"In the light of the foregoing, the primary issue is the determination as to who, among the plaintiffs, the defendant PANALAG members and the intervenors, are qualified farmer-beneficiaries of subject landholdings.

"An evaluation of the evidence shows that indeed the late HERMOGENES CARDAMA was a civil law lessee. This has been strongly established by the receipts issued by defendant IRC evidencing the payment of lease rentals marked as Exhibit "A" dated January 11, 1984; Exhibit "B" dated March 29, 1984; Exhibit "C" dated December 11, 1985; Exhibit "D" dated February 23, 1987 issued by defendant GDC; and Exhibit "E" dated January 12, 1988 issued by said defendant GDC (Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 20, 1993 of plaintiff MAXIMA CARDAMA PUNONGBAYAN). Actually, said HERMOGENES CARDAMA is a civil law lessee of the 37.18 hectares of riceland situated in Barangays Bungalan (sic) and Loma, Biñan, Laguna which included the 10-hectare landholdings in controversy. This is evidenced by the letter dated January 13, 1988 of defendant GDC terminating the lease contract effective as of December 31, 1987 (Exhibit "1" of GDC’s Position Paper dated October 15, 1993). This compelled the plaintiffs to file with the RTC of Laguna against the defendants IRC and GDC for the protection of their security of tenure claiming, among others, that they were instituted as leasehold tenants by an officer of defendant IRC since 1987 with a (sic) five (5) cavans of palay as lease rental per hectare by reason of the fact that the area has yet to be cleared with talahib and tall grasses and that being an abandoned landholding, said plaintiffs had to reconstruct all the irrigation and distributory canals within their respective landholdings including the "pilapils" at their own expense; x x x

"WHEREFORE, in view herefrom, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered:

"1. DIRECTING the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer of the intervenors;

"2. Declaring the defendant PANALAG disqualified to be CARP Beneficiaries of the subject land;

"3. DIRECTING the defendant PANALAG members to vacate the subject landholdings and to surrender the possession thereof to the plaintiffs;

"4. DIRECTING defendants Independent Realty Corporation (IRC), Greenfield Development Corporation (GDC) and Data processing Service Corporation (DPSC) to vacate the premises and to surrender the possession of subject landholdings to the plaintiffs and directing further that said defendants or their agents acting in their behalves to cease and desist from bulldozing the landholding or performing other similar acts detrimental to the security of tenure of the plaintiffs;

"5. DIRECTING the DAR field office concerned to continue with its processing activities for CARP coverage of subject landholdings and for distribution to the plaintiffs; and

"6. DISMISSING for lack or insufficiency of evidence, the dismissal of the claims, counterclaims and cross-claims of the contending parties.

"In the case of plaintiffs, they base their right to succeed to the tenancy of their father Hermogenes Cardama whom they assert was the bona fide tenant since 1978, but the existence of Certificates of Land Transfer in the names of Montanez, Bawalan and Dicdican, all dated 1981, negated such an assertion, besides, Emiliana Batista was still the owner of the lot in 1978 which she sold to the corporations only in 1981. Plaintiffs further allege that Hermogenes Cardama was a tenant over the lot, yet their submitted rental receipts, namely, Annexes "B-1", "B-2", "C" and "C-1", dated March 29, 1984, December 11, 1985, February 23, 1987 and January 12, 1988, respectively, clearly show the payments were made on a lot located in another barangay (Bungahan), not in Loma where Lot 2653 is located, meaning that Hermogenes Cardama was a tenant of another farmlot owned by the corporations.

"Significantly, all the plaintiffs are claiming the right of tenancy succession, but Republic Act 3844 allows only one heir to succeed to the tenancy of the deceased tenant in the order of preference prescribed by Section 9 of the said law. Clearly the, plaintiffs cannot simultaneously claim the right to succeed. In the event, however, that Hermogenes Cardama will be considered a potential CARP beneficiary, he will be entitled to an area not exceeding three (3) hectares as mandated by Section 23 of Republic Act 6657. Thus,

"Furthermore, the act of Hermogenes Cardama in instituting Mariano Cardama and Eusebio Punongbayan, his son and son-in-law, respectively, at three (3) hectares each of Lot 2653 (p. 142 and 221, Rollo) is not sanctioned by our Agricultural Land Code, not only because it is considered an act of sub-leasing under Section 24(2) of Republic Act 1199 and Section 27 (2) of Republic Act 3844, but also because a tenant cannot institute another tenant over the same landholding he is tilling, without the consent of the landowner, more so when Hermogenes Cardama was not the lawful tenant over Lot 2653, but of other lands of the corporation located in Bungahan.

"At any rate, whether Lot 2653 is covered by Presidential Decree 27 or Republic Act 6657 including the identification of farmer-beneficiaries is an administrative determination that properly belongs to the exclusive competence of the Office of the DAR Secretary. This is rendered imperative by reason of the notice of coverage dated March 12, 1992 and the filing of the landowners’ application for the proposed conversion of subject land dated October 2, 1989 (Case Report on p. 270, Rollo)

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows:

"1. Disqualifying both Intervenors and PANALAG to become CARP beneficiaries of Lot 2653 and sustaining the cancellation of the certificate of land transfer in the names of Esperidion Montanez, Victor Bawalan and Domingo Dicdican;

"2. Declaring the late Hermogenes Cardama not the bona fide tenant of Lot 2653; and

‘3. Transmitting the records of the case to the Office of the DAR Secretary for further proceedings in view of the Notice of Coverage dated March 12, 1992 and the corporations’ application for land conversion dated October 2, 1989.

"DARAB’s conclusion does not find support in the evidence. Respondents Greenfield and Data in their comment made mention of an order dated 30 August 1990 issued by RTC Biñan, Laguna, in a case filed by Hermogenes Cardama, et al. to enjoin respondent corporations from dispossessing them, which dismissed the case in this wise:

"The abovequoted order is a clear indication that Hermogenes Cardama and company were the actual possessors of the land. It is unlikely that respondent corporations would enter into an agreement regarding the possession of the land with Hermogenes Cardama and company, if the latter do not have any legal basis for their right to the possession of the same.

"In proving that they are the actual tillers of the land, petitioners presented six receipts (annexes "A", "B", "C", "E", "F" and "G") of payments of lease covering the periods 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1988. Authenticity of these receipts was never disputed. DARAB and respondents Greenfield and Data, however, contend that some of the receipts allegedly refer to a different land owned by respondent Greenfield. Other than this assertion, however, respondents failed to rebut the other receipts which refer to the same land in dispute.

"In its findings, DARAB observed that the receipts (Annexes "B-1", "B-2", "C" and "C-1" dated 29 March 1984, December 11, 1985, February 23, 1987 and January 12, 1988, respectively), refer to a property in Barangay Bungahan not Barangay Loma. DARAB could have easily ascertained the location of the land by ordering an ocular inspection of the tenanted land or the respondent corporations could have requested for an ocular inspection to determine once and for all the veracity of the claim of petitioners.

x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The DARAB decision appealed from is modified in that the petitioners are hereby declared tenants in lot 2653, in accordance with the Provincial Adjudicators’ decision which is hereby reinstated particularly nos. 4 and 5 of the dispositive portion which states to wit:

"SO ORDERED."

"The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the findings of fact of the DARAB which were based on, at the very least, substantial evidence, and thus should have been final and conclusive upon the court a quo.

"The Court of Appeals failed to apply the law and jurisprudence by not summarily dismissing the case a quo on the ground of forum-shopping.

"The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that res judicata has not set in and barred the respondents’ action."

"JUDICIAL REVIEW

"Section 54. Certiorari. - Any decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari except as otherwise provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.

"The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence." (Emphasis ours.)

"‘Substantial evidence’ means more than a mere scintilla; it is of a more substantial and relevant consequence and excludes vague, uncertain and irrelevant matter, implying a quality of proof which induces conviction and makes an impression on reason.

"Plainly, evidence would not be ‘substantial,’ that is to say strong and positive, if it does not afford a foundation or premise upon which the point at issue could be reasonably based. And the conclusion of fact would not be reasonable or credible if it were reached without considering countervailing evidence.

"Enero 19, 1989

"Hermogenes Cardama

Bo. Timbao, Biñan, Laguna

"Sa Kinauukulan:

"Tapos na po ang taong 1988, samakatuwid ay tapos na rin po ang ating kontrata. Ipinababatid ko po sa inyo na simula sa taong 1989 ay ang kumpanya na ang magpapatrabaho sa mga bukid at hindi na ito pauupahan dahil malapit ng isagawa ang mga proyekto ng kumpanya.

Ipinababatid ko rin po sa inyo na kayo ay mayroon pang pagkakautang sa kumpanya na bayad sa inyong pangungupahan sa lupa. Ang inyong pagkakautang sa mga nakaraang taon ay ang mga sumusunod:

"Dahil dito, kayo ay binibigyan ng kumpanya ng palugit na panahon upang bayaran ang inyong pagkakautang. Kung hindi kayo makakabayad hanggang katapusan ng buwang ito (Enero 31, 1989), mapipilitan kaming gumawa ng hakbang sang-ayon sa batas upang masingil ang inyong utang. Kung may tanim pa kayong palay at hindi pa bayad sa utang, ito ay itinuturing na isinusulit na sa kumpanya bilang inyong kabayaran.

"Kung may nais magbayad ng utang, magpunta lamang kayo sa aming opisina sa Carmona, Cavite at makipagkita kay Mr. Ver Cueno o kay Mr. Lito Averion.

"Inaasahan ko po ang inyong kooperasyon sa bagay na ito tulad ng dati.

"Salamat po.

(SGD.)

RENATO E. LIRIO

Sr. Vice-President

"Undeniably, the land is not cultivated by Hermogenes Cardama alone but with other tenants who are likewise qualified and who are related to him. Thus, it can be said that the entitlement of the other possessors is not by virtue of succession to the rights of a predecessor-in-interest, but in their individual capacity as tenants therein simultaneously with an ascendant. It is to be noted that the land herein involved is more than 10 hectares which cannot be personally cultivated by Hermogenes Cardama alone.

"Under Section 22 of RA 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, those entitled to the award of the land are:

"Being the agricultural lessees on the land, petitioners are the qualified beneficiaries absent any showing that they have been validly ejected or removed therefrom."

"When the case was called for hearing today, both counsels manifested that they have reached an understanding regarding the possession of the land subject matter of this case, which understanding is acceptable to both parties and, therefore, are jointly asking for the dismissal of the case.