#14

CABALLES vs. DAR

G.R. No. 78214 December 5, 1988
YOLANDA CABALLES, petitioner, vs.
DEAR!"EN! O# AGRAR$AN RE#OR", %ON. %E%ERSON !. AL&ARE' ()* B$EN&EN$DO ABA+ON,
respondents.
#AC!S,
The landholding situated at Lawaan Talisay, Cebu which consists of only sixty (60)
suare !eters was acuired by the spouses "rturo and #olanda Caballes by virtue of a
$eed of "bsolute %ale dated &uly '(, )*+, executed by "ndrea -illenes .
.n )*+/, before the sale of the land in favor of the Caballes spouses, private
respondent 0ienvenido "ba1on constructed his house on a portion of the said
landholding, paying a !onthly rental of 2'.00 to the previous owner, "ndrea -illenes.
-illenes li3ewise allowed "ba1on to plant on a portion of the land, agreeing that the
produce thereof would be shared by both on a 4fty54fty basis. 6ro! )*+/5)*++, "ba1on
planted corn and bananas on the landholding. .n )*+,, he stopped planting corn but
continued to plant bananas and ca!ote.
%o!eti!e in -arch )*+*, after the property was sold, the new owners, "rturo and
#olanda Caballes, told "ba1on that the poultry they intended to build would be close to
his house and pursuaded hi! to transfer his dwelling to the opposite or southern portion
of the landholding. "ba1on o7ered to pay the new owners rental on the land occupied by
his house, but his o7er was not accepted. Later, the new owners as3ed "ba1on to vacate
the pre!ises, saying that they needed the property. 0ut "ba1on refused to leave. The
parties had a confrontation before the 0arangay Captain but failed to reach an
agree!ent. "ll the e7orts exerted by the landowners to oust "ba1on fro! the landholding
were in vain as "ba1on si!ply refused to budge.
8n "pril ), )*,', #olanda Caballes, executed an "9davit stating that i!!ediately
after she repri!anded "ba1on for harvesting bananas and 1ac3fruit fro! the property
without her 3nowledge, "ba1on, with !alicious and ill intent, cut down the banana plants
on the property worth about 2/0.00. " cri!inal case for m(-.c.o/s m.sc0.e1 was 4led
against "ba1on. (8bviously, all the planting on the property, including that of the banana
plants, had been done by "ba1on.)
CON!EN!$ON O# !%E S!A!E,
$":, through its new -inister, ;eherson "lvare<, held that said cri!inal case is not
proper for trial, since there is the existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties,
and that the case was designed to harass "ba1on into vacating his tillage. The Caballes
are legally bound to respect the tenancy of "ba1on, since "ba1on is still considered as an
agricultural tenant even if he is cultivating only a 605suare !eter portion of the
co!!ercial lot of the Caballes.
CON!EN!$ON O# !%E E!$!$ONER,
2ublic respondents, $": = ;on. "lvare<, gravely erred in holding that the cri!inal case is
not proper for trial and hearing by the court since the private respondent, "ba1on, is not
an agricultural tenant. (The cri!inal case for !alicious !ischief 4led against "ba1on
should be declared as proper for trial so that proceedings in the lower court can resu!e.)
RESOL2!$ON, The %C dis!issed the cri!inal case. They held that >The private
respondent can not be held cri!inally liable for !alicious !ischief in cutting the banana
trees because, as an authori<ed occupant or possessor of the land, and as planter of the
banana trees, he owns said crops including the fruits thereof. The private respondent?s
possession of the land is not illegal or in bad faith because he was allowed by the
previous owners to enter and occupy the pre!ises. .n other words, the private
respondent wor3ed the land in dispute with the consent of the previous and present
owners. Conseuently, whatever the private respondent planted and cultivated on that
piece of property belonged to hi! and not to the landowner. Thus, an essential ele!ent
of the cri!e of !alicious !ischief, which is @da!age deliberately caused to the 3ro3er45
o1 ()o40er ,@ is absent because the private respondent !erely c/4 *o6) 0.s o6)
3-()4.)7s . >