Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Title Facts Issue/s
Association of Small GR No. 79777: PD 27, EOs 228
Landowners v. DAR Secretary & 229 – Nicolas Manaay and his
GR Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, wife own a 9-hectare riceland;
and 79777 while Agustin Hermano, Jr.
14 July 1989 owned 5. They both have four
Cruz, J. tenants each on their respective
landholdings, who were declared
full owners of the said lands by
EO 228 as qualified farmers
under PD 27.
The Manaays and Hermano
question the constitutionality of
PD 27 and EOs 228 and 229.
GR No. 79310: PP 131, EO 229
– Landowners and sugar planters
in the Victorias Mill District in
Negros, as well as Planters’
Committee, Inc. seek to prohibit
the implementation of PP 131
and EO 229 for being violative
of the constitutional provisions
on just compensation, due
process, and equal protection.
Subsequently, the National
Federation of Sugarcane Planters
(NASP), Manuel Barcelona, and
Prudencio Serrano filed their
own petitions, which also
assailed the constitutionality of
the abovementioned statutes.
GR No. 79744: EOs 228 & 229
– Inocentes Pabico alleges that
the then DAR Secretary placed
his landholding under the
coverage of OLT, in violation of
due process and the requirement
for just compensation.
Certificates of Land Transfer
were subsequently issued to
Ruling
W/N PD 27, PP 131, and EOs YES. The promulgation of PD
228 and 229 were validly 27 by Pres. Marcos in the
enacted. exercise of his powers under
martial law has already been
sustained and there is no reason
to modify or reverse it on that
issue. As for the power of Pres.
Aquino to promulgate PP 131
and EOs 228 & 229, the same
was authorized by Sec. 6 of the
Transitory Provisions of the
1987 Constitution. Significantly,
the Congress she is alleged to
have undercut has not rejected
but in fact substantially affirmed
the challenged measures and has
specifically provided that they
shall be suppletory to RA 6657
whenever not inconsistent with
its provisions.
W/N the CARP fund provision in NO. PP 131 is not an
PP131 conforms to the appropriation measure even if it
requirements of a valid does provide for the creation of
appropriation. the said fund, for that is not its
principal purpose. An
appropriation law is one the
primary and specific purpose of
which is to authorize the release
of public funds from the
treasury. The creation of the fund
is only incidental to the main
objective of the proclamation,
which is agrarian reform.
W/N PP 131 and EO 229 should NO. This argument is no longer
be invalidated because they do tenable because RA 6657 does
not provide for retention limits. provide for such limits now in
Section 6 of the law. As such,
landowners who were unable to
exercise their rights of retention
under PD 27 shall enjoy the
retention rights granted by RA
Doctrine
To the extent that the measures
under challenge merely prescribe
retention limits for landowners,
there is an exercise of police
power for the regulation of
private property in accordance
with the Constitution. But where,
to carry out such regulation, it
becomes necessary to deprive
such owners of whatever lands
they may own in excess of the
maximum area allowed, there is
definitely a taking under the
power of eminent domain for
which payment of just
compensation is imperative.
Title to all expropriated
properties shall be transferred to
the State only upon full payment
of compensation to their
respective owners.
Obiter: One of the basic
principles of the democratic
system is that where the rights of
the individual are concerned, the
end does not justify the means.
There is no question that not
even the strongest moral
conviction or the most urgent
public need, subject only to a few
notable exceptions, will excuse
the bypassing of an individual’s
rights. It is no exaggeration to
say that a person invoking a
right guaranteed under Art III of
the Constitution is a majority of
one even as against the rest of
the nation who would deny him
that right.
1
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

tenants, who then refused to pay 6657 under the conditions

lease rentals to him. He then
protested the erroneous inclusion
of his small landholding under
OLT and asked for the recall and
cancellation of the said CLTs,
which was denied without
hearing. Although he filed an
MR, EOs 228 and 229 were
issued, rendering his MR moot
and academic because the said
EOs directly effected the transfer
of his land to his farmers-tenants.
GR No. 78742: PD 316 – The
Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines
invokes the right of retention
granted by PD 27 to owners of
rice and corn lands not exceeding
7 hectares as long as they are
cultivating or intend to cultivate
the same. Their respective lands
do not exceed the statutory limit
but are occupied by tenants who
are actually cultivating such
lands.
Because PD 316 provides that no
tenant-farmer in agricultural
lands primarily devoted to rice
and corn shall be ejected or
removed from his farmholding
until such time as the respective
rights of the tenant-farmers and
the landowner shall have been
determined, they petitioned the
Court for a writ of mandamus to
compel the DAR Secretary to
issue the IRR, as they could not
eject their tenants and so are
unable to enjoy their right of
retention.
W/N the assailed statutes violate
the equal protection clause.
W/N the assailed statutes are
valid exercises of police power.
therein prescribed.
NO. The petitioners have not
shown that they belong to a
different class and entitled to a
different treatment. The
argument that not only
landowners but also owners of
other properties must be made to
share the burden of
implementing land reform must
be rejected. There is a substantial
distinction between these two
classes of owners that is clearly
visible except to those who will
not see.
YES. The subject and purpose of
agrarian reform have been laid
down by the Constitution itself,
which satisfies the first
requirement of a lawful subject.
However, objection is raised to
the manner of fixing the just
compensation, which it is
claimed is entrusted to the
administrative authorities in
violation of judicial prerogatives.
However, there is no
arbitrariness in the provision, as
the determination of just
compensation by the DAR is not
by any means final and
conclusive upon the landowner
or any other interested party,
because the law provides that the
determination made by the DAR
is only preliminary unless
accepted by all parties
concerned. Otherwise, the courts
will still have the right to review
with finality the said
determination.
2
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Sigre v. CA Matias Yusay owned a parcel of
GR Nos. 109568 and 113454 irrigated rice land in Iloilo, in
8 August 2002 which Ernesto Sigre was a
Austria-Martinez, J. tenant. Sigre previously had been
paying Yusay a lease rental of 16
cavans per crop, but stopped
paying in 1991-92. Instead, he
W/N the content and manner of
just compensation provided for
in the CARP Law is violative of
the Constitution.
W/N the CARP and EO 228
contravene a well-accepted
principle of eminent domain by
divesting the landowner of his
property even before actual
payment to him in full of just
compensation.
W/N PD 27 sanctions MC 6.
NO. Although the traditional
medium for payment of just
compensation is money and no
other, what is being dealt with
here is not the traditional
exercise of the power of eminent
domain. This is a revolutionary
kind of expropriation, which
involves not mere millions of
pesos. The initially intended
amount of P50B may not be
enough, and is in fact not even
fully available at this time. The
invalidation of the said section
will result in the nullification of
the entire program.
NO. EO 228 categorically stated
that all qualified farmer-
beneficiaries were deemed full
owners of the land they acquired
under PD 27, after proof of full-
fledged membership in the
farmers’ cooperatives and full
payment of just compensation.
The CARP Law, for its part,
conditions the transfer of
possession and ownership of the
land to the government on
receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the
deposit by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP
bonds with an accessible bank.
Until then, title also remains with
the landowner.
YES. It was pursuant to PD 27 The power of subordinate
that MC 6 was issued by the legislation allows administrative
DAR. The Circular was meant to bodies to implement the broad
remedy the situation where the policies laid down in a statute by
tenant-farmer’s lease rentals to “filling in” the details. All that is
the landowner were not credited required is that the regulation
in his favor against the should be germane to the objects
3
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
remitted the payments to the
LBP pursuant to DAR’s
Memorandum Circular No. 6
(MC 6), which set the guidelines
in the payment of lease
rental/partial payment by farmer-
beneficiaries under the land
transfer program of PD 27.
Lilia Gonzales, co-administratrix
of Yusay’s estate, filed a petition
for prohibition and mandamus
with the CA, seeking to prohibit
the LBP from accepting Sigre’s
leasehold rentals. According to
Gonzales, she had no notice that
DAR had already fixed the value
of the land. Her petition also
assails the validity of MC 6 and
PD 27.
The CA then declared MC 6 null
and void, and directed the LBP
to return to Gonzales the lease
rentals paid by Sigre, and Sigre
to pay the rentals directly to
Gonzales.
W/N an irreconcilable conflict
exists between PD 816 and MC
6, such that PD 816 must prevail
over MC 6.
W/N PD 27 is unconstitutional
for setting limitations on the
judicial prerogative of
determining just compensation.
W/N RA 6657 superseded or
repealed PD 27.
determined purchase price of the and purposes of the law; that the
land, thus making him a regulation be not in contradiction
perpetual obligor for said to but in conformity with the
purchase price. Since the assailed standards prescribed by law.
Circular essentially sought to
accomplish the noble purpose of
PD 27, it is therefore valid.
NO. PD 816 provides that the
tenant-farmer shall pay lease
rentals to the landowner until the
value of the property has been
determined or agreed upon by
the landowner and the DAR. On
the other hand, MC 6 mandates
that the tenant-farmer shall pay
to the LBP the lease rental after
the value of the land has been
determined. Thus, there is no
incompatibility between these
two. On the contrary, the two
supplement each other as they set
the guidelines for the payments
of lease rentals on the
agricultural property.
NO. Jurisprudence has upheld
the constitutionality of the said
decree. Moreover, the
determination of just
compensation under PD 27 is not
final or conclusive, because
unless both the landowner and
the tenant-farmer accept the
valuation by DAR, the parties
may bring the dispute to court in
order to determine the
appropriate amount of
compensation.
NO. According to EO 229, PD
27 as amended shall continue to
operate with respect to rice and
corn lands, covered thereunder.
4
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Office of the President v. CA and Aurora Tinio-Reyes owned 24
Heirs of Jose Reyes hectares of land in Nueva Ecija,
GR No. 131216 which she bequeathed to her 9
19 July 2001 children upon her death, one of
Pardo, J. which was Jose.
When Jose tried to get a TCT
over his lot, he was told that he
first needed a clearance from the
DAR attesting to the non-
inclusion of his land in the OLT.
However, the PARO ruled that
his land was covered under the
OLT.
The DAR then issued 12 TCTs
in his favor after he appealed the
PARO Decision. However,
subsequently, the Secretary of
the Office of the President
affirmed the PARO as Aurora’s
will was not registered prior to
PD 27’s effectivity, and thus
could not bind third persons.
When Jose appealed, the CA
reversed the Secretary’s Order.
Corpuz v. Grospe Gavino Corpuz was a farmer-
GR No. 135297 beneficiary under the OLT
8 June 2000 Program of the DAR. Pursuant to
Panganiban, J. PD 27, he was issued a
certificate of land transfer over 2
parcels of agricultural land.
Corpuz then mortgaged the land
to the Grospes. In their mortgage
contract, Corpuz allowed the
spouses Grospe to use or
W/N Jose’s land should be
covered by the OLT under RA
6657 or PD 27.
W/N the waiver of rights is
contrary to agrarian law.
Whatever provisions of PD 27
that are not inconsistent with RA
6657 shall be suppletory to the
latter, and all rights acquired by
the tenant-farmer under PD 27
are retained even with the
passage of RA 6657.
NO. There is no doubt that the Seizure only takes effect on the
original landholding of Aurora, payment of just compensation.
consisting of 24 hectares of
Riceland tenanted by farmers
was covered by PD 27. However,
the expropriation of the
landholding did not take place on
the effectivity of PD 27, as the
seizure only takes effect on the
payment of just compensation;
and the DAR had not even
determined the just
compensation for the taking of
the landholding when it decreed
that the land was under the
coverage of RA 6657. Moreover,
when Aurora died and her
children inherited the land, they
only acquired 2.5 hectares each,
which is decidedly within the
retention area of 7 hectares under
PD 27, or 5 hectares under RA
6657.
YES. The sale or transfer of Voluntary surrender, as a mode
rights over a property covered by of extinguishment of tenancy
a Certificate of Land Transfer is relations, does not require court
void except when the alienation approval as long as it is
is made in favor of the convincingly and sufficiently
government or through proved by competent evidence.
hereditary succession. This
ruling is intended to prevent a Obiter:
reversion to the old feudal The farmers’ cooperatives were
system in which the landowners established to provide a strong
reacquire vast tracts of land, thus social and economic
5
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
cultivate the land during the
duration of the mortgage.
Corpuz subsequently instituted a
complaint which alleged that the
Grospes had entered the disputed
land by force and destroyed the
palay that he had planted on it.
However, according to the
Grospes, Corpuz had already
executed a “Waiver of Rights”
over the landholding in favor of
the spouses in consideration of
P54k.
Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator Ernesto Tabara ruled
that Corpuz abandoned and
surrendered the landholding to
the Samahang Nayon of Nueva
Ecija. Said Samahang Nayon
even passed Resolution Nos. 16
and 27 recommending the
reallocation of said lots to the
Grospes, who were the “most
qualified farmers-beneficiaries.”
The DARAB and the CA both
affirmed the Decision.
Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary In 1988, RA 6657 was approved
GR No. 86889 by the President of the
4 December 1990 Philippines. It includes the
Paras, J. raising of livestock, poultry, and
swine in its coverage.
In 1989, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform promulgated
the IRR of Secs. 11, 13, and 39
of the said law.
Luz Farms, a corporation
engaged in the livestock and
poultry business, allegedly
stands to be adversely affected
by the enforcement of certain
W/N Corpuz had abandoned his
landholding.
W/N Corpuz had voluntarily
surrendered his landholding.
W/N the CARL should include
the raising of livestock, poultry
and swine in its coverage.
negating the government’s organization to ensure that the
program of freeing the tenant tenant-farmers will enjoy on a
from the bondage of the soil. lasting basis the benefits of
agrarian reform.
NO. Corpuz’ surrender of
possession did not amount to an
abandonment because there was
an obligation on the part of the
Grospes to return possession of
the landholding upon full
payment of the loan. There was
no clear, absolute, or irrevocable
intent to abandon.
YES. Corpuz’ intention to
surrender the landholding was
clear and unequivocal. He signed
his concurrence to the Samahang
Nayon Resolutions. His
voluntary surrender to the
Samahang Nayon qualifies as a
surrender or transfer to the
government because such action
forms part of the mechanism for
the disposition and the
reallocation of farmholdings of
tenant-farmers who refuse to
become beneficiaries of PD 27.
NO. It was never the intention of Raising of livestock, poultry, and
the framers of the Constitution to swine are excluded from the
include the livestock and poultry coverage of the CARL.
industry in the coverage of the
agrarian reform program of the
government. The intention of the
Committee was to limit the
application of the word
“agriculture”. Thus, Section II of
RA 6657 which includes “private
agricultural lands devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry,
and swine raising” in the
definition of “commercial farms”
is invalid, to the extent that the
aforecited agro-industrial
6
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
sections of RA 6657, of the
Guidelines and Procedures
Implementing Production and
Profit Sharing under RA 6657,
and of the IRR of Section 11. It
prays that the aforesaid statutes
be declared unconstitutional.
Natalia Realty v. DAR PP 1637 set aside several
GR No. 103302 hectares of land in Antipolo, San
12 August 1993 Mateo, and Montalban as
Bellosillo, J. townsite areas to absorb the
population overspill in the
metropolis which were
W/N the requirement in Sections
13 and 32 of RA 6657 directing
“corporate farms” to execute and
implement “production-sharing
plans” is unreasonable for being
confiscatory and violative of due
process, with respect to livestock
and poultry raisers.
Separate Opinion: Sarmiento, J.
W/N the assailed provisions
violate the equal protection
clause of the Constitution.
W/N the Natalia properties were
validly converted from
agricultural to residential land.
activities are made to be covered
by the agrarian reform program
of the State.
YES. As there is no reason to
include livestock and poultry
lands in the coverage of agrarian
reform, there is no need to call
upon them to distribute from 3%
of their gross sales and 10% of
their net profits to their workers
as additional compensation.
NO. Substantial distinctions exist
between land directed purely to
cultivation and harvesting of
fruits or crops and land
exclusively used for livestock,
poultry and swine raising that
make real differences:
1. There are no tenants
nor landlords in
livestock and poultry
businesses;
2. Livestock and poultry
do not sprout from
land;
3. Land is not a primary
resource;
4. Livestock and poultry
production are
industrial activities;
5. Livestock and poultry
farmworkers are
covered by minimum
wage law rather than
by tenancy law.
YES. Natalia and EDIC Lands not devoted to agricultural
complied with all the activity are outside the coverage
requirements of law, even of CARL.
securing prior approval from
DAR. As a matter of fact, there “Agricultural land” refers to
was no need for Natalia and “land devoted to agricultural
7
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
designated as the Lungsod
Silangan Townsite, where
Natalia Realty’s properties were
situated. Estate Developers and
Investors Corporation (EDIC),
the developer of the Natalia
properties, was granted approval
to develop the said properties
into low-cost housing
subdivisions. The Natalia
properties then became the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
When the CARL came into
effect, the DAR issued a Notice
of Coverage on the undeveloped
portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision. Natalia immediately
registered its objection to the
said Notice and requested the
DAR Secretary to cancel the
same. However, members of the
Samahan ng Magsasaka sa
Bundok Antipolo (SAMBA)
filed a complaint against Natalia
and EDIC before the DAR
Regional Adjudicator to restrain
them from developing areas
under their cultivation. The RA
issued a writ of Preliminary
Injunction. Natalia and EDIC
appealed to the DARAB but the
latter merely remanded the case
to the RA. Natalia then requested
the DAR Secretary to set aside
the Notice of Coverage. Neither
the DAR Secretary nor the DAR
Director concerned took action
on the protest letters.
Morta v. Occidental Jaime Morta and Purificacion
GR No. 123417 Padilla filed a suit against Jaime
10 June 1999 Occidental, Atty. Mariano
Pardo, J. Baranda, and Daniel Corral, for
allegedly gathering pili nuts,
W/N the Natalia properties are
covered by the CARL.
W/N the cases are properly
cognizable by the DARAB.
EDIC to do so because the activity, and not classified as
Natalia properties were within mineral, forest, residential,
the areas set aside for the commercial, or industrial land.”
Lungsod Silangan Reservation.
Since PP 1637 created the
townsite reservation for the
purpose of providing additional
housing to the burgeoning
population of Metro Manila, it in
effect converted for residential
use what were erstwhile
agricultural lands provided all
requisites were met.
NO. The undeveloped portions
of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision
cannot be considered as
“agricultural lands.” These lots
were intended for residential use.
They ceased to be agricultural
lands upon approval of their
inclusion in the Lungsod
Silangan Reservation.
NO. Since there is a dispute as to For DARAB to have jurisdiction
who is the rightful owner of the over a case, there must exist a
land, the issue is clearly outside tenancy relationship between the
DARAB’s jurisdiction. Whatever parties. In order for a tenancy
findings made by the DARAB agreement to take hold over a
8
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

anahaw leaves, and coconuts regarding the ownership of the dispute, it would be essential to
from their respective land and land are not conclusive to settle establish all its indispensable
destroying their banana and the matter. At any rate, whoever elements, to wit:
pineapple plants. Occidental is declared to be the rightful 1. That the parties are the
claimed that he was a tenant of owner of the land, the case landowner and the
the actual owner of the land, cannot be considered tenancy- tenant or agricultural
Josefina Baraclan, and that related for it still fails to comply lessee;
Morta and Padilla were not with the other requirements. 2. The subject matter of
actually the owners of the land in Assuming arguendo that Josefina the relationship is an
question. is the owner, then the case is not agricultural land;
between the landowner and 3. That there is consent
The trial court ruled in favor of tenant. If, however, Morta is the between the parties to
Morta and Padilla. Occidental, et landowner, Occidental cannot the relationship;
al. appealed, contending that the claim that there is consent to a 4. That the purpose of the
case was cognizable by the DAR landowner-tenant relationship relationship is to bring
Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). between him and Morta. Thus, about agricultural
Thus, the RTC reversed the for failure to comply with the production;
lower court and ruled in favor of requisites, the issue involved is 5. That there is personal
Occidental, stating that the case not tenancy-related cognizable cultivation on the part
is a tenancy-related problem by the DARAB. of the tenant or
which falls under the exclusive agricultural lessee; and
jurisdiction of DARAB. The CA Dissent: Davide, CJ. 6. That the harvest is
affirmed the RTC. It is a tenancy-related issue shared between the
because whether it is Josefina or landowner and the
Morta who is the owner of the tenant or agricultural
land is no moment. It does not lessee.
affect Occidental’s tenancy.
Tenancy attaches to the land. The Limited jurisdiction of DAR:
cases filed by Morta and Padilla 1. Adjudication of all
were a clever way to defeat the matters involving
agrarian law. While the cases implementation of
were ostensibly for damages, agrarian reform;
they were, at bottom, a fight on 2. Resolution of agrarian
issues incident to or arising from conflicts and land-
an agrarian relationship. tenure related
problems; and
3. Approval and
disapproval of the
conversion,
restructuring, or
readjustment of
agricultural lands into
residential,
commercial, industrial,
9
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Monsanto v. Zerna Leonarda Monsanto owned a W/N an agrarian dispute existed YES.
GR No. 142591 parcel of land, wherein Jesus and between the parties. 1. The subject of the
7 December 2001 Teresita Zerna were overseers. In dispute between them
Panganiban, J. 1995, the Zernas harvested was the taking of
coconuts from the plantation coconuts from the
without Monsanto’s consent, and property owned by
processed them into copra for the Monsanto;
purpose of confirming their 2. The Zernas were the
claim that they are tenants of the overseers of the
land. It was alleged that the total property at the time of
amount that they actually made the taking of the
was P6,262.50; they deposited coconuts, as can be
P5,162.50 with the Barangay gleaned from their
Secretary of the locality, keeping Kasabutan;
the balance of P1,100.00 for their 3. Monsanto allowed the
labor. Zernas to plant
Monsanto instituted a criminal coconut, coffee,
case of qualified theft against the jackfruit, and cacao as
Zernas, but the Zernas were shown by the
acquitted for lack of criminal Kasabutan;
intent. The barangay captain of 4. A tenurial arrangement
the locality was ordered to return exists among herein
to Monsanto the money that the parties as regards the
Zernas deposited. Monsanto filed harvesting of the
an MR for the return of the agricultural products,
P1,100.00. as shown by the
several remittances
The court then ruled that since made by the Zernas to
the harvesting of the coconuts Monsanto,
and processing of the same into substantiated by
copra were not with the consent receipts.
of Monsanto, then they could not
be entitled to compensation for W/N the RTC was stripped of its NO. There is no question that the
their labor. criminal jurisdiction when the RTC had criminal jurisdiction to
CA annulled the Order regarding try the Zernas for the crime of
On appeal, the CA ruled that the the remaining P1,100.00. qualified theft. However, the
trial court had no jurisdiction to resolution of the issue of who is
order the Zernas to pay entitled to the P1,100.00 falls
Monsanto the P1,100.00. squarely within the jurisdiction
Because the dispute involved an of the DARAB, as it is an
agricultural tenancy relationship, agrarian dispute.
the matter fell within the primary
and other non-
agricultural uses.
The resolution of an agrarian
dispute is a matter beyond the
legal competence of regular
courts. The DARAB 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.
An agrarian dispute refers to any
controversy relating to tenurial
arrangements—whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship
or otherwise—over lands
devoted to agriculture, including
(1) disputes concerning farm
workers’ associations; or (2)
representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing, or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such
tenurial arrangement.
A tenancy relationship may be
established either verbally or in
writing, expressly or impliedly.
10
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
and exclusive jurisdiction of the
DARAB. It then annulled the
RTC order requiring the return of
the P1,100.00.
Sanchez v. Marin David Felix owned a fishpond.
GR No. 171346 Jaime Sanchez was instituted as
19 October 2007 a tenant on the said fishpond,
Chico-Nazario, J. with a 50/50 sharing agreement.
After a few years, Felix sold and
transferred ownership of the
subject fishpond to the Marins.
As new owners of the fishpond,
they entered into a civil law
agreement with their mother,
Zemaida, which was renewable
yearly.
Zenaida then made an
arrangement with Sanchez
wherein Sanchez would receive a
regular salary and a 20% share in
the net profit of the fishpond.
When her lease agreement with
her children expired, Zenaida
ordered Sanchez to vacate the
premises. Sanchez refused,
asserting that he was a tenant of
the fishpond and not a mere
contractual worker; hence, he
had the right to its peaceful
possession and security of
tenure. He then asked the court
to declare him as a tenant of the
subject fishpond, which
subsequently did.
As Sanchez was already declared
as an agricultural tenant of the
fishpond, he filed a petition to
the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) for the
fixing of leasehold rentals for his
use of the fishpond. However,
Zenaida countered this
W/N a fishpond is an agricultural NO. By virtue of Sec. 2, RA Fishponds are no longer
land. 7881, the operation of fishponds considered agricultural lands.
is no longer considered an
agricultural activity, and a parcel
of land devoted to fishpond
operation is no longer an
agricultural land.
W/N a tenurial arrangement YES. Although the fishpond is
exists between Sanchez and not covered by the CARL, it
Zenaida Marin. bears emphasis that Sanchez’
status as a tenant in the subject
fishpond and his right to security
of tenure were already previously
settled. Having been declared as
a tenant with the right to security
of tenure as provided by the law
enforced at the time of the filing
of the complaint, Sanchez has
acquired a vested right over the
subject fishpond. Therefore, even
if fishponds were later
excluded/exempted from CARL
coverage, and despite the fact
that no CLOA has been issued to
Sanchez, the same cannot defeat
the aforesaid vested right already
granted and acquired by Sanchez
long before the passage of RA
7881.
W/N the DARAB has YES. The present case was
jurisdiction over the case. instituted as early as 1991 when
the law applicable was still RA
6657, and fishponds and prawn
farms were not yet
exempted/excluded from the
CARL coverage. At that time,
there was an agrarian dispute
between the parties. Prior to the
11
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
application by filing a case with
the PARAD to eject Sanchez for
failure to pay the rent and for
failure to render an accounting.
The PARAD consolidated the 2
cases and ruled in favor of
Sanchez.
Zenaida appealed to the
DARAB, which affirmed the
PARAD decision. The CA
reversed the ruling, stating that
the DARAB lacked jurisdiction
over the case. It stated that Sec. 2
of RA 7881, which amended
Sec. 10 of RA 6657, excluded
private lands actually, directly,
and exclusively used for prawn
farms and fishponds from the
coverage of the CARL, so that
the operation of a fishpond is no
longer considered an agricultural
activity. Since the cases are not
agrarian disputes, then the
DARAB could not have validly
acquired jurisdiction over the
case.
Nuesa v. CA When Verdillo was issued an
GR No. 132048 “Order of Award” by the DAR
6 March 2002 Secretary over 2 parcels of land,
Quisumbing, J. it had a condition that Verdillo
should personally cultivate the
land, and pay at least the first
installment, within a period of 6
months.
21 years later, Verdillo filed an
application with the DAR for the
purchase of the said lots claiming
that he had complied with the
conditions set forth in the Order
of Award. Restituto Rivera
protested this application,
claiming that it was he who had
enactment of RA 7881 in 1995,
the case was already pending
appeal before the DARAB.
Hence, the aforesaid
amendments cannot be made to
apply to divest the DARAB of its
jurisdiction of the case. Once
jurisdiction is acquired by the
court, it remains with it until the
full termination of the case.
W/N the DARAB has NO. Verdillo and Rivera had no
jurisdiction over the case. tenurial, leasehold, or any
agrarian relations whatsoever
that could have brought this
controversy between them within
the ambit of an “agrarian
dispute.” Consequently, the
DARAB had no jurisdiction over
the controversy and should not
have taken cognizance of
Verdillo’s petition in the first
place.
W/N the DARAB acted in grave YES. The revocation by the
abuse of discretion. Regional Director of DAR of the
earlier Order of Award by the
DAR Secretary falls under the
While it bears emphasizing that
findings of administrative
agencies, which have acquired
expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters are accorded not
only respect but even finality by
the courts, care should be taken
that administrative actions are
not done without due regard to
the jurisdictional boundaries set
by the enabling law for each
agency.
The DAR is vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform
12
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
been in possession of the land
and had been cultivating the
same. He also filed his own
application for the said parcels in
opposition to that of Verdillo.
After the DAR’s investigation of
the conflicting claims, it found
that Verdillo violated the terms
of the Order of Award, and
cancelled the said Order. Hence,
Verdillo filed with the Provincial
Adjudication Board a petition for
the annulment of the said order.
Instead of filing an Answer to
the Petition, Rivera filed a
Motion to Dismiss. However, the
DARAB Provincial Adjudicator
chose to resolve the case on the
merits, and ruled in favor of
Verdillo. The DARAB and the
CA affirmed this decision.
Almuete v. Andres Since the National Resettlement
GR No. 122276 and Rehabilitation
20 November 2001 Administration (NARRA)
Ynares-Santiago, J. awarded a parcel of land to
Rodrigo Almuete in 1957, he and
his family exercised exclusive
W/N the case is an agrarian
dispute and, as such, falls under
the DARAB’s jurisdiction.
administrative functions of the
DAR. The DARAB and its
provincial adjudicator or board
of adjudicators acted erroneously
and with grave abuse of
discretion in taking cognizance
of the case, then overturning the
decision of the DAR Regional
Director and deciding the case on
the merits without giving Rivera
the opportunity to present his
case.
NO. The action filed by Almuete
before the trial court was for
recovery of possession and
reconveyance of title. The issue
to be resolved was who between
Almuete and Andres has a better
matters and shall have the
exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters involving the
implementation of the agrarian
reform program. The DARAN
has primary original and
appellate jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes, cases,
controversies, and matters or
incidents involving the
implementation of the CARP and
other agrarian laws and their
IRRs.
An “agrarian dispute” is defined
to include “any controversy
relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship, or otherwise over
lands devoted to agriculture,
including disputes concerning
farmworkers’ associations or
representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such
tenurial arrangements. It includes
any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired
under RA 6657 and other terms
and conditions of transfer and
other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the
disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and
beneficiary, landowner and
tenant, or lessor and lessee.
The jurisdiction of the DARAB
is limited to cases involving a
tenancy relationship between the
parties.
Elements of a tenancy
13
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

possession over it, cultivating it right to the subject property relationship:

and planting narra, fruit trees, considering that both of them are 1. The parties are the
rice, corn, and legumes thereon. awardees of the same property. It landowner and the
was thus a controversy relating tenant or agricultural
However, in 1979, an Agrarian to ownership of the farmland, lessee;
Reform Technologist represented which is beyond the ambit of the 2. The subject matter of
that Almuete could not be found phrase “agrarian dispute.” No the relationship is an
and that he had waived all his juridical tie of landowner and agricultural land;
rights as a NARRA settler. It was tenant was alleged between the 3. There is consent
also stated in the report that the parties, let alone that which between the parties to
actual owner of the land was would so characterize the the relationship;
Marcelo Andres, who was then relationship as an agrarian 4. The purpose of the
allowed to file his homestead dispute. Consequently, the RTC relationship is to bring
application. was competent to try and decide about agricultural
the case. Its decision was, thus, production;
After the issuance of an original valid and can no longer be 5. There is personal
certificate of title in favor of disturbed, after having attained cultivation on the part
Andres pursuant to his finality. Nothing more can be of the tenant or
homestead patent, he and 10 done with the decision except to agricultural lessee;
other armed persons entered the enforce it. 6. The harvest is shared
subject property and took between the landowner
possession of approximately half and the tenant or
of it. agricultural lessee.

Almuete quickly brought the

matter the DAR’s attention, and
learned of the cancellation of his
award and its subsequent titling
in favor of Andres. Almuete then
filed an action for reconveyance
and recovery of possession
against Andres, which was
granted by the court.

Andres then filed a petition for

certiorari with the CA, assailing
the trial court’s jurisdiction over
the nature as well as the subject
matter of the case. He argued
that since the subject property
was agricultural land covered by
a homestead patent, exclusive
jurisdiction was with the
DARAB, and not with the
14
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

regular courts. The CA ruled in

Andres’ favor, and declared the
ruling of the RTC as null and
void for lack of jurisdiction.
Chico v. CA Pedro Chico claims to be the
GR No. 122704 lawful owner of a parcel of land,
5 January 1998 which the Mananghayas were
Vitug, J. occupying. He averred that he
needed the lots for his personal
use but because the
Mananghayas refused to vacate,
he was constrained to initiate the
case.
The Mananghayas assert that the
true owners of the property in
question, Don Rafael and Doña
Salud Chico, were succeeded
upon their death by their son
Delfin Chico. They also claim
that they had long been in lawful
possession of the subject parcel
of land as tenants of the deceased
spouses and their son to whom
rentals had been paid.
W/N the dispute between the
parties is agrarian in nature.
NO. The records of the case fail In order for a tenancy relation to
to show any juridical tie binding take serious hold over the
between the parties or their dispute, it would e essential to
predecessors-in-interest, let alone first establish all its indispensable
that which would so characterize elements. It is not enough that
the relationship as an agrarian these requisites are alleged; these
dispute. Worse, the land subject requisites must be shown in order
matter of the controversy was not to divest the regular court of its
shown to be an agricultural land; jurisdiction in proceedings
to the contrary, the land appears lawfully began before it.
to be located within a residential
area. Compounding the matter,
no receipt, or any other evidence,
was presented by the
Mananghayas to prove their
claim that the harvest was shared
between the parties.

The RTC ruled in favor of Pedro

and ordered the Mananghayas to
surrender its possession. The
Mananghayas then initiated a
petition for certiorari with the
CA to annul the RTC decision
for being void. They contend that
their tenancy relationship with
the original owners was an
agrarian dispute cognizable
exclusively by the DARAB. The
CA set aside the RTC decision
on the ground that the dispute
between the parties was an
agrarian reform matter.
Isidro v. CA Natividad Gutierrez owns a W/N the parties have a tenurial NO. Based on the statutory Tenancy is not a purely factual
GR No. L-105586 parcel of land, over which her arrangement. definitions of a tenant or lessee, relationship dependent on what
15 December 1993 sister Aniceta was an overseer. it is clear that there is no tenancy the alleged tenant does upon the
15
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Padilla, J. Aniceta allowed Remigio Isidro
to occupy the swampy portion of
the land, so that he would have
enough income to meet his
family’s needs, with the
condition that he vacate the
property upon demand. Remigio
occupied the land without paying
any rental and converted the
same into a fishpond.
When Natividad demanded
Remigio to return the land, the
latter refused to vacate, claiming
that he had spent effort and
invested capital in converting the
same into a fishpond. Thus, a
complaint for unlawful detainer
was filed by Natividad.
However, it was dismissed by
the trial court, stating that the
land is agricultural and is thus an
agrarian dispute under the
original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of
agrarian relations. The RTC
affirmed the decision.
The CA then reversed the lower
courts, and ruled that there was
no tenurial arrangement between
the parties, and that Remigio
only possessed the property by
mere tolerance.
Sintos v. CA From 1963 to 1983, Teofilo
GR No. 96489 Magarin, Aguido Ebasco,
14 July 1995 Guillermo and Manuel Casinillo,
Quiason, J. Sergio Corpus, Severino
Magarin, Rufina Mendoza,
Victoria Orilan, and Fausta
Salidaga had been cultivating
portions of a parcel of land
owned by Nicolas Sintos. They
agreed to pay him one-fourth of
W/N the case falls under the
DARAB’s jurisdiction.
W/N the tenants have a right to
disturbance compensation.
or agricultural/leasehold
relationship existing between the
parties. There was no contract or
agreement entered into by
Remigio with Natividad nor with
the overseer of the property, for
Remigio to cultivate the land for
a price certain or to share his
harvests. Remigio failed to
substantiate his claim that he was
paying rent for the use of the
land.
NO. A case involving an
agricultural land does not
automatically make such case an
agrarian dispute upon which the
DARAB has jurisdiction. The
law provides for conditions or
requisites before the possessor of
the land can qualify as an
agricultural lessee or tenant, and
the land being agricultural is
only one of them. The law states
that an agrarian dispute must be a
controversy relating to a tenurial
arrangement over lands devoted
to agriculture. In the absence of a
tenancy relationship, the
complaint for unlawful detainer
is properly within the jurisdiction
of the MTC.
YES. There existed a landlord
and tenant relationship between
the parties. He allowed them to
cultivate the land and, in return,
received a share of the harvest.
Being tenants, they are entitled to
disturbance compensation.
land. It is also a legal
relationship. The intent of the
parties, the understanding when
the farmer is installed, and their
written agreements, provided
these are complied with and are
not contrary to law, are even
more important.
Unless a person establishes his
status as a de jure tenant, he is
not entitled to security of tenure
nor is he covered by the Land
Reform Program of the
government under existing
tenancy laws.
An agricultural lessee is a person
who, by himself and with the aid
available from within his
immediate farm household,
cultivates the land belonging to,
or possessed by, another with the
latter’s consent for the purposes
of production, for a price certain
in money or in produce or both.
An agricultural lessor, on the
other hand, is a natural or
juridical person who, either as
owner, civil law lessee,
usufructuary, or legal possessor
lets or grants to another the
cultivation and use of his land for
a price certain.
Where persons cultivated the
land and did not receive salaries
but a share in the produce or the
cash equivalent thereof, the
relationship created between
them and the landowner is one of
tenancy and not employment.
16
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

their harvest as their shares.

Subsequently, Nicolas amended
the sharing agreement by
requiring them to give him 10
sacks of 50 kilos per sack, per
hectare, per harvest. Thereafter,
the said tenants paid him on the
basis of the new sharing scheme.

When the subject parcel of land

was identified by the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform as covered
under Operation Land Transfer,
Certificates of Land Transfer
were issued to the tenants.

Nicolas then asked for the

exclusion of his landholding
from the land reform program,
contending that the portions
occupied by his tenants were part
of his land development project,
the Sintos Subdivision. After
investigation, the MAR
recommended the cancellation of
the CLTs in favor of the tenants
and instead recommended the
award to them of disturbance
compensation.

Although no agreement was

reached by the parties with
respect to the amount of
disturbance compensation, the
tenants were ejected from their
landholding when Nicolas started
dumping sand and gravel on the
portions they were cultivating.
They then filed a case against
Nicolas for the payment of
disturbance compensation.

The trial court ruled in favor of

the tenants, and ordered Nicolas
17
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

to pay them disturbance

compensation. The CA affirmed
the trial court. Nicolas appealed,
contending that the respondents
do not have a right to the
compensation because they were
not his tenants.
Philbancor v. CA Vicente Hizon, Jr. is the owner
GR No. 129572 of agricultural lands which were
26 June 2000 tenanted by Alfredo Pare, Pablo
Pardo, J. Galang, and Amado Vie. Hizon
mortgaged the subject property
to Philbancor without his
tenants’ knowledge, and when he
failed to pay his obligations,
Philbancor was able to acquire
the property at a public auction.
The tenants allegedly only found
out about the mortgage seven
years after the public auction,
when they were notified by
Philbancor to vacate the lots.
Thus, they filed a complaint for
maintenance of possession with
redemption and tenancy right of
pre-emption against Philbancor
and Hizon with the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (PARAB).
W/N the tenants could still NO. Section 12 of RA 3844 The right of tenancy attaches to
exercise their right of provides that the right of the landholding by operation of
redemption, five years after the redemption may be exercised law. The leasehold relation is not
registration of the certificate of within 2 years from the extinguished by the alienation or
sale with the Register of Deeds. registration of the sale. The transfer of the legal possession of
redemption period had already the landholding.
expired when the tenants filed
the complaint for redemption.
Nevertheless, the tenants may
continue in possession and
enjoyment of the land in question
as legitimate tenants because the
right of tenancy attaches to the
landholding by operation of law.
The leasehold relation is not
extinguished by the alienation or
transfer of the legal possession of
the landholding.

The PARAB ruled in favor of the

Heirs of Roman Soriano v. CA
GR No. 128177
15 August 2001
Ynares-Santiago, J.
tenants and ordered Philbancor
to execute the necessary Deed of
Redemption in favor of the
tenants.
The DARAB and the CA
affirmed the decision.
A parcel of land originally W/N the ruling in the land NO. What is in issue in the land Security of tenure is a legal
owned by Adriano Soriano registration case in favor of the registration case was ownership. concession to agricultural lessees
passed on to his heirs who leased spouses Abalos becomes res The security of tenure case which they value as life itself and
the same to the spouses de Vera judicata with respect to the before the DARAB involved the deprivation of their landholdings
for 15 years beginning 1967 security of tenure rights of the issue of possession. It is is tantamount to deprivation of
(until 1982). Roman, one heirs of Roman Soriano. important to note that although their only means of livelihood.
18
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Adriano’s children, was to act as
caretaker of the property during
the period of the lease. However,
in 1968, the de Vera spouses
ousted him from the property and
appointed Isidro and Vidal
Versoza as his substitutes.
Because of this, Roman filed a
case for reinstatement and
reliquidation against the de Vera
spouses. On appeal to the CA, he
won. Prior to the execution of the
CA’s decision in 1972, the de
Vera spouses and Roman entered
into a post-decisional agreement
wherein the spouses allowed
Roman to sub-lease the property
as an agricultural tenant until the
termination of the lease in 1982.
The said agreement was
approved by the agrarian court.
After executing an extrajudicial
settlement among themselves,
Adriano’s heirs divided the
property into 2 lots. The first was
assigned to Lourdes, Candido,
and the heirs of Dionisia; the
other was assigned to Francisca,
Librada, Elocadio, and Roman.
In 1971, the first lot was sold by
its owners to the spouses Abalos,
while the ¾ of the second lot was
sold to the same spouses by
Elocadio, Francisca, and Librada.
In 1976, the spouses Abalos filed
with the RTC of Pangasinan an
application for registration of
title over the lots they bought
from the heirs of Adriano (the
first one and the ¾ pro-indiviso
share of the second lot sold to
them). The application was
W/N the winning party in a land
registration case can effectively
eject the possessor thereof,
whose security of tenure rights
are still pending determination
before the DARAB.
the spouses Abalos have been
declared titled owners of the
subject land, the exercise of their
rights of ownership are subject to
limitations that may be imposed
by law. The Tenancy Act
provides one such limitation.
Agricultural lessees are entitled
to security of tenure and they
have the right to work on their
respective landholdings once the
leasehold relationship is
established.
NO. Roman’s status as tenant is
yet to be declared by DARAB.
The prevailing party in a land
registration case cannot be
placed in possession of the area
while it is being occupied by
once claiming to be an
agricultural tenant, pending a
declaration that the latter’s
occupancy was unlawful. This is
because if Roman’s claim of
possession as a tenant of the said
property is proven, it will entitle
him and his heirs to protection
against dispossession.
The exercise of ownership yields
to the exercise of the rights of an
agricultural tenant (as provided
for in The Tenancy Act).
Obiter:
Possession and ownership are
distinct legal concepts. There is
ownership when a thing
pertaining to one person is
completely subjected to his will
in a manner not prohibited by
law and consistent with the
rights of others. Ownership
confers certain rights to the
owner, among which are the
right to enjoy the thing owned
and the right to exclude other
persons from possession thereof.
On the other hand, possession is
defined as the holding of a thing
or the enjoyment of a right.
Literally, to possess means to
actually and physically occupy a
thing with or without right.
Possession may be had in two
ways: possession in the concept
of owner and possession of a
holder.
A judgment for ownership does
not necessarily include
possession as a necessary
incident.
19
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

granted by the RTC, and

affirmed both by the CA and SC.

In 1983, Roman, along with

Elocadio and Librada, filed a
case against the Abalos spouses
for annulment of document
and/or redemption, ownership,
and damages. It was denied by
the trial court.

In 1984, or 11 years after the

approval of the post-decisional
agreement between Roman and
the spouses de Vera, the Abalos
spouses filed with the agrarian
court a motion for execution of
the said post-decisional
agreement which allowed Roman
Soriano to sub-lease the
property. The motion prayed that
the spouses Abalos be placed in
possession of the subject
property, jointly with Roman
Soriano, and to levy so much of
Roman’s property to answer for
the use and occupation of Roman
of 6/7 share of the property.
When Roman died in 1985, he
was substituted by his heirs.
It appears that in 1988, the land
registration court’s decision was
partially executed by partitioning
the second lot into two—one part
in favor of Roman and the other
in favor of the spouses Abalos.
Roman’s heirs appealed to the
CA, which affirmed the partition
but reversed the order of the land
registration court directing the
issuance of a writ of possession
because of the pendency of the
case instituted by Roman against
the Abalos spouses.
20
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

In 1993, the SC ultimately

dismissed Roman’s case of
annulment of document and/or
redemption, ownership, and
damages against the Abalos
spouses; as well as the motion
for execution instituted by the
Abalos spouses. Roman’s heirs
then filed with the DARAB a
complaint against the Abalos
spouses for “Security of Tenure
with prayer for Status Quo Order
and Preliminary Injunction.” The
Abalos spouses, on the other
hand, in view of the SC’s
disposition of the case, moved
for the issuance of an alias writ
of execution and/or writ of
possession to place them in
possession of the first and ¾ of
the second lot. The trial court
held this case in abeyance until
after DARAB resolves the
complaint filed by Roman’s
heirs. The Abalos spouses’ MR
was denied by the trial court, and
on appeal, the CA reversed the
RTC, ordering the issuance of
the writ of possession in favor of
the Abalos spouses.
Hernandez v. IAC The spouses Tolentino owned a W/N the watchers could be YES. The watchers have been in Where a person cultivates the
GR No. 74323 parcel of coconut land. They had considered as agricultural continuous, uninterrupted land and does not receive salaries
21 September 1990 persons living on the said land, tenants. physical possession of their but a share in the produce or the
Medialdea, J. who cleaned and cleared certain respective areas in the cash equivalent of his share in
portions of the plantation for the landholding, which they have lump, the relationship is one of
purpose of improving the cleaned and cleared for the tenancy and not employment.
harvest, were identified as purpose of improving the
“bantay” or watchers over the harvests; they have lived in the An important criterion in
property and entitled to 1/6 share landholding and constructed their determining whether the
in the harvest. Their houses were houses thereon; they were paid in relationship is one of share
built in a cluster inside the an amount equivalent to 1/6 of tenancy is cultivation.
property. the harvest during the ownership
of the Tolentino spouses, and The definition of cultivation is
21
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Subsequently, SALES, Inc. was
able to acquire the land. Its
possession was relinquished to
Wenceslao Hernandez under a
civil law lease. The watchers’
pay was reduced to 1/7 of the
harvest. However, from 1980 to
1983, they were not paid their
shares.
SALES, Inc. averred that the
watchers had been ejected from
the land even before it acquired
the same; thus, they did not have
a right to a share of the harvests,
since they were not tenants. It
also claimed that under the lease
agreement, Hernandez was
forbidden to take any tenants,
and that these watchers were
only subsequently hired as wage
laborers to do the picking,
gathering, and hauling of
cocounuts. The court ruled in
favor of the watchers, and
declared them as tenants of
SALES, Inc. and Wenceslao
Hernandez. The latter were also
ordered to pay the former their
unpaid shares in the harvest. The
CA affirmed.
Valencia v. CA When Victor Valencia acquired
GR No. 122363 two parcels of land, he entered
29 April 2003 into civil law leases with
Bellosillo, J. Glicerio Henson and Fr. Andres
Flores. Henson instituted
Crescenciano and Marciano Frias
to work on the property; while
Fr. Flores appointed the Friases,
plus some others, as farmhands.
However, in Fr. Flores’ lease
Can a contract of civil law lease
prohibit a civil law lessee from
employing a tenant on the land
subject matter of the lease
agreement?
then later, 1/7 during the period
of Wenceslao’s lease. Their
status as tenants based on the
foregoing cannot be gainsaid.
Where they cultivated the land
and did not receive salaries but a
share in the produce or the cash
equivalent of his share in lump,
the relationship is one of tenancy
and not employment. The fact
that they have huts erected on the
landholdings shows they are
tenants.
YES. Sec. 6 of RA 3844 does not
automatically authorize a civil
law lessee to employ a tenant
without the consent of the
landowner. The lessee must be so
specifically authorized. A tenant is their authority to do so;
different interpretation would be
most unfair to the hapless and
unsuspecting landowner who
entered into a civil law lease
not limited merely to the tilling,
plowing or harrowing of the land.
It includes the promotion of
growth and the care of the plants,
or husbanding the ground to
forward the products of the earth
by general industry.
It may be said that the caretaker
of an agricultural land can also
be considered the cultivator of
the land.
RA 3844 abolished and outlawed
share tenancy and put in its stead
the agricultural leasehold system.
RA 6389 subsequently declared
that share tenancy was contrary
to public policy. Although share
tenancy was statutorily
abolished, leasehold tenancy for
coconut and sugar lands has not
yet been implemented. The
policy makers of government are
still studying the feasibility of its
application and the consequences
of its implementation.
Nonetheless, this did not end the
rights of share tenants in these
types of lands. The eventual goal
of legislation of having strong
and independent farmers working
on lands which they own
remains.
The right to hire a tenant is
basically a personal right of a
landowner, except as may be
provided by law. Inherent in the
right of landholders to install a
otherwise, without such
authority, civil law lessees as
landholders cannot install a
tenant on the landholding.
22
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

contract, there was a stipulation agreement in good faith only to

that he was prohibited from realize later on that he can no Tenancy relationship has been
installing a leasehold tenant longer regain possession of his held to be of a personal
thereon. No such prohibition property due to the installation of character.
existed in Henson’s contract. a tenant by the civil law lessee.
On the other hand, under the Deforciants cannot install lawful
When Fr. Flores’ lease period express provision of Art. 1649 of tenants who are entitled to
expired, Valencia ordered his the Civil Code, the lessee cannot security of tenure.
farmhands to vacate the lot. The assign the lease without the
farmhands refused to do so, and consent of the lessor, unless there A contract of civil law lease can
actually even secured CLTs over is a stipulation to the contrary. In prohibit a civil law lessee from
the land in their names. Catalino the case before us, not only is employing a tenant on the land
Mantac, one of the farmhands, there no stipulation to the subject matter of the lease
subsequently entered into a contrary; the lessee is expressly agreement.
leasehold contract undertaking to prohibited from subleasing or
have a profit-sharing agreement encumbering the land, which Essential requisites of a tenancy
with Valencia. includes installing a leasehold relationship:
tenant thereon since the right to (1) The parties are the
After 12 years, DAR investigated do so is an attribute of landowner and the
the matter and found that the ownership. tenant;
right of the farmhands to the land (2) The subject is
ceased upon the termination of agricultural land;
the lease contracts, except as (3) There is consent;
regards to Mantac, with whom (4) The purpose is
Valencia entered into a tenancy agricultural production;
agreement. As such, it was (5) There is personal
recommended that the CLTs cultivation; and
given to the other farmhands be (6) There is sharing of
cancelled. However, the harvests between the
Regional Office disregarded the parties.
investigation report and ruled
that the farmhands had a right to An allegation that an agricultural
continue on the land until tenant tilled the land in question
otherwise ordered by the court. does not make the case an
On appeal to the Office of the agrarian dispute. Claims that one
President, then Exec. Sec. is a tenant do not automatically
Teofisto Guingona upheld the give rise to security of tenure.
ruling of the DAR, with the The elements of tenancy must
modification that the area first be proved in order to entitle
acquired by Valencia as the claimant to security of tenure.
homestead be excluded from the
coverage of PD 27. The principal factor in
determining whether a tenancy
Valencia then appealed to the relationship exists is intent.
23
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
CA contending that the Exec.
Sec. erred in recognizing the
farmhands as tenants, and
disallowing him and his 7
compulsory heirs from
exercising their right of retention
under RA 6657. However, the
CA dismissed the case.
Caballes v. DAR Andrea Millenes allowed
GR No. 78214 Bienvenido Abajon to construct
5 December 1988 a house on a portion of her
Sarmiento, J. landholding, paying a monthly
rental of P2.00. Millenes
likewise allowed Abajon to plant
W/N Abajon is an agricultural
tenant.
NO. To invest Abajon with the
status of a tenant is preposterous.
He only occupied a miniscule
portion (60m2) of a 500m2 lot,
which cannot by any stretch of
imagination be considered as an
Tenancy is not a purely factual
relationship dependent on what
the alleged tenant does upon the
land. It is also a legal
relationship.
The security of tenure guaranteed
by our tenancy laws may be
invoked only by tenants de jure,
not by those who are not true and
lawful tenants.
The act of subletting to third
persons extinguishes the
agricultural leasehold relations,
as this constitutes an
abandonment of the landholding
due to absence of personal
cultivation.
Obiter:
Social justice is for the
deserving, whether he be a
millionaire in his mansion or a
pauper in his hovel. It is never
justified to give preference to the
poor simply because they are
poor, or reject the rich simply
because they are rich, for justice
must always be served for the
poor and the rich alike
according to the mandate of law.
Interpretare et concordare leges
legibus est optimus interpretandi
modus. – Interpreting and
harmonizing laws with laws is
the best method of interpretation.
Essential requisites of a tenancy
relationship:
(7) The parties are the
landowner and the
tenant;
(8) The subject is
24
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

a portion of the land, agreeing economic family-sized farm. agricultural land;

that the produce thereof would Planting camote, bananas, and (9) There is consent;
be shared by both on a 50-50 corn on such a size of land (10) The purpose is
basis. cannot produce an income agricultural production;
sufficient to provide a modest (11) There is personal
When Millenes sold her land to standard of living to meet the cultivation; and
the spouses Arturo and Yolanda farm family’s basic needs. Thus, (12) There is sharing of
Caballes, the spouses told the order sought to be reviewed harvests.
Abajon that they intended to is patently contrary to the
build a poultry close to his house declared policy of RA 3844. Unless a person has established
and persuaded him to transfer his Moreover, there exists no his status as a de jure tenant, he
dwelling to another portion of tenancy relationship between the is not entitled to security of
the landholding. Abajon refused parties because Abajon’s status is tenure nor is he covered by the
to leave, even after confrontation more of a caretaker who was Land Reform Program of the
before the Barangay Captain of allowed by the owner out of Government under existing laws.
the locality. benevolence or compassion to
live in the premises and to have a Tenancy status arises only if an
Subsequently, Yolanda filed a garden of some sort. Agricultural occupant of a parcel of land has
criminal case against Abajon for production as the primary been given its possession for the
malicious mischief for harvesting purpose being absent in the primary purpose of agricultural
bananas and jackfruit from their arrangement, it is clear that production.
property without her knowledge. Abajon was never a tenant of
All the planting on the property Millenes. Obiter:
however, had been done by If justice can be meted out now,
Abajon. The trial court ordered why wait for it to drop gently
the referral of the case to the from heaven?
Ministry of Agrarian Reform for
a preliminary determination of
the relationship between the
parties. The Ministry ruled that a
tenancy relationship existed
between the parties, and, as such,
the case is not proper for hearing.

On appeal, the DAR (the new

MAR) reversed the findings and
declared that the case was proper
for trial as the land involved was
residential. The new minister of
the DAR, however, set aside the
said order and declared that the
criminal case was not proper for
trial, as there was an existing
tenancy relationship between the
25
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

parties.

26