to comply therewith.

Leonarda L. Monsanto, petitioner vs. Jesus and Teresita Zerna and Court of Appeals, respondents

The counsel of the accused opposed the decision of the RTC. He averred
that the PHP1,000.00 was due to the accused as compensation for their labor, and
equity demands that they be entitled to it, as the Court has dismissed the criminal
case against them.
The motion raised another issue whether or not the accused are entitled to
the PHP1,000.00 as compensation for their labor in harvesting and processing the
coconut into copra?
The Court found that equity was wanting in the case: 1) absence of consent
by the complainant in the harvesting and processing of coconuts into copra, and 2)
devoid of good faith because the accused did the act in an attempt to confirm their
tenancy claim.
On review, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that the RTC had no jurisdiction
to order private respondents to pay the petitioner the amount of PHP1, 000.00. The
dispute fell within the primary and exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), as the case
involved an agricultural tenancy relationship. Given that RTC had no jurisdiction
to rule on the civil aspect of the case, ergo, it had no appellate authority over the
matter under a writ of error.
Hence, this Petition.

Leonarda L. Monsanto, petitioner vs. Jesus and Teresita Zerna and Court of Appeals, respondents

ISSUES

1) Is the Regional Trial Court automatically divested of jurisdiction over a

criminal case where an agrarian issue is raised as a defense?
2) For DARAB to acquire jurisdiction, is there tenancy relationship between
the parties?

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition devoid of merit.

1) DARAB Jurisdiction
Petitioner claimed that the RTC was divested of its criminal
jurisdiction when its September 4, 1996 Order was annulled and set aside by
the CA.
The Supreme Court (SC) disagreed. The CA Decision merely set
aside the September 4, 1996 RTC Order directing private respondents to
pay PHP1, 100.00 to petitioner. It did not annul the July 24, 1996 RTC
Decision acquitting private respondents of qualified theft. The judgment of
acquittal became final immediately after promulgation and cannot be
recalled for correction or amendment.
The RTC ordered the return of PHP1, 000.00 as part of the civil
aspect of the criminal case, the respondents, devoid of equity or any law in
their favour, are not entitled to compensation for their vexatious acts. The
order, however, is inconsistent with the Courts finding that private
respondents had not committed the crime of qualified thief, no civil liability
Leonarda L. Monsanto, petitioner vs. Jesus and Teresita Zerna and Court of Appeals, respondents

can arise from the action as a consequence thereof. The liability of the
defendant to return the amount received by him is not enforceable in the
criminal case but in a civil action. On the set of facts presented, the RTC did
not acquire jurisdiction to impose a civil liability to the accused, who were
acquitted.
SC upheld the CA ruling that the resolution of the issue as to who is
entitled to the PHP1, 000.00 is within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. EO
229 vested the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) with quasi-judicial
powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, as well as to
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform.
Section 13 of EO 129-A, created the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB), tasked with the power and the function to
decide agrarian reform cases. The DARAB, under Section 1, paragraph (a),
Rule II of the Revised Rules of Procedure, exercises primary jurisdiction -both original and appellate -- to determine and adjudicate all agrarian
disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the
implementation of agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations.
2) Tenancy relationship
For DARAB to have jurisdiction of the case, the tenancy relationship
between the parties must first, be established. The essential elements of
tenancy relationship are: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or
Leonarda L. Monsanto, petitioner vs. Jesus and Teresita Zerna and Court of Appeals, respondents

agricultural lessee; 2) subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural

land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the
purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) there
is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6)
the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee.
Petitioner claimed that private respondents were not her tenants.
Respondent raised the issue of tenancy to escape prosecution for qualified
theft.
Upon review of the records of the case, the SC held that an agrarian
dispute existed between the parties. First, the subject of the dispute between
them was the taking of coconuts from the property owned by
petitioner. Second, private respondents were the overseers of the property at
the time of the taking of the coconuts.
The SC determined that there was a tenancy relationship between and
among the parties: 1) the subject of the dispute was the taking of coconuts
from the property of the petitioner; 2) private respondents were overseers of
the property at the time they perpetrated the act, as evidenced by the
Kasabutan or Agreement entered by the parties on November 25, 1991,
which states,
I, MRS. LEONARDA L. MONSANTO, am the owner of that land
located at Tonggo, Mimbalot, Buru-un, Iligan City. This JESUS
[Z]ERNA, whose wife is TERESITA ZERNA, had requested that he be
allowed to oversee Mrs. Monsantos banana plants under the agreement
that he (Jesus Zerna) would be paid for his labor for each banana plant
cut in Tonggo.

Leonarda L. Monsanto, petitioner vs. Jesus and Teresita Zerna and Court of Appeals, respondents

When I (Jesus Zerna) no longer want to oversee or wish to stop

overseeing, Mrs. Leonarda Monsanto cannot force me to continue in the
same way that I cannot force Mrs. Monsanto to hire me if my services are
no longer needed.

3) petitioner allowed private respondents to plant coconut, coffee, jackfruit

and cacao as shown by the Agreement which provides,
And if I (Jesus Zerna) can plant coconut trees on the land, I will
be paid for them according to their ages. I (Jesus Zerna) am also allowed
to plant coffee, jackfruit and cacao, under the same agreement.

and 4) a tenurial arrangement exists with regard to the harvesting of the

agricultural products shown by several remittances made by respondents,
substantiated with receipts.
SC held that a tenancy relationship may be established either verbally
or in writing, expressly or impliedly. In the case at bar, the petitioner cannot
dispute the existence of Kasabutan, which contradicts her contention that
respondents were mere overseers, which does not foreclose their being
tenants. As such, the resolution of the agrarian dispute between the parties is
a matter beyond the legal competence of the regular courts.

The determination of who is the rightful owner of the PHP1, 000.00, balance
of the proceeds from the copra sale, is inextricably intertwined with the
resolution of the agrarian dispute between them.
SC ruled that the CA did not commit error in holding that the DARAB had
the jurisdiction upon the civil matter.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and
Resolution are AFFIRMED.
Leonarda L. Monsanto, petitioner vs. Jesus and Teresita Zerna and Court of Appeals, respondents