1961-2001 Justice Milagros German

JUSTICE MILAGROS A.
GERMAN'S
INDEX OF SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN AGRARIAN CASES FROM

JANUARY 1961 TO 2001
A
ABANDONMENT
Gavino Corpus vs. Sps. Geronimo Grospe
G.R. No. 135297, June 8, 2000
Abandonment requires a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or
claim or to desert a right or property.
Rosello vs. Reyes
99 SCRA 1
After the Trial Court found as per its decision that the tenant was not ejected
by the landowner but that he voluntarily abandoned his landholding, it is incorrect for
the Court to order his reinstatement
Teodoro vs. Macaraeg
27 SCRA 8-9
Tenant's offer to surrender leasehold on the condition that one named by him
should be accepted as his successor does not constitute abandonment.
ACTIONS
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 406
All actions pursued under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DAR, in
accordance with 50 of R.A. No. 6657, must be commenced in the PARAD of the
province where the property is located and the DARAB only has appellate jurisdiction
to review the PARAD's orders, decisions and other dispositions.
Tongson vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
215 SCRA 428
Under Section 11, R.A. No. 1199, an action for accounting may be filed by the
tenant within three (3) years from the date of the threshing of the crop in question.
Laureto vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992
212 SCRA 397
An action for violation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 816 falls within the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations (Sec. 5, P.D. 816), now
the Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 19, par. 7, B.P. 129).
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
Lucia Mapa vda. de la Cruz, et al. vs. Adjuto Abille
G.R. No. 130196, February 26, 2001
Where there is no showing, as in the case at bar, that there was fraud,
collusion, arbitrariness, illegality, imposition or mistake on the part of a department
head, in rendering his questioned decisions or of a total lack of substantial evidence to
support the same, such administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and
respect and will not be interfered with.
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 298
It applies "where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into
play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under
a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral
of such issues to the administrative body for its review."
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
263 SCRA 758
The DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be granted jurisdiction
over cases of eminent domain and over criminal cases.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
249 SCRA 149
Administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative
enactment for settled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony
with the provisions of the law.
ADMISSION
Dequito vs. Llamas
66 SCRA 504-505
Admission by party of voluntary surrender of landholding for a consideration

in sworn affidavit has a considerable effect.
The party is bound by his voluntary admissions and declarations against his
own interest appearing in his affidavit and this Court will not allow him to return his
back to it.
AFFIDAVITS
Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
216 SCRA 25
Section 16 of P.D. No. 946 states that in the hearing, investigation and
determination of any question or controversy, affidavits and counter-affidavits may be
allowed and are admissible in evidence.'
Candido vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107493, February 1, 1996
253 SCRA 79
An affidavit that has not been formally offered during the proceedings in the
trial court is not among the matters which the law mandatorily requires to be taken
judicial notice of.
AGRARIAN DISPUTE
Heirs of the Late Hermon Rey Santos vs. CA, et al.
March 7, 2000
There is no agrarian dispute where both parties are contending for the
ownership of the subject property.
AGRARIAN RELATIONS
Jaime Corpin vs. Amor S. Vivar
G.R. No. 137350, June 19, 2000
A Regional Trial Court's finding that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties, which was based on the documents attached by a party to his
memoranda in the RTC but not presented to the municipal trial court, must be set
aside due to insufficiency of evidence.
Bicol Federation of Labor vs. Cuyugan
65 SCRA 195
Term "agrarian relations" construed; the term embraces every situation where
an individual provides his personal labor over a parcel of agricultural land belonging
to another for the purpose principally of agricultural production, and where the
former, for his labor input and other sundry contributions, is compensated either in
wages or a share in the produce, or is obliged to pay lease rentals to the landowner.
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
De la Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
25 SCRA 480
In the classification of Agricultural Lands, in order to fix the consideration for
the use of ricelands in leasehold system, the use of the term "years" in Sec. 46 (a),
R.A. No. 1199 is taken to mean "agricultural year" as the phrase is understood in
Sections 32-33 of the same law.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
Determination of classes of land; since Republic Act No. 1199 establishes a
particular manner for determining whether land is first or second class, no other
method is acceptable.
Philippine National Railways vs. Valle
29 SCRA 573
Under Section 3 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and Section 166 (1) of the
Agricultural Land Reform Code, agricultural land means land devoted to agriculture
or to any growth.
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONS

Oarde vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
280 SCRA 235
The law is explicit on requiring the tenant and his immediate family to work
the land (Bonifacio vs. Dizon, 177 SCRA 294), and the lessee cannot hire many
persons to help him cultivate the land.
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 72
The agricultural lessee's rights are enforceable against the transferee or the
landowner's successor-in-interest.
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 124
The fact that a tenant or an agricultural lessee may have been assisted by farm
laborers hired by the landowners, on occasional or temporary basis, does not preclude
the element of "personal cultivation" essential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold
relationship.
Bernas vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993
225 SCRA 119
Whatever was the true nature of his designation, Benigno, was the LEGAL
POSSESSOR of the property and the law expressly grants him, as legal possessor,
authority and capacity to institute an agricultural leasehold lessee on the property he
legally possessed.
Endaya vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88113, October 23, 1992
215 SCRA 110
The fact that the landowner entered into a civil lease contract over the subject
landholding and gave the lessee the authority to oversee the farming of the land, as
was done in this case, is not among the causes provided by law for the
extinguishments of the agricultural leasehold relation.
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP

Angel Chico vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 134735; December 5, 2000
Pre-requisite conditions; a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee; b) the subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land; c)
there is consent between the parties to the relationship; d) the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural production; e) there is personal cultivation
on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and f) the harvest is shared between the
landowner and the tenant of agricultural lessee.
AGRICULTURAL TENANCY
Qua vs. Court of Appeals
198 SCRA 237, June 11, 1991
Private respondent Carmen Carillo is not entitled to be considered an
agricultural tenant. Therefore, she may not be allowed the use of a homelot, a
privilege granted by Section 35 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, in relation to Section
22(3) of R.A. No. 1199, as amended, only to persons satisfying the qualifications of
agricultural tenants of coconut lands.
Zamoras vs. Su, Jr.
184 SCRA 248, April 6, 1990
Tenants, as defined in Pres. Decree No. 1517 does not include those whose
possession of the property is under litigation.
De los Reyes vs. Espineli
30 SCRA 574
Agricultural tenancy defined; the physical possession by a person of land
devoted to agriculture belonging to, or legally possessed by another for the purpose of
production through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm
household in consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the
latter, or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money or in
both.
Carag vs. Court of Appeals
151 SCRA 44
Definition of tenancy pursuant to Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199; a person who by
himself, or with the aid available from within his immediate household, cultivates the
land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent for purposes of
production, sharing the produce with the landholder or for a price certain or
ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.
Matienzo vs. Servidad
107 SCRA 276
Definition of tenancy pursuant to Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199; a person who by
himself, or with the aid available from within his immediate household, cultivates the
land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent for purposes of
production, sharing the produce with the landholder or for a price certain or
ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.
AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT

G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
215 SCRA 428
In case of share tenancy, the sharing system on crops other than rice is
provided in Sec. 41, R.A. No. 1199 otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act
as amended by R.A. No. 2263.
Whether the sharing is in accordance with stipulations or customs of the place,
the law provides that the tenant's share for his labor in the production shall not be less
than 30% of the harvest after deducting the expenses for harvesting and/or initial
processing.
AGRICULTURAL WORKER
Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
189 SCRA 758, September 21, 1990

Agricultural Worker, defined; An agricultural worker is an agricultural wage,
salary or piece worker.
Jalandoni, Jr. vs. Arsenal
189 SCRA 56, July 30, 1990
Private respondent is clearly an agricultural worker or farm laborer.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
164 SCRA 568-569
An agricultural worker is not a whit different from a farm worker. From the
definition of a "farm worker" thus fashioned, it is quite apparent that there should be
an employer-employee.
30 SCRA 576
A "farm worker" is any agricultural wage, salary or piece worker, but it is not
limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless this Code explicitly
states otherwise, and any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in
connection with, a current agrarian disputes or an unfair labor practice and who has
not obtained substantially equivalent and regular employment.
Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals
142 SCRA 137
"Farmhand" or "agricultural worker" defined; "any agricultural salary or piece
worker but is not limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless this
Code explicitly states otherwise, and any individual whose work has ceased as a
consequence of, or in connection with, a current agrarian disputes or an unfair labor
practice and who has not obtained substantially equivalent and regular employment.
AGRICULTURAL YEAR
De Santos vs. Santos
2 SCRA 820
"Agricultural year" defined. "Agricultural year" is the period of time
necessary for the raising of seasonal agricultural products, including the preparation
of the land, and the sowing, planting and harvesting the crop . . .".
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 704-705
Agricultural year: period covered; Each crop period is considered an
independent agricultural year.
AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS
Locsin vs. Valenzuela
194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991
The lease rentals paid by the tenant-farmers prior to such full payment by the
Land Bank to the old landowner would be credited no longer as rentals but rather as
amortization payments of the price of the land.
194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991
Lot No. 2-C-A-3 having been declared part of the land reform area and
subjected to Operation Land Transfer the payment made on and after 21 October
1972 by the private respondent tenants-farmers constituted amortization payments on
the cost of the land.
APPEALS
Roberto Mito vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 126099, March 12, 2001
Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
An appeal is a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided
by law.
De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
169 SCRA 289, January 20, 1989
Being an agricultural lessee, petitioner under Sec. 16 of PD 946 has the right to
appeal as a pauper and should not have been required to pay the docket fee.
Santiago vs. Court of Appeals
179 SCRA 188-189, November 8, 1989
The Court of Appeals has the discretion to require or not to require the parties
to submit simultaneous memoranda. In case of non-requirement, neither party can
rightfully claim that he has been deprived of his day in court, considering that the
filing of a memorandum is not an indispensable part and considering further that no
injustice is done, inasmuch as both parties stand on the same footing where no one
enjoys any advantage over the other.
169 SCRA 288, January 20, 1989
Fact that petitioner intentionally did not pay the docket fee because having
been allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant he is not required to pay is in accord with
Sec. 16 of PD 946.
169 SCRA 288, January 20, 1989
An appeal cannot be perfected if the corresponding docket fee is not paid.

Angel vs. Inopiquez
169 SCRA 129, January 13, 1989
The rule is that once appeal is perfected, the trial court loses its jurisdiction
over the case and to issue the writ of execution.
169 SCRA 288-280, January 20, 1989
Under PD 946, an agricultural lessee is entitled to the rights of a pauper and/or
indigent litigant and to continue to enjoy such status in the appellate courts until the
case is terminated.
169 SCRA 289, January 20, 1989
The right to appeal is an essential part of the judicial system and litigants
should not be deprived of their right to do so.
2 SCRA 820
Appeal and error: court of agrarian relations: motion for reconsideration not
required. Neither Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, nor the Rules of Court of
Agrarian Relations, which took effect on 1 January 1956, requires an aggrieved party
to seek a reconsideration of its judgment or order before taking an appeal to the
Supreme Court.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
Extinctive prescription is a defense that is waived if not pleaded in due time
and may not be invoked for the first time on appeal.
Macandile vs. Macalino
85 SCRA 329
The special civil action of certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal even after
the period of appeal has lapsed.
Puertollano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
156 SCRA 188
The appeal is not premature because the petitioner abandoned their motion for
reconsideration and opted for the remedy of appeal by filing a notice of appeal.
Santos vs. De Guzman
1 SCRA 1048
Appeal: where original decision was incomplete, period for appeal is counted
from receipt of supplemental decision.
Tiu vs. Court of Appeals

37 SCRA 100
Private respondent's only claim to justify continued occupancy of the premises
in question refers to the right of petitioner to own the leased premises, claiming
petitioner is not a Filipino citizen. This claim is based on a defense which is
unavailable to him. His appeal may therefore be considered frivolous and made solely
for delay.
Angliongto, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
116 SCRA 659
As the Court of Appeals made a legal inference from a set of facts, its
conclusion being one of law is reviewable by the Supreme Court.
Tumulin vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 450
Execution of decision of agrarian court pending appeal; this action of the
appellate court is not in accord with the spirit of our agrarian laws.
Canturna vs. Court of Appeals
70 SCRA 563-564
Failure of public counsel to include material dates showing timeliness of the
appeal interposed on behalf of an agricultural tenant may be excused where it would
subserve the ends of justice and it was subsequently shown that appeal was actually
filed on time.
Anduiza vs. Dy-Kia
29 SCRA 199
Only final orders of agrarian court are appealable.
Arellano vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 131
Respondent's argument that their appeal was perfected on time because it was
made within ten (10) days from notice of the resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration, is misconception of the applicable rule. The rule allowing a party a
period of ten (10) days from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration was filed
within the fifteen day period from notice of decision.
Teruez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
134 SCRA 414
Whether or not person is a tenant is a question of fact. It is therefore
reviewable on appeal to the Supreme Court from Intermediate Appellate Court.
Yabut vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
142 SCRA 124
When appeal is deemed perfected; The appeal is not perfected on the date the
notice of appeal was filed but on the expiration of the last day to appeal.
APPROPRIATION LAW
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform
175 SCRA 345, July 14, 1989
An appropriation law is one of the primary and specific purpose of which is to
authorize the release of public funds from the treasury. Proclamation No. 131 is not
an appropriation measure. The creation of the fund is only incidental to the main
objective of the proclamation, which is agrarian reform.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
280 SCRA 236
Award of attorney's fees depends upon the circumstances of each case and lies
within the discretion of the court.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 246
The matter of attorney's fees cannot be touched once and only in the
dispositive portion of the decision, the text itself must expressly state the reason why
attorney's fees are being awarded.
While the judicial discretion in the award of attorney's fees is not entirely left
out, the same, as a rule, must have a factual legal or equitable justification, the matter
cannot and should not be left to speculation and conjecture.
Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals
179 SCRA 5 (1989) citing Espiritu v. Court of Appeals, 20 SCRA 530 (Castillo vs.
Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 530, January 27, 1992
The award of attorney's fees by the trial court is unwarranted since the action
appears to have been filed in good faith.
Magbanua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
137 SCRA 327-328
The petitioners are also entitled to attorney's fees but the size of fees as well as
the damages is subject to the sound discretion of the court.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
The imposition of attorney's fees lies in the discretion of the Court of Agrarian
Relations under Article 2208, No. 11, of the New Civil Code, and is authorized under
Section 55 of Republic Act No. 1199, that applies to tenancy relations those
provisions of existing laws not consistent with said Act.
B
BANKS
Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
143 SCRA 300-301
The Land Bank cannot be ordered to pay DBP the loan obtained thereat by the
landowner whose lands were expropriated under P.D. 27 as said loan has nothing to
do with the PNB loan and DBP is not a party to the suit.
Vda. de Ortiz vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
148 SCRA 685-686
The Land Bank is not obliged to pay interest from October 21, 1972 the date of
effectivity of P.D. 27 up to the date the bank paid the acquisition price for lands
bought under the Land Reform Program.
Mallari vs. Court of Appeals
161 SCRA 504
It is not necessary for the lessee to make a tender of payment and/or
consignation of the amount of the redemption price. A certification issued by the
Land Bank that it will finance the redemption of the property in question is sufficient.
C
CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
162 SCRA 391
The certificate of employment submitted by the petitioner does not indicate
Roaring's hours of work in the said corporation so "as to establish that it is physically
impossible for him to do the work of a tenant.
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER

Vinzons-Magana vs. Estrella

Mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the
farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein.
Curso vs. Court of Appeals
128 SCRA 568
Actions for forfeiture of certificates of land transfer for failure to pay lease
rentals for more than two years fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Miranda vs. Court of Appeals
141 SCRA 303
Certificate of land transfer; the nullification of said certificate may be had only
in a case directly attacking its validity but never collaterally.
128 SCRA 568
P.D. No. 816 imposed the sanction of forfeiture where the "agricultural lessee .
. . deliberately refuses and/or continues to pay rentals or amortization payments when
they fall due for a period of two (2) years." Petitioners cannot be said to have
deliberately refused to pay the lease rentals. They acted in accordance with the MAR
Circular, which implements P.D. 816, and in good faith.
CERTIORARI
Chico vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
284 SCRA 33
Certiorari; Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot be a substitute for lost appeal.
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 404
The Court of Appeals could direct, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction,
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to resolve an application for a
writ of preliminary injunction within a specified period a 10-day period, counted
from receipt of a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, can by no means be
considered arbitrary or hasty.
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
216 SCRA 25
Settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
CHANGE OF TENANCY SYSTEM

De la Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
25 SCRA 480
The tenant shall have the right to change the tenancy contract from one of
share tenancy to leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from the crop sharing
arrangement to another of the share tenancy.
De Borja vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
79 SCRA 558
Section 14, R.A. No. 1199 which grants to the share tenant the right to convert
the relationship to leasehold is constitutional.
Ilusorio vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 16
Republic Act 1199 is a remedial legislation promulgated pursuant to the social
justice precepts of the Constitution and in the exercise of the police power of the State
to promote the common wealth. It is a statute relating to public subjects within the
domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public rights
and public welfare of the entire community affected by it.
Ibaviosa vs. Tuazon
21 SCRA 1439
In a long line of decisions, this Court has already declared Section 14 of
Republic Act 1199 providing for a change in tenancy relationship constitutional.
Cruz vs. Pangan
11 SCRA 300
The petition of the new tenant for a change in the tenancy system cannot be
defeated by a change in ownership with personal cultivation where the latter change is
tainted with bad faith.
Uichanco vs. Gutierrez
14 SCRA 231
Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, giving the tenant the right to
change the tenancy from share to leasehold, is constitutional
Where the parties in 1956 entered into a verbal tenancy relationship and as the
law then existing gave the tenant the right to demand a leasehold arrangement in
exchange for the share tenancy, that right should be deemed included in their contract
of tenancy.
De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 171
The right granted to a tenant to change the contract from share tenancy to
leasehold cannot be considered unreasonable or oppressive.
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 authorizing tenant to change from share
to leasehold tenancy is constitutional and valid.
Marcelo vs. Matias
25 SCRA 816
The right of the tenant to change the tenancy contract from one share tenancy
to the leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop-sharing arrangement to
another of the share tenancy, as provided in Section 14 of R.A. No. 1199 is a
constitutional right that has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
Enriquez vs. Cabangon
18 SCRA 81
The validity and constitutionality of the right of the tenant to change the
tenancy system under Section 14 of the Rice Tenancy Act has already been passed
upon and upheld by the Supreme Court in final decisions (Ramos vs. Court of
Agrarian Relations, L-19555, May 29, 1964; Vda. de Macasaet, vs. Court of Agrarian
Relations, et al., L-19750, July 17, 1964).
Reyes vs. Santos
18 SCRA 28
Section 14 of Agricultural Tenancy Law is constitutional.
Tinio vs. Macapagal
19 SCRA 421
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 is constitutional.
Vda. De Macasaet vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 521
Section 14 of the Rice Share Tenancy Act, giving the tenant the right to change
the tenancy system from share to leasehold is valid, being a privilege granted to the
tenant under the exercise of the police power of the state in order to remedy an acute
socio-economic problem existing in the country.
CIVIL LAW LEASE

Gabriel vs. Pangilinan
58 SCRA 590
Civil law lease distinguished from agricultural tenancy. There are important
differences between a leasehold tenancy and a civil law lease. The subject matter of
the leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land; that of civil law lease may be
either rural or urban property. As to attention and cultivation, the law required the
leasehold tenant to personally attend to, and cultivate the agricultural land, whereas
the civil law lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing leased. As to
purpose, the landholding in leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture, while in civil
lease, the purpose may be for any lawful pursuits. As to the law that governs, the civil
law lease is governed by the Civil Code, whereas leasehold tenancy is governed by
special laws.
CLASSIFICATION
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform
175 SCRA 347, July 14, 1989
Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to
each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same
particulars.
Quiban vs. Butalid
189 SCRA 106, August 27, 1990
A compromise agreement is not valid and binding when a party in the case has
not signed the same. If any person signs for and in behalf of such party without being
duly authorized to do so, the said agreement is void and has no legal effect.
Quillian vs. Court of Appeals
169 SCRA 280, January 20, 1989
Parties to a contract should abide in good faith with their contractual
commitments.
Salen vs. Dinglasan
198 SCRA 623, June 28, 1991
Contracts solemnly and deliberately entered into may not be overturned by
inconclusive proof or by reason of mistakes of one of the parties to which the other in
no way has contributed.
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 99, July 21, 1990
Parties are to be placed in status quo which was the condition prevailing prior
to the execution of the void contract.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
175 SCRA 561, July 24, 1989
Under the law on contracts, vitiated consent does not make a contract
unenforceable but merely voidable.
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 703, April 10, 1989
Where the decision of the appellate court did not order the appellant where
anything for or to pay any amount to the appellee, but merely specified the value of
the contract between the parties and defined their rights thereunder, there was nothing
to be executed under such decision, and it was error for the lower court to direct
appellee to ask for execution thereof.
COCONUT LANDS
30 SCRA 576
Coconut land is considered agricultural land under both the Agricultural Land
Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
142 SCRA 137
An agreement which states that the right and obligations of a person allowed
by the landowner to cultivate and take care of his coconut farm, shall be governed by
R.A. 1199, is not abrogated by the subsequent repeal of said law which does not
include coconut lands, inasmuch as the vested rights of a share tenant to security of
tenure would be adversely affected thereby.
142 SCRA 138
Mere fact that a person was not the one who seeded the land with coconuts
does not mean that he could not be a tenant thereof.
Robles vs. Batacan
154 SCRA 644
Nature of work performed by the respondents' father is that of a tenant on the
land.
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals
113 SCRA 521
Share tenants in coconut lands can redeem the same when landowner sells
them.
COMMISSIONERS REPORT
Republic of the Philippines vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 139592; October 5, 2000
In the absence of any irregularity in the survey and inspection of the subject
properties, and none is alleged, the report of the commissioners deserves full faith and
credit.
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW

Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. Secretary, Department of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997
274 SCRA 30
Provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn are
excluded from the coverage of CARL.
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 246
The CARL (Rep. Act 6657) was not intended to take away property without
due process of law. Nor is it intended to impair the obligation of contracts. In the
same manner must E.O. 407 be regarded. It was enacted two (2) months after private
respondents had legally fulfilled the condition in the contract of conditional sale by
the payment of all installments on their due dates. These laws cannot have retroactive
effect unless there is an express provision in them to that effect.
Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 103302, August 12, 1993
225 SCRA 278
Coverage; Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private
agricultural lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land"it is referred to as "land
devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."
Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
G.R. No. 100091, October 2, 1992
215 SCRA 86
Private respondents, not being tenants nor proven to be landless peasants,
cannot qualify as beneficiaries under the CARP.
Under Section 73 of R.A. No. 6657, persons guilty of committing prohibited
acts of forcible entry or illegal detainer do not qualify as beneficiaries and may not
avail themselves of the rights and benefits of agrarian reform.
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge Br. V, CFI of Bulacan
119 SCRA 223-224
A judgment rendered upon a compromise "is in the nature of a contract and is
in effect an admission by the parties that the judgment is a just determination of their
rights on the facts of the case, had they been proved," and it has upon the parties "the
effect and authority of res judicata."
Jasmin vs. Valera
137 SCRA 214
A compromise agreement entered into in an ejectment case against an
agricultural tenant based on non-payment of rentals, subleasing, and others, is valid
where tenant agree to vacate, in consideration, among others, of condonation of his
unpaid rentals.
Velasquez vs. Magat
158 SCRA 206
Compromise agreement of August 21, 1972 not subject to resolutory term;
occupancy of the land as tenant extinguished as of the end of December 1972. The
end of December marked the end of the relation, not its continuation or resumption.
Algabre vs. Court of Appeals
28 SCRA 1131
The Court of Agrarian Relations decisions on the matter are to the effect that
by virtue of the power granted to it by Section 7 of Republic Act 1267, as amended by
R.A. No. 1409 (creating the CAR), as well as by the Agricultural Tenancy Act of
1954 itself (Sec. 21, Rep. Act No. 1199 as amended by Rep. Act 2263), it had
authority to approve Compromise Agreements although made out of court and
without its intervention, the principal reason for this stand being that "the Court
merely would be achieving the purposes for which it was created to maintain
harmonious relations between the parties and/or prevent future disputes between
them, more effectively."
Jasmin vs. Valera
137 SCRA 213
A court-approved compromise agreement to vacate an agricultural landholding
entered into by the lessee in consideration of condonation of all his back rentals and
his right to all crops harvested for the main crop, is valid and enforceable.
Osmea vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 828
Even more than a contract (which may be enforced by ordinary action for
specific performance) the compromise agreement is part and parcel of the judgment,
and may therefore, be enforced as such by a writ of execution (Serrano vs. Miave, L14678, March 31, 1965).
Vda. De Guilas vs. David
23 SCRA 762-763
Tenancy agreement between the tenant and a third party is not binding upon
the landowner, and subsequently, the latter sued them to surrender the land pursuant
to a compromise agreement entered into between the tenant and the landowner, the
third party cannot invoke the provision on security of tenure of agricultural tenants.
Gabayan vs. Navarro
124 SCRA 608
Where the parties to an agrarian case decide to execute a compromise
agreement the same is approved without need to resolved the jurisdictional issue
raised.
CONCEPTS OF TENANCY
Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals
118 SCRA 484
Tenancy is not purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant
does upon the land. it is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the
understanding when the farmer is installed, and as in this case, their written
agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even
more important.
58 SCRA 591
To fall under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, land must be worked by tenant or
immediate farm household. Persons, therefore, who do not actually work the land
cannot be considered tenants and a person who hires others to do work ceases to be a
tenant.
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
Villaflor vs. Reyes
22 SCRA 385
One of the conclusive presumptions prohibits the tenant from denying the title
of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Ayog vs. Cusi, Jr.
118 SCRA 494
No contempt of court is committed by a party who plowed the land and
destroyed the standing crops of one of the herein petitioners who is not a partydefendant in the ejectment case below. Petitioner's remedy is not contempt but a civil
and/or criminal action.
Del Rosario vs. Chingcuangco

18 SCRA 1151
Where respondent Court's writ of execution had been carried out by placing the
respondent in possession of the land before the writ of preliminary injunction
restraining the implementation of said writ of execution was issued by the appellate
court, the respondent and the plaintiff may not be held in contempt of court.
CONSUMMATED SALE OF LAND

Padasas vs. Court of Appeals
82 SCRA 251-252
We hold that the sale contemplated under Sec. 12, Rep. Act 3844 must refer to
a consummated sale, not a conditioned sale; it must be a sale that divests the title and
ownership of the owner over the land and not merely a conditional sale as in the case
at bar where the title and improvements on the land remained with DBP.
CONTRACTS
G.R. No. 95684, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 300
Nonpayment, at most, gives him only the right to sue for collection. Generally,
in a contract of sale, payment of the price is a resolutory condition and the remedy of
the seller is to exact fulfillment or, in case of a substantial breach, to rescind the
contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code.
Payment of realty taxes does not necessarily prove ownership must less
stimulation of said contracts.
Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 123905, June 9, 1997
273 SCRA 152
An offer must be clear and definite, while an acceptance must be unconditional
and unbounded, in order that their concurrence can give rise to a perfected contract.
CONTRACTS, TENANCY
Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
4 SCRA 1152
A comparison between the provisions of Section 12 of Agricultural Tenancy
Act (R.A. No. 1199) and those of Act No. 4054 leaves no room for doubt that the
enumeration of the authorized acknowledging officers in section 12 of the prevailing
statute is a deliberate legislative reform designed to exclude the intervention of

Notaries Public in tenancy contracts that should be made fully effective.
4 SCRA 1151
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1199, which provides that written contracts
between landlords and tenants "shall be conclusive evidence of what has been agreed
upon between the contracting parties, if not denounced or impugned within thirty
days after its registration," does not apply to contracts violative of the law itself.
79 SCRA 557
Under Section 6 of Act No. 4054, in the absence of a specific stipulation on the
duration of a tenancy contract, the same shall be understood to last only during one
agricultural year: said section 6 leaves no room for interpretation.
79 SCRA 558
Ambiguous provision in a contract is adversely interpreted against the party
responsible therefore.
Novesteras vs. Court of Appeals
149 SCRA 48
The title, label or rubric given to a contract cannot be used to camouflage the
real import of an agreement as evinced by its main provisions. Moreover, it is basic
that a contract is what the law defines it to be.
27 SCRA 7-8
Label of contract cannot be used to camouflage real import of an agreement.
Castro vs. Court of Appeals
99 SCRA 722-723
A person who signed annually for three consecutive years a contract for hired
labor cannot later be heard to claim that he is a tenant.
99 SCRA 723
Contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties.
Evangelista vs. Court of Appeals
158 SCRA 42
The fact that the lease contracts did not stipulate personal cultivation indicates
the intent of the parties to establish only a civil lease relationship.
Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

129 SCRA 222-223
Where so-called labor contract was not really honored by the parties as
respondent did not receive salaries but a share in the produce or the cash equivalent of
his share in lump, his relationship is one of tenancy and not employment.
129 SCRA 224
The court is aware of the practice of the landowners, by way of evading the
provisions of tenancy laws, to have their tenants sign contracts or agreements
intended to camouflage the real import of their relationship.
Estrada vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
4 SCRA 1232
Crop other than rice is to be divided according to contract, or, in its absence,
custom of the place.
Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals
87 SCRA 264
Fact that tenant did not immediately vacate portion of his landholding does
not make the surrender thereof by means of contract less voluntary.
Santos vs. Vda. De Cerdenola
5 SCRA 823
An implied contract of tenancy is created if a landholder, represented by his
overseer, permits the tilling of the land by another for a period of six years.
Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware Co.
38 Phil. 501
Label of contract cannot be used to camouflage real import of an agreement.
17 SCRA 26
The prohibition contained in constitutional provisions against impairing the
obligation of contracts is not an absolute one and is not to be read with literal
exactness like a mathematical formula. Such provisions are restricted to contracts
with respect to property, or some object of value, and confer rights which may be
asserted in a court of justice, and have no application to statutes relating to public
subjects within the domain of the general legislative power of the state, and involving
the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. They do
not prevent a proper exercise by the State of its police powers.
11 SCRA 171
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 is legally justified in impairing the

obligation of an existing contract between the tenant and the landlord. Obligations
of contracts must yield to a proper exercise of the police power.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
Any contract whereby the tenant is to receive less than the corresponding share
for the different contributions he has to the production of the crop is contrary to law,
morals and public policy (Sec. 11(a), Agricultural Tenancy Act).
129 SCRA
To determine the nature of a contract, courts do not have or are not bound to
rely upon the name or title given it by the contracting parties. Should there be a
controversy as to what they really had intended to enter into, but the way the
contracting parties do or perform their respective obligations, stipulated or agreed
upon may be shown and inquired into, and should performance conflict with the name
or title given the contract by the parties, the former must prevail over the latter.
Ponce vs. Guevarra
10 SCRA 649
The subleasing of the land without written consent of the landholder, although
constituting a violation of the original contract of lease, cannot affect the security of
tenure of the sub-lessees because it was committed by the lessee, not by the sublessee, who were not parties to the contract.
CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL

USES
Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals
174 SCRA 398, June 29, 1989
An agricultural leasehold cannot be established on land which has ceased to be
devoted to cultivation or farming because of its conversion into a residential land.
174 SCRA 398-399, June 29, 1989
Petitioners may not invoke Section 36(1) of Republic Act No. 3844 which
provides that "when the lessor-owner fails to substantially carry out the conversion of
his agricultural land into a subdivision within one year after the dispossession of the
lessee, the lessee shall be entitled to reinstatement and damages," for the petitioners
were not agricultural lessees or tenants of the land before its conversion into a
residential subdivision in 1955.
Davao Steel Corporation vs. Cabatuando
10 SCRA 705
Conversion of agricultural land to industrial character does not deprive

agrarian court of jurisdiction.
Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals
104 SCRA
Private respondent has not shown that she complied with all the requisites for
conversion of the land in question into residential subdivision. The trial court also
found that there was some measure of bad faith on the part of private respondent in
seeking the dispossession of petitioner, and that no substantial conversion had been
undertaken by private respondent.
CROP SHARING
Andres vs. De Santos
55 SCRA 624
Agricultural tenancy act: Right of tenant to change from one crop-sharing
arrangement to another should not be impaired to technicalities.
Estrada vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
4 SCRA 1232
A change in the crop sharing agreement between the landlord and the tenant
under Section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, as amended from a 50-50 to a 7030 basis, cannot be made by the tenant unless he uses his own farm implements and
carabao, and spends for the last harrowing and transplanting without any contribution
or help from the landlord.
4 SCRA 1152
The rejection by the tenant of the landholder's contribution to the cost of final
harrowing and transplanting, if tendered in due time, cannot be justified by the
tenant's right to change the crop sharing arrangement unless the tenant has served
upon the landlord notice of his intention to change such arrangement at the advance
end of the preceding agricultural year.
2 SCRA 820
Pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, if the share tenancy contracts
is in writing and is duly registered, the right to change the crop-sharing arrangement
may be exercised at the expiration of the period of contract sought to be changed.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
Section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law, regarding change of system, does
not apply to the enforcement of the crop-sharing ratio in accordance with the actual
contributions of the tenant and the landlord. In the case of a second class riceland, if
the tenant contributed all except the land and one-half of the transplanting expenses,
his share in the harvests would be 62.5% and the landlord's share would be 37.5%.
Any change in the sharing ration is left to the initiative of the tenant.
CULTIVATION
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
The term "personal cultivation" cannot be given a restricted connotation to
mean a right personal and exclusive to either lessor or lessee. In either case, the right
extends to the members of the lessor's or lessee's immediate family members.
Latag vs. Banog
16 SCRA 80
A "caretaker" of an agricultural land is also considered "cultivator" of the land.
Camus vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 372
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, in defining the jurisdiction of
the Court of Agrarian Relations, speaks not only of "cultivation" but also of "use" of
agricultural land "where one of the parties work the land," and includes within such
jurisdiction "all those relationships established by law" between said parties.
30 SCRA 577
"Cultivation" is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land. It
includes the various phases of farm labor described and provided by law, the
maintenance, repair and weeding of dikes, paddies, and irrigation canals in the
holding. Moreover, it covers attending to the care of the growing plants.
164 SCRA 570
The definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling, plowing or
harrowing of the land. It includes the promotion to growth and the care of the plants,
or husbanding the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry.
The raising of coconuts is a unique agricultural enterprise.
Almodiel vs. Blanco
5 SCRA 648
Where the controversy involves a relationship which affects the rights of two
litigants over the cultivation and use of any agricultural land, one of the parties
agreeing to furnish the labor, such controversy comes within the jurisdiction of the
Court of Agrarian Relations, as provided for in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267,
as amended.
De Santos vs. Acosta

4 SCRA 359
The term "bona fide intention to cultivate" in Section 50(a) of Republic Act
No. 1199, as amended, has reference not only to the ability and firm decision of the
landowner to mechanize but also to the motive behind his action in seeking the
dispossession of his tenants.
De Guzman vs. Santos
6 SCRA 795-796
Cultivation is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land alone.
Among the various phases of farm labor provided by law, the maintenance, repair and
weeding of dikes, paddies, and irrigation of canals in the holding, are included.
6 SCRA 796
If a tenant is allowed to cultivate the land by himself or by the immediate
members of his family or immediate farm household, there can be no plausible reason
why the owner or landholder, if he cultivates the land himself, should not be
permitted to do the same thing.
D
DAMAGES
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
280 SCRA 236
Damages cannot be presumed or premised on conjecture or even logic. In
making an award, courts must point specific facts which show a basis for the amount
of compensatory or actual damages.
Galang vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80645, August 3, 1993
225 SCRA 38
Under the Civil Code, private respondents are liable for damages to the injured
party, the petitioners in this case. However, in lieu of actual payment of damages, and
considering the fact that private respondents were in possession of the land during the
entire period that this case was pending, private respondents are no longer entitled to
the interest payments which would have been due from petitioners.
Latag vs. Banog
16 SCRA 88-89
Agrarian court has jurisdiction over tenant's claim for damages.
Robles vs. Batacan

154 SCRA 644-645
Although the actual damages suffered exceeded the amount awarded by the
trial court, this amount would not be increased if the award was not appealed.
Espaol vs. Court of Appeals
124 SCRA 623
Award of damages to tenant and payment of back shares correctly excluded by
the Court of Appeals in instant agrarian case.
137 SCRA 328-329
Award of moral damages, permitted by Article 21 of the Civil Code, where
plaintiffs rights were violated when they were denied irrigation water for their farm
lots to make them vacate their landholding.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390
The CAR is vested with authority to award moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees.
162 SCRA 392-393
Court sustains the award of damages against the petitioners.
162 SCRA 393-394
Court disagrees with the finding of the respondent court that respondent should
be absolved from liability.
Pagdanganan vs. Galleta
30 SCRA 426
Since the heirs of tenant were unlawfully dispossessed of the landholding,
upon the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, landholder was
adjudged liable for damages "to the extent of the landholder's participation in the
harvest."
Delfin vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
19 SCRA 593
Damages may not be awarded on the basis of speculation, conjecture or guess
work.
Belmi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
7 SCRA 812
Inasmuch as the counter-plowing of the landholdings, to which the tenants did

not object, redounded to the mutual benefit of the tenants and their landlords, and as
the latter constructed at their own expense new dikes along the contour lines, of
which the tenants made use in the subsequent farming years, and as the amount of
harvest showed no diminution when compared to those before the contour-plowing,
the said tenants are not entitled to damages for the destruction of the old dikes by
reason of the contour-plowing.
137 SCRA 327-328
The petitioners are also entitled to exemplary damages because the defendants
acted in an oppressive manner.
Villaviza vs. Panganiban
10 SCRA 824
Under Section 27(1) of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, an illegally
ejected tenant's earnings elsewhere may not be deducted from but is to be added to the
damages granted him upon reinstatement.
6 SCRA 796
Whether arising from a breach of contract or whether the result of some
provision of law judgment for damages suffered must rest upon satisfactory proof
thereof.
Lustre vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
10 SCRA 659
The Court of Agrarian Relations should enjoy discretion in selecting the year
of tenure that is to serve as basis for the award, so long as the harvest for that year is
not an abnormal one.
Lacuesta vs. Barangay Casabaan, Municipality of Cabangan
133 SCRA 77
Moral damages, not awarded to tenant, as the barangay who instituted the
expropriation proceeding had not acted with malice and in bad faith.
DEMOLITION
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 379
No demolition of a party's house could be validly effected on the day of service
of the order of execution. An order by a court for the removal of a party's house
"before judgment becomes final and executory" is clearly in violation of Section 8,
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Section 21 of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD

(DARAB)
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 406
The DARAB was without authority to issue the SQO, much less the warrant of
arrest.
Machete vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995
250 SCRA 176
Executive Order No. 129-A created the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) to assume the powers and functions with respect to the
adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
The failure of tenants to pay back rentals pursuant to a leasehold contracts is an
issue which is exclusively cognizable by the DARAB and is clearly beyond the legal
competence of the Regional Trial Courts to resolve.
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
215 SCRA 87
DARAB has no power to try, head and adjudicate the case pending before it
involving a portion of the CMU's titled school site.
Under Section 4 and Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 it is crystal clear that the
jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited only to matters involving the implementation of
the CARP.
DEPOSIT
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
249 SCRA 150
There is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to want an expanded
construction of the term "deposit". It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must
be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds".
DISPOSSESSION

174 SCRA 398-399, June 29, 1989
Furthermore, their admission that: (1) they leased from the respondents a lot
(No. 1285-M) in the subdivision on which they built their house; (2) that as
commission agents for the respondents, they were able to sell a subdivision lot to
Clemente Bernabe and received a P300-commission on the sale; and (3) that "a
number of other lots were sold by respondents to different buyers," (p. 51, Rollo)
refutes the petitioners' contention that the development of the subdivision was a mere
"scheme" to dispossess the previous tenant.
Carandang vs. Cabatuando
52 SCRA 384-385
Dispossessed tenant is not entitled to the value of fruit trees, but only the value
of labor and expenses for the improvement of crop raised.
Tomacruz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
2 SCRA 568
The act of a person in entering upon a parcel of land and appropriating to
himself the landholder's share of the harvest for an agricultural year, is a
dispossession by a third party of one's landholding and comes within the express
provision of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199.
Cruz vs. Pangan
11 SCRA 300
The dispossession of a tenant on the ground of personal cultivation is tainted
with bad faith when the new owner in purchasing the land had conspired with the
former owner to deprive the tenant of possession of the land after the tenant had
sought the application of the 70-30 sharing basis between him and the former.
27 SCRA 8
An agreement whereby the tenant was required to return to the landlord his
landholding after one crop year cannot justify the tenant's dispossession after the said
period because such agreement is expressly prescribed by law.
Pintacasi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
46 SCRA 20
Where the tenant is finally convicted of having killed the owner of the land he
is tilling, his eviction as a tenant from the landholding is justified.
18 SCRA 82
Under the Rice Tenancy Act, as amended section 50(a), the landowner, "at
least one year prior to the date of his petition", must file notice with the "Court and
inform the tenant in writing in a language or dialect known to the latter of his
intention to cultivate the land."

30 SCRA 426
Only landholder-owner may dispossess a tenant upon the ground that he wants
to personally cultivate he land or through the employment of mechanical farm
implements.
Baligwat vs. Court of Appeals
142 SCRA 34
We are in full agreement with the holding of the Court of Appeals upholding
the Court a quo that insofar as coconut lands are concerned, personal cultivation by
the owner-lessor as a ground for dispossession of the tenant-lessee under Section 50
of Republic Act 1199, is still a valid ground for dispossession of a tenant.
Gallardo vs. Borromeo
161 SCRA 500
We therefore, hold that the 65-year old petitioner, who is a government retiree
may terminate the tenancy of the private respondent and till his own land as provided
in Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, which was the applicable law when he filed his
petition.
18 SCRA 1151
Where the implementation of the writ of execution dispossessing tenant was
premature, the petitioner should be restored to the peaceful and undisturbed
possession of the landholding, until his claim for the payment of improvements is
settled by respondent court.
Pursuant to Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 and Sec. 1, Rule 15 of the
Court of Agrarian Relations, the tenant's claim for one-half of the value of the
improvements made by him must first be threshed out, determined and resolved
before he can dispossessed the land by writ of execution.
Beltran vs. Cruz
25 SCRA 607-608
Prohibition on pre-threshing; reaping of harvest one day ahead of the date
agreed upon is a sufficient cause to dispossess tenant.
People vs. Adillo
68 SCRA 91
The leasehold system is mandated to prevail between the parties in agricultural
lands planted to rice and/or corn.
Calderon vs. De la Cruz
138 SCRA 173
Under R.A. No. 3844, a landlord can dispossess a tenant on the ground that his
jobless son will personally till the land. There is no requirement that said child must
first be an experienced farmer.
138 SCRA 173-174
R.A. No. 6389 which abolished personal cultivation as a ground for
dispossession of a tenant cannot be given retroactive effect as to those who already
exercised their rights under R.A. 3844.
De Lamera vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 368
Dispossession of the tenant of his landholding may be allowed, in case of the
bona fide intention, either of the landowner or of his relative within the first degree of
consanguinity, to cultivate the land personally or through employment of farm
machinery and implements (Sec. 50, Rep. Act No. 1199).
Feliciano vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
5 SCRA 32
While Section 50(a) Republic Act No. 1199 provides that the bonafide
intention of the landholder to cultivate the land personally, or thru the employment of
farm machinery or implements, is a sufficient case for dispossession of a tenant from
his holding, this provision should not be taken literally.
10 SCRA 659
Under Sec. 27 of Rep. Act No. 1199, the earnings of the tenant during the
period of unlawful ejectment are not deductible from the award of damages.
Tawatao vs. Garcia
8 SCRA 567
The jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations to order the reinstatement
of tenants unlawfully dispossessed of their landholdings does not depend on whether
or not at the time of the filing of the proper action there was tenancy relation nor does
it amount to a waiver of the right to reinstatement, for Republic Act No. 1199, as
amended, does not provide for a prescriptive period within which to file a complaint
for unlawful dispossession.
Guevarra vs. Santos
18 SCRA 709
The appellants failed "to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to
preserve the improvements existing in their holdings", and, therefore, they are guilty
of a violation of Section 43 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, which is a statutory
ground for dispossession under Section 50(b) thereof.
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
Ernesto Bunye vs. Lourdes Aquino, et al.
G.R. No. 138979; October 9, 2000
Tenant is entitled thereof in the event that tenanted land is converted pursuant
to Section 36, R.A. No. 3844 equivalent to five times the average of the gross
harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years.
Sintos vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 224
A cause of action for disturbance compensation arose from the time the tenants
were ejected.
Tanpingco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
207 SCRA 653, March 31, 1992
Court rules that the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports as the owner
cannot oust the petitioner from the subject Riceland and build a public high school
thereon until after there is payment of the disturbance compensation in accordance
with Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended.
DOCKET FEES
Conrado Colarina vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 117439, February 25, 1999
If the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the
docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no
case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeal, et al.
G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999
The Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto
itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged
with an administrative body of special competence. Respondent DAR is in a better
position to resolve petitioner's application for conversion, being primarily the agency
possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.
DOUBTS RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF TENANT

Vda. De Santos vs. Garcia
8 SCRA 195
A literal interpretation of Sec. 39 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by
Republic Act No. 2263, which makes it unlawful for the tenant or the landlord,
without mutual consent, to reap the crop before the date set for its threshing, can
warrant the ejectment of the tenant in the case at bar, who contrary to said provision,
reaped his crop of about two cavans of palay involving P7.70 at the most, as the
landowner's share.
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 78
Viewed within the context of the constitutional mandate and obvious
legislative intent, the provisions of the law should be construed to further their
purpose of redeeming the tenant from his bondage of misery, want and oppression
arising from the onerous terms of his tenancy and to uplift social and financial status.
Mipalar vs. Santos
20 SCRA 935-936
In the interpretation of Republic Act No. 1199, all doubts are to be resolved in
favor of the tenant (Sec. 56).
Quimson vs. De Guzman
7 SCRA 159
The punitive or disabling provisions of Rep. Act No. 1199 cannot be given
retroactive effect, and doubts must be resolved in favor of the tenant.
De Tanedo vs. De la Cruz
32 SCRA 64
In applying Section 50 of the law, the court is enjoined by Section 56 of the
same law to resolve all doubts in favor of the tenant.
DUE PROCESS
Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula Inc., vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 103953, March 25, 1999
In cases of denial of due process, exhaustion of available administrative
remedies is unnecessary. The aggrieved party may seek judicial relief outright.
Relucio III vs. Macaraig, Jr.
173 SCRA 635, May 30, 1989
It has already been settled that what due process abhors is not lack of previous
notice but absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. To satisfy due process, official
action must be responsive to the supremacy of reason and the dictates of justice.
There is no denial of due process where petitioner was afforded every opportunity to
present its case.

28 SCRA 1131
The essence of due process is the requirement of notice and hearing. Surely,
when both parties who could be potential adversaries come together to the court and
seek the imprimatur thereof of a written agreement signed by them, the need for
notice and hearing loses completely its significance.
Ferrer vs. Villamor
60 SCRA 107
Where existence of agricultural relationship is raised in an ejectment suit, court
of first instance (or municipal court) should hold a preliminary hearing to determine
existence or non-existence of alleged tenancy relationship.
Salandanan vs. Tizon
62 SCRA 388-389
If procedural deficiency were taken into account, it appears that respondent
Judge had much to answer for. Nor is it a matter of proceeding according to doctrinal
requirements alone that vitiated his actuation. The due process mandate was likewise
paid scant respect, considering the circumstances of the case, more specifically,
petitioner being a pauper litigant.
Baladiang vs. Aquilizan
137 SCRA 484
Lack of notice to the defendant throughout the proceedings in the lower court
is violative of procedural due process and showed poor court management.
E
EARNEST MONEY
Sps. Lacson and Basilio vs. Pineda
40 SCRA 240
The condition that if the vendees fail or refuse to pay the amount (P7,676.00)
within the period ending December 31, 1963, then the whole amount of P9,000.00
paid at the time of the execution of the deed shall be deemed forfeited in favor of the
vendors is not a characteristic of a sale on installments, but it is one usually found in
agreements or promises to sell with "earnest money" to guarantee the vendor from
any loss or damage arising from the non-fulfillment of the obligation of the vendee.
EJECTMENT
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383

It serves no useful purpose of the Supreme Court to withhold verdict and to
remand a case to the MCTC, only for it to order the dismissal of the ejectment case,
where the issue can now be resolved since there is nothing more that the parties can
offer on the issue of jurisdiction of the MCTC.
Vda. de Salazar vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995
250 SCRA 306
Ejectment being an action involving recovery of real property is a real action
which is not extinguished by the defendant's death. An ejectment case survives the
death of a party which death did not extinguish the deceased's civil personality
De Luna vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 97788, May 11, 1993
321 SCRA 704
The primary and only issue in an ejectment suit is material possession.
De la Cruz vs. Bautista
186 SCRA 517-518, June 14, 1990
No plausible reason exists why respondent would agree to transfer to adjoining
lot if land where his house stands belongs to him as agricultural homelot.
Guzman vs. Court of Appeals
177 SCRA 605-606, September 15, 1989
Private respondents' continued stay in the property without having paid a
single monthly rental is a sufficient cause for ejectment.
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
177 SCRA 294-295, September 5, 1989
Ejectment of an agricultural lessee was authorized not only when the
landowner-lessor desired to cultivate the landholding, but also when a member of his
immediate family so desired.
Castro v. Castro
128 SCRA 519 [1984]
Diga v. Adriano
133 SCRA 421 [1984]
Gallardo v. Borromeo
161 SCRA 500 [1988]
Bonifacio v. Dizon
175 SCRA 294 [1989]
Ancheta vs. Court of Appeals

200 SCRA 407, August 9, 1991
It is well-settled that R.A. 6389, which removed personal cultivation as a
ground for ejectment of tenant/lessee, cannot be given retroactive effect in the
absence of a statutory provision for retroactivity or a clear implication of the law to
that effect.
Valino vs. Muoz

35 SCRA 413
It is definite and unmistakable as to the spirit, intent and purpose of the
lawmakers that under no circumstances may a tenant or lessee be deprived or
dispossessed of his landholding without a final and executory judgment of the Court
of Agrarian Relations rendered after proper hearing where, understandably, the tenant
or lessee has been given an opportunity to be heard.
32 SCRA 63
Under Sec. 49 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, the tenant shall be
dispossessed of his holding for any of the causes enumerated in Section 50 "only after
the same has been proved before and the dispossession is authorized by, the court".
Where the conviction of a tenant is for a minor offense involving only the
taking of a few bamboo shoots from the land under cultivation without prior consent
of the landholder (theft) for which only a small fine was imposed and duly paid, the
tenant may not be ejected.
Barias vs. Alcantara
117 SCRA 651
The alleged tenant's theory that he was "constructively ejected" and his claim
for damages are baseless.
Erfe vs. Fortun
136 SCRA 552
Under Memorandum Circular No. 29 issued by the Minister of Agrarian
Reform on December 6, 1973 to implement P.D. 316, referral to the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform after judgment is still mandatory where the execution of the
decision would result in the ejectment of the actual tiller or the tenant farmer.
7 SCRA 159
A tenant's failure to apply the "Masagana" system in the cultivation of
Riceland will not justify his ejectment in the absence of showing that the land is
suited to that method of cultivation.
Moreno vs. Tangonan
10 SCRA 724
Ejectment for violation of contract for failure to notify change of contract;
Although the late request to have such change affected was a mistake sufficient to
deprive them of the right to change the sharing ratio for that agricultural year, yet it
was not sufficient to constitute a violation of their contracts of tenancy as would
justify their ejectment as tenants under Sec. 50, paragraph (b), of Republic Act No.
1199.
Valencia vs. Surtida
2 SCRA 622
The ejectment of tenants of an agricultural land is beyond the jurisdiction of
the Court of First Instance, pursuant to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199, which
provides that the same "shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of such
court as may now or hereafter be authorized by law to take cognizance of tenancy
relations and disputes", and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, under which
jurisdiction over the same is vested in the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Garchitorena vs. Panganiban
6 SCRA 339
Ejectment of tenants is justified if failure to pay rentals is not attributable to
extraordinary event.
Tiongson vs. Court of Appeals
130 SCRA 483
Ejectment; There is no agrarian relationship of landlord and tenant where
respondent was allowed to stay and cultivate a portion of land only as a caretaker.
Silva vs. Cabagon
7 SCRA 33
Where the tenant has been working under tenancy in another landholding
without the petitioning landholder's consent, but the latter had not done anything to
assert her right under the law, it is held that petitioner cannot now be heard on that
charge because she has slept on her right and cannot now invoke the protection of the
law.
Gabani vs. Reas
2 SCRA 710
Ejectment of tenants by the landlord from an agricultural land held by the
former under a system of leasehold tenancy is exclusively cognizable by the Court of
Agrarian Relations.
37 SCRA 99-100
Under Sec. 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court, the tenant is not
permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between them.
37 SCRA 100
The Supreme Court had time and again held that the fact of lease and the
expiration of its terms are the only elements of an action for ejectment.
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 247
Grant of Petitioner's motion for issuance of a writ of execution covering the

ejectment of private respondent Domantay was not violative either of PD No. 316 nor
of PD No. 1038.
Almarinez vs. Manabat-Potenciano
12 SCRA 361
The deliberate acts of a tenant in excavating the land by means of a bulldozer
without the knowledge and consent of the landholder, thereby inflicting damage to the
land, are held to be sufficient justification for this ejectment, under Section 50 (b) in
relations with Sec. 23, par. 1, and Sec. 38, par. 3 of Republic Act No. 1199.
161 SCRA 500
Since Congress failed to express an intention to make Republic Act No. 6389
retroactive, it may not apply to ejectment cases then already pending adjudication by
the courts.
87 SCRA 265
P.D. No. 316 in relation to P.D. No. 583 prohibiting and penalizing the
ejectment of agricultural tenants do not apply to the petitioner who was no longer in
possession of the land when said decrees took effect.
Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes
125 SCRA 223
Presidential Decree No. 583 which penalizes forcible ejectment of agricultural
tenants has nothing to do with and does not cover expropriation cases instituted by the
government.
Ira vs. Zafra
6 SCRA 513
Promise to exchange land with another belonging to same landlord is not one
of the means provided for ejectment of tenant.
Diga vs. Adriano
133 SCRA 421
Republic Act No. 6389, which removed personal cultivation as a ground for
ejectment of tenant, cannot be given retroactive effect, absent a statutory provision for
retroactivity.
Defensor vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 1
The vendee a retro of a landholding has the right to eject the tenant on the
ground of personal cultivation.
Clapano vs. Gapultos
132 SCRA 430

Sale of Land, not included as one of just causes for removal of tenants from the
landholding under P.D. No. 1038.
Santiago vs. Calumpag
12 SCRA 289
Telling a tenant to leave because the term has expired is not illegal ejectment.
Roxas Y Cia vs. Cabatuando, et al.
1 SCRA 1106-1107
Tenant entitled to indemnity for dwelling only if ejectment is without cause.
The mere failure of a tenant to pay he landlord's share does not necessarily
give the latter the right to eject the former when there is lack of deliberate intent on
the part of the tenant to pay, or there is failure of crop due to fortuitous event.
Paulo vs. Court of Appeals
54 SCRA 253
Tenant may not be ejected except by final judgment.
Dumlao vs. De Guzman
1 SCRA 145
Where the alleged landholder was a squatter who was ejected from the
landholding by virtue of writ of execution in a forcible entry case, the legal possessors
of the landholding cannot be compelled to retain the tenants of the said squatter.
EMINENT DOMAIN
Panes vs. Visayas State College of Agriculture
G.R. Nos. 56219-56220; G.R. Nos. 56393-56394, November 27, 1996
264 SCRA 708
P.D. 1107 has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality that is not easily
eroded by a mere allegation of its illegality. Hence, respondent VISCA is entitled to
prosecute its expropriation case and be heard on the merits as to the rights that is
claims under P.D. 1107.
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993
222 SCRA 174
Local government units can expropriate agricultural lands without prior
authority from the Department of Agrarian Reform as the determination of the public
use of the property subject for expropriation is considered an expression of legislative
policy.
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993

222 SCRA 173
Although local governments possess merely delegated, not inherent, power of
eminent domain, limitations in the exercise thereof must be clearly expressed, either
in the law conferring the power or in other legislations.
The exclusive authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to reclassify
agricultural lands is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the
landowners or tenant beneficiaries and does not include the determination of the
"public purpose" requirement of the expropriating authority.
The expropriation of property intended for the establishment of a pilot
development center and housing project of the Province of Camarines Sur held valid
in consonance with the public purpose requirement of the Constitution.
Association of Small Landowners in the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 348, July 14, 1989
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly
acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to
the owner.
175 SCRA 347-348, July 14, 1989
Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated
must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed.
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
30 SCRA 575
In determining the existence of an employee-employer relationship, the
elements that are generally considered are the following: (1) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal;
and (4) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. It is this last element
that constitutes the most important index of the existence of the relationship.
EMPLOYMENT OF HELPERS
162 SCRA 392
Transplanting and harvesting are not among those required by law to be
personally performed by the tenant-farmer; the law expressly allows the employment
of helpers.
ESTOPPEL
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
Defendant is in estoppel to deny receipt of copy of plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration by (a) his failure to call the judge's attention to that fact; (b) his
receipt without protest of the copy of the motion sent to him by the clerk of court by
order of the judge; (c) his failure to set up this particular claim after receipt of court's
resolution reconsidering and revoking the decision in his favor; (d) his failure to
perfect the appeal from the revocatory resolution of the court; and (e) silence and
inaction of defendant for almost four years.
Arellano vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 131
Attack on timeliness of appeal not barred by estoppel.
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
The circumstances outlining estoppel must be unequivocal and intentional, for
it is an exception to standard legal norms and is generally applied only in highly
exceptional and justifiable cases.
Lantican vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 97929, October 22, 1993
227 SCRA 370
Petitioners having invoked the jurisdiction of the DAR are now estopped from
assailing such lack of jurisdiction.
Salen vs. Dinglasan
198 SCRA 624, June 28, 1991
While lack of jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a party's active
participation in the proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop such
party from assailing such lack of jurisdiction.
Prudential Bank vs. Gapultos
181 SCRA 160-161, January 19, 1990
An estoppel may arise from the making of a promise even though without
consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact it
was relied upon and if a refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the
perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice.
EVIDENCE
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997

280 SCRA 299
Factual findings of administrative agency must be respected as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence even if such evidence might not be overwhelming
or even preponderant.
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
280 SCRA 236
Certifications issued by administrative agencies or officers that a certain
person is a tenant are merely provisional and not conclusive on courts.
Candido vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107493, February 1, 1996
253 SCRA 78
A document; or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply
marked for identification it must be formally offered.
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 223
The determination that a person is a tenant is a factual finding made by the trial
court which will not be reversed on appeal except for the most compelling reasons.
189 SCRA 758 ([1990])
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 224
In agrarian cases, all that is required is mere substantial evidence.
Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 100894, January 26, 1993
217 SCRA 550
The finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the waivers were
not tainted with fraud or deceit is a factual finding that binds the Court.
Malate vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 55318, February 9, 1993
218 SCRA 527
In appeals in agrarian cases, the only function required of the Court of Appeals
is to determine whether the findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations are
supported by substantial evidence. And substantial evidence has been defined as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and its absence is
not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or
circumstantial, and where the findings of fact of the agrarian court are supported by
substantial evidence, such findings are conclusive and binding on the appellate court.
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
216 SCRA 26
In agrarian cases, the quantum of evidence required is no more than substantial
evidence.
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
215 SCRA 427
As mandated by the Rules of Court, each party must prove his own affirmative
allegation. Court agrees with petitioners that the claim of private respondent has not
been established by preponderance of evidence.
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
215 SCRA 86
Under the terms of the written agreement signed by Obrique, et al., pursuant to
the livelihood program called "Kilusand Sariling Sikap Program", it was expressly
stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU and the
faculty and staff (participants in the project). The CMU did not receive any share
from the harvest/fruits of the land tilled by the participants. What the CMU collected
was a nominal service fee and land use participant's fee in consideration of all the
kinds of assistance given to the participants by the CMU.
Laureto vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992
312 SCRA 397
Substantial Evidence; In agrarian cases, substantial evidence will suffice to
support factual findings.
Velasquez vs. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 28
The review sought by petitioners does not fall under any of the grounds
warranting the exercise of this Court's discretionary power. The matter of what is the
reasonable redemption price being factual, precludes this Court from reviewing the
factual findings of the appellate court.
Gelos vs. Court of Appeals
208 SCRA 608, May 8, 1992
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence.
Castillo vs. Court of Appeals
205 SCRA 529, January 27, 1992

The agrarian court's findings of fact which went beyond the minimum
evidentiary support demanded by law, that is supported by substantial evidence, are
final and conclusive and cannot be reversed by the appellate tribunal.
200 SCRA 407-408, August 9, 1991
While petitioner correctly points out that a presumption of bona fide intention
is inherent in the filing of an action for personal cultivation under Sec. 36(1) of the
Agrarian Reform Code, still like other disputable presumptions, the same can be
overcome by evidence to the contrary, such as the facts brought out during the trial,
showing bad faith and malice.
198 SCRA 235, June 11, 1991
The findings and conclusions of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform being
preliminary in nature are not in any way binding on the trial courts.
189 SCRA 758-759, September 21, 1990
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.
Gonzales, Jr. vs. Alvarez
182 SCRA 16, February 7, 1990
In agrarian cases, all that is required is submission of "substantial evidence,"
not preponderance of evidence.
Relucio III vs. Macaraig
173 SCRA 635, May 30, 1989
This Court ordinarily accords respect, if not finality to factual findings of
administrative tribunals by reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained
from handling of specific matters falling under their respective jurisdiction. The
exceptions to this rule where judicial power asserts itself are: [1] The factual findings
are not supported by evidence; (2) the findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition, or
collusion; (3) the procedure which led to the factual findings is irregular; (4) palpable
errors are committed, or when a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or
capriciousness is manifested.
Angel vs. Inopiquez
169 SCRA 129, January 13, 1989
The nature and importance of the legal question raised in the petition makes it
necessary to discuss and resolve the same with finality.
Heirs of E.B. Roxas, Inc. vs. Tolentino

167 SCRA 335, November 14, 1988
Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderant evidence; it is
defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.
Heirs of E.B. Roxas, Inc. vs. Tolentino
167 SCRA 334, November 14, 1988
In agrarian cases, all that is required is mere substantial evidence. All that the
Appellate Court has to do is to find out if the decision of the CAR is supported by
substantial evidence.
Macaraeg v. CA
G.R. No. 48008, January 20, 1989
Anderson Co., et al. v. IAC

G.R. No. L-65928, January 21, 1988
Teruez v. IAC,
134 SCRA 414 (1985)
Gagola v. CAR
18 SCRA 992 (1966)
Chavez v. CAR
9 SCRA 412 (1963)
Salen vs. Dinglasan

198 SCRA 623, June 28, 1991
Whether a person is a tenant or not is basically a question of fact and the

findings of the respondent court and the trial court are generally entitled to respect
and non-disturbance except for unusual reasons.
Velasco vs. Mosuela
104 SCRA 556
Courts of Agrarian Relations are not bound strictly by the technical rules of
evidence.
10 SCRA 659
Substantial evidence has been defined to be "such relevant evidence as
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (Ang Tibay vs.
Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635, 642), and its absence is not shown by
stressing that there is contrary evidence on record direct or circumstantial, for the
appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the Agrarian
Court in determining wherein lies the weight of the evidence, or what evidence is
entitled to belief.
Cabio vs. Alcantara
81 SCRA 387
It is not sufficient to dismiss the case on the ground that the ejectment of tenant
farmers on rice and corn lands is prohibited, considering that should private
respondent be declared a tenant, then the right to eventually own the land would be
subject to the obligations imposed on him by P.D. No. 27 and the Rules and
regulations implementing the same.
Tomacruz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

2 SCRA 568
The Court of Agrarian Relations may, in the course of proceedings, admit
evidence of ownership for the purpose of determining who, as between two persons
claiming to be the owners of a parcel of land, is the landholder to whom the
landholder's share in the produce should be delivered by the tenant.
Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals
159 SCRA 243
Concerning the nature of the lease, we uphold the factual conclusions of the
trial court, it appearing that they are based on substantial evidence and are not tainted
with grave abuse of discretion.
Bagsican vs. Court of Appeals
141 SCRA 226-227
Findings of trial court that plaintiff below is a tenant on the land in question is
supported by substantial evidence.
7 SCRA 812
The issue of lack of instructions from the landlord for the tenant to plant a
second crop is primarily one of fact, and may not, therefore, be considered for the first
time on appeal.
Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
164 SCRA 431
The findings of fact of the court of agrarian relations are final and conclusive if
they are based on substantial evidence.
164 SCRA 433
Considering that substantial evidence does not only entail the presence of a
mere scintilla of evidence (See Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, supra) in
order that the fact of sharing can be established, we are constrained to rule that there
is no concrete evidence on record adequate enough to prove that the element of
sharing is present.
Delfin vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
19 SCRA 593
If the failure to present evidence on certain matters was not due to fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and said evidence is merely forgotten
evidence, the reopening of the trial or the holding of a new trial is not warranted.
Bagsican vs. Court of Appeals
141 SCRA 226
In agrarian cases, all that is required is submission of "substantial evidence",

not "preponderant evidence."
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 78
Section 155 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, which provides that "in the
hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy pending
before them, the Court without impairing substantial rights, shall not be bound strictly
by the technical rules of evidence and procedure, except in expropriation cases."
De Lamera vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 368-369
Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof, as is
required in an ordinary civil action, but such kind of relevant evidence as is
reasonable and may be accepted as adequate in support of a conclusion.
Antonio vs. Natividad
4 SCRA 680
While the evidence showed that petitioner had really entered the land, it did
not prove that he did so as tenant of the owners; that it was precisely by reason of that
entry that he was used for ejectment in the Justice of the Peace Court, wherein he did
not allege in his written answer that it was only after he lost said case that he filed as
action with the Court of Agrarian Relations to take away the dispute from the
jurisdiction of the regular courts, there is insufficient evidence to support the findings
that the petitioner was, in fact, a tenant of the landowner.
130 SCRA 483
A receipt prepared by landowner and signed voluntarily by adverse party is not
necessarily self-serving.
Picardal vs. Lladas
21 SCRA 1484
Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderant evidence, as is
required in an ordinary civil case. It has been defined to be such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and its absence is
not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or
circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criteria
for that of the trial court in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what
evidence is entitled to belief.
164 SCRA 572
Substantial evidence is all that is required in agrarian cases.
4 SCRA 1151
Whether or not the circumstantial evidence of fraud is or is not sufficient to

overcome the testimony and evidence for the landowner is not a question for the
Supreme Court to decide; so long as the findings of fact of the Agrarian Court attain
the minimum evidentiary support demanded by the law, such findings can not be
revised or altered by the appellate tribunals.
Beltran vs. Cruz
25 SCRA 607
Substantial evidence is not preponderance of evidence, and only requires that
the finding be predicated upon relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
129 SCRA 222-223
Where findings of court of appeals and trial court are contrary to each other,
Supreme Court may scrutinize the evidence on record.
Angliongton, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
116 SCRA 660
The withdrawal during pendency of agrarian case of other persons claiming to
be tenant is an evidence of lack of tenancy relationship.
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
Sps. Felipe Buag and Irma Buag vs. CA
G.R. No. 107364, February 25, 1999
A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is essentially an order to
place the prevailing party in possession of the property. If the defendant refuses to
surrender possession of the property to the prevailing party, the sheriff or other proper
officer should oust him.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 405
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is fatal to a party's cause of action
and a dismissal based on that ground is tantamount to a dismissal based on lack of
cause of action.
Pagara vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96882, March 12, 1996
254 SCRA 607
The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast
rule. It is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one; or (2)
where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the respondent is a department secretary, whose
acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter,
unless actually disapproved by him; or (4) where the circumstances indicating the
urgency of judicial intervention, - Gonzales vs. Hechanova, L-21897, October 22,
1963, 9 SCRA 230; Abaya vs. Villageas, L-25641, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA
1034; Mitra vs. Subido, L-21691, September 15, 1967, 21 SCRA 127. Said principle
may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy, (Cipriano vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291), when there is no due process
observed (Villanos vs. Subido, 45 SCRA 299), or where the protestant has no other
recourse (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637).
EXPENSES
99 SCRA 723
Agricultural tenant should be reimbursed for value of improvements he
introduced in the landholding.
Espiritu vs. David
2 SCRA 350
Expenses for the improvement of crop, case arising from tenant's debt from
landlord for purchase of carabao is within jurisdiction of court of agrarian relations.
4 SCRA 1153
Under Section 34 of Republic Act No. 1199, reimbursements for either parties
contribution are not allowed. Acceptance, therefore by the tenant of the landlord's
belated contribution should be considered as loans payable upon liquidation of the
crop.
Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
4 SCRA 1160
Section 22 of R.A. No. 1199 does not provide for indemnity for the value of
permanent improvements existing on the land, other than the tenant's dwelling, or for
the expenses in clearing the same upon taking possession thereof originally by the
tenant. Any award therefore, that may be made with regard to the value of said
permanent improvements, or the expenses for the clearing of the land is improper and
unauthorized.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
In the absence of specific figures, the division of the irrigation charges in

proportion to the benefits derived from the harvest is in accord with justice and
equity.
Santos vs. De Guzman
1 SCRA 1048
The expenses incurred by a tenant for the leveling of the land and the
construction of dikes or in making the landholding fit for cultivation or farming
cannot be considered as necessary expenses. At most they can be considered as useful
because necessary expenses are those made for the preservation of the property or
thing upon which they have been expended.
Useful expenses are to be refunded only to a possessor in good faith, and a
tenant whose possession is necessarily of a precarious character, cannot be considered
a possession in good faith in relation to his landlord. The tenant's only right with
respect to such improvements is to take them away if it can be done without injury or
damage to the property or thing rented or leased.
18 SCRA 81
Expenditures, which include the cost of seed, fertilizer, pest or weed control,
reaping and threshing, are deducted from the gross produce and are not shared but
reimbursed to the one who paid for the same. Considering that the 10-1/3 cavans
taken by the landowner were found by the Agrarian Court to cover the reaping and
insecticide expenses incurred by the tenant, the latter's right to recover the palay from
his landlord (who carried them away in violation of law) is indubitable.
F
FARM PRACTICES
7 SCRA 812
The mere fact that the expected quantity of harvest, as visualized and
calculated by agricultural experts, is not actually realized, or that the harvest did not
increase, is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the tenants failed to follow
proven farm practices.
FINAL JUDGMENT
Domingo Celendro vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 131099, July 20, 1999
It is " a vested interest which it is right and equitable that the government
should recognize and protect, and of which the individual could not be deprived,
arbitrarily without injustice." In the present case, the winning party must not be
deprived through a mere subterfuge, of the fruits of a final verdict.
FINDING OF FACTS
129 SCRA 223
That fact that respondent did not observe regular working hours indicates that
respondent is a tenant not a hired laborer.
162 SCRA 393-394
The determination that a person is a tenant-farmer is a factual conclusion made
by the trial court on the basis of evidence directly available to it and will not be
reversed on appeal except for the most compelling reasons. As we do not see any such
reason in the instant case, we are not justified in rejecting such findings, more so
since they have been affirmed in toto by the respondent court in the exercise of its
own powers of review.
Chavez vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
9 SCRA 412
A factual finding by the Court of Agrarian Relations, when supported by
substantial evidence, may no longer be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Ibaviosa vs. Tuazon
21 SCRA 1438
The conclusion reached by the respondent agrarian court regarding the
timeliness and validity of the tenant's exercise of his right to change tenancy system
between him and the landowner, being a question of fact, should not be disturbed on
appeal.
87 SCRA 263
Finding of the Court of Appeals on a question of fact whether or not
petitioner voluntarily surrendered his landholding by means of a document entitled
"Kasulatan ng pagsasauli ng karapatan" will not generally be disturbed.
55 SCRA 624
The findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence is not binding.
De Chavez vs. Zobel
55 SCRA 26
The findings of facts of Court of Agrarian Relations, supported by substantial

evidence, is conclusive and binding upon Supreme Court.
Del Rosario vs. De los Santos
25 SCRA 1196-1197
The findings of facts of agrarian court, if supported by substantial evidence, is
binding on the Supreme Court.
Resuena vs. Bas
34 SCRA 386
Whether or not there was such a bona fide intention of the landowner is largely
a question of fact into which the Supreme Court cannot inquire unless the Agrarian
Court's finding in that respect should lack substantial basis in the evidence on record.
Vda. De Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
146 SCRA 230-231
Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals that plaintiff was not a bona fide
tenant-farmer on the land is final and conclusive.
Toledo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
8 SCRA 499
Findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations are subject to review by the
Supreme Court only when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
Vda. De Donato vs. Court of Appeals
154 SCRA 119-120
This Court has consistently held that the findings of facts of the Court of
Agrarian Relations will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence
to support them and all that this Court is called upon to do insofar as the evidence is
concerned, in agrarian cases, is to find out if the conclusion of the lower court is
supported by "substantial evidence."
Picardal vs. Lladas
21 SCRA 1483
The findings of facts of the Court of Agrarian Relations will not be disturbed
on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support them.
27 SCRA 9
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the findings of the Court of
Agrarian Relations will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence
to support them (Picardel vs. Lladas, L-21309, December 29, 1967).
30 SCRA 574
Where all the facts are stated in the decision and the issue is the correctness of
the conclusions drawn therefrom, the question is one of law.
FISHPONDS
Isidro vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 503
It is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land.
Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 717
It is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land. In Gabriel vs. Pangilinan, 58
SCRA 590, 597, this Court rules that land in which fish is produced is classified as
agricultural land and the mere fact that a person works in an agricultural land does not
necessarily make him a leasehold tenant within the purview of Section 4 of Republic
Act No. 1199.
Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 718
Where a fishpond is covered by a civil law lease the rights of persons hired by
the lessee cannot rise higher than the lessee.
58 SCRA 590
Under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, "agricultural land" specifically mentions
fishponds and prescribes the considerations for the use thereof.
Tawatao vs. Garcia
8 SCRA 566-567
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 226 is applicable to
fishponds.
11 SCRA 371
The conversion of fishponds into saltbeds does not change their character as
agricultural into mineral lands.
FORCIBLE ENTRY
Villaflor vs. Reyes
22 SCRA 385
Right of occupant of public land may be protected by possessory action of

forcible entry.
Singson vs. Babida
79 SCRA 111
The case, involving as it did the use and cultivation of agricultural land, could
have come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
FORUM SHOPPING
De Dios vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 127623, June 19, 1997
274 SCRA 520
Forum Shopping; Circular No. 28-91; The requirement of Circular No. 28-91
for a certification against forum shopping does not apply to a motion for extension
since the same is not the petition spoken of in said Circular.
FRAUD
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383
In the instant case, the unconscionable failure of a party's lawyer to inform
such client of receipt of the court order and the motion for execution and to take the
appropriate action against either or both to protect his client's rights amounted to
connivance with the prevailing party which constituted extrinsic fraud.
H
HABEAS CORPUS
Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 326
Although it is well-accepted that a court should always strive to settle the
controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of
future litigation, this rule cannot apply if the result would negate the rational
application of the Rules of Court.
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 324
Once the person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question
his detention by a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus his remedy
then is the quashal of the information and/or the warrant of arrest duly issued.
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 323
In all petitions for habeas corpus, the court must inquire into every phase and
aspect of petitioner's detention from the moment petitioner was taken into custody
up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the petition and "only after such
a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution
has been satisfied."
HARVEST SHARING
Reynaldo Bejasa and Erlinda Bejasa vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 108941; July 6, 2000
Harvest sharing is not proven since no receipt, or any other evidence was
presented.
HARVESTING OF CROPS
Ignacio vs. De Guzman
5 SCRA 1161
Permission of the landlord before a tenant to harvest the crops is required only
if the reaping or threshing take place "at any time previous to the date set" therefore.
HOMESTEADS
Alita vs. Court of Appeals
170 SCRA 706-707, February 27, 1989
Both the Philippine Constitution and the CARL respect the superiority of the
homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform
statue.
Benzonan vs. Court of Appeals
205 SCRA, 515-517, January 27, 1992
Petitioners' proposed repurchase of the property does not fall within the
purpose, spirit and meaning of section 119 of the Public Land Act, authorizing
redemption of the homestead from any vendee thereof.
Patricio vs. Bayog
112 SCRA 42
The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the
poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest
house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the
satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens to their homes and to the
things necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. They have a
right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human beings, and the State
which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness is under a duty to safeguard
the satisfaction of this vital right.
Right of homesteader or his heirs to own a piece of land for their residence and
livelihood prevail over the right of tenants to security of tenure over the landholding.
I
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 71
Section 49 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that the judgment, with
respect to the matter directly adjudged therein, is conclusive between the parties and
their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action.
Ualat vs. Ramos
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996
265 SCRA 345
Sabio vs. Ramos
265 SCRA 345
Knowledge of existing agrarian legislation and prevailing jurisprudence on the
subject, together with an ordinary degree of prudence, would have prompted
respondent Judge to refer the case to the DAR for preliminary determination of the
real nature of the parties' relationship, as required by law.
Ualat vs. Ramos
265 SCRA 346
Ignorance of land, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one
certainly not judges.
Ualat vs. Ramos
265 SCRA 347
Judge committing his second infraction meted the maximum penalty of

P20,000.00 fine.
Bio
vs.
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-96-1074, June 20, 1996
257 SCRA 462
Valera
Those who wield the judicial gavel have the duty to study our laws and their
latest wrinkles they owe it to the public to be legally knowledgeable for ignorance
of the law is the mainspring of injustice.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383
It is a settled rule that a final and executory judgment may be set aside in three
ways, viz., (1) by a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38; (2) when the
judgment is void for want of jurisdiction, by direct action, as certiorari, or by
collateral attack; and (3) when the judgment was obtained by fraud and Rule 38
cannot be applied, by civil action under Article 1114 of the Civil Code.
IMMEDIATE FARM HOUSEHOLD

175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
The mere fact that the land is an agricultural land does not ipso facto make
petitioner an agricultural lessee. The law is explicit in requiring the tenant and his
immediate family to work the land.
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
Small farmer is oblige to work on the land by himself or with the aid of his
immediate farm household.
58 SCRA 590
Only the members of the family of the tenant and such other persons, whether
related to the tenant or not, who are dependent upon him for support and who usually
help him operate the farm enterprise are included in the term "immediate farm
household."
Velasquez vs. Magat
158 SCRA 206-207
There is no evidence that Cruz is a member of the tenant's immediate farm
household; or that he had helped Fabros in the cultivation thereof during the latter's
tenure as tenant, and at the same time was dependent on him for support, so as to
make him a member of the tenants "immediate farm household", in accordance with
the law at the time, which is the status he claims to have.
INCAPACITY
6 SCRA 796
The requirement that the landholder must work the land himself personally
does not preclude him from entrusting the cultivation of the holding to another person
or persons in case of illness or temporary incapacity, or to avail himself of the labor
of the members of his farm household, or the use of the Filipino practice of exchange
of labor system, commonly known as the "amuyo" or "Tagnawa" in the Ilocos
regions, "palusong" or "bayanihan" to the Tagalogs and "salibot" or "ayon-ayon" in
the Western Visayas.
Silva vs. Cabagon
7 SCRA 33
The admission by the tenant that he was unable to plow the land for the second
crop of an agricultural year did not establish the fact of permanent incapacity but
merely his incapacity for that specific period. Consequently, the applicable law is not
section 9 but section 24, paragraph (b) of the Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act
No. 1199).
INDISPENSABLE PARTY
162 SCRA 392-393
An indispensable party is one without whom the action cannot be finally
determined, whose interests in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought
are so bound up with that of the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the
proceeding is an absolute necessity.
INJUNCTION
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals
168 SCRA 439, December 14, 1988
The CAR judge can issue a restraining order which is to last for only twenty
(20) days.
181 SCRA 160, January 19, 1990
The doctrine is undisputed that no court has the power to interfere by

injunction with the judgment or orders of another court of concurrent or coordinate
jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by injunction.
Belleza vs. Dimson Farms Inc.
44 SCRA 386
In no instance may a court of first instance legally enjoin the execution of the
final judgments of the courts of agrarian relations which is a court of special
jurisdiction. Any question in relation to its judgments should be sought in the same
court.
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals
57 SCRA 720
Whether a restraining order should be issued or not is a matter largely
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent any manifest of grave
abuse, the intervention of an appellate court is officious and unjustified.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
Del Rosario vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
120 SCRA 422
Section 17 of P.D. 946 refers to interlocutory orders issued by the CAR which
cannot be elevated for review while trial is pending, not to orders or decisions
rendered after trial, which are appealable.
INTERVENORS
Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al.
G.R. No. 131457, August 19, 1999
Intervenors, who are admittedly not regular but seasonal farmworkers, have no
legal or actual and substantive interest over the subject land inasmuch as they have no
right to own the land. Rather, their right is limited only to a just share of the fruits of
the land.
Absent any definitive finding of the Department of Agrarian Reform,
intervenors cannot as yet be deemed vested with sufficient interest in the controversy
as to be qualified to intervene in this case.
INTERVENTION
8 SCRA 499
Persons having interest in the subject matter of the litigation may be allowed to
intervene in the action in order to avoid multiplicity of suits.
J
JUDGMENT
207 SCRA 650, March 31, 1992
An action must be brought against the real party-in-interest or against a party
which may be bound by the judgment to be reversed therein.
173 SCRA 635-636, May 30, 1989
Court will not normally substitute its judgment for that of the administrative
body in the absence of any important cause therefor.
Tenants of the Estate of Dr. Jose Sison vs. Court of Appeals
210 SCRA 545, June 29, 1992
The orders for the issuance of Certificates of Land Transfer to the petitioners
had not become final and executory because the certificates had been marked "under
protest" on orders of Secretary Estrella.
141 SCRA 302-303
An agreement already declared null and void by a competent court in once case
can no longer be relitigated.
Belleza vs. Dimson Farms Inc.
44 SCRA 386
There is no legal impediment whatsoever to the agrarian court setting aside its
decision and reopening the case for the sole purpose of enabling said court to render a
new judgment identifying specifically the lands to which the petitioners should be
reinstated.
Cunanan vs. Aguilar
85 SCRA 47
A court judgment is enforceable against a person not actually a party to the
case where he was instituted as tenant by the defendant therein who was declared not
a tenant and was ejected from the landholding in question.
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
Where the decision of the trial court is not appealed and allowed to become
final, the same becomes the law of the case and cannot anymore be set aside by the
judge.
Ayog vs. Cusi
118 SCRA 493
A judgment cannot be enforced against petitioners who are not defendants in
the case of ejectment below.
Ernesto vs. Court of Appeals
116 SCRA 755
A judgment of the court of appeals that become final by reason of the mistake
of the herein petitioner's lawyer may still be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme
Court. Particularly where the Supreme Court already gave due course to the petition
for review.
116 SCRA 757
Laborers should not be made to suffer due to mistake of their lawyer and the
Court of Appeals that led to the judgment becoming final otherwise the constitutional
mandate of protecting labor will not be serve.
De Borja vs. Court of Appeals
163 SCRA 175
Once a judgment has become final, the issues therein should be laid to rest.
Villaflor vs. Reyes
22 SCRA 385-386
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential
to an effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has become
final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of
the verdict.
Del Rosario vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
120 SCRA 423
The dispositive part does not always constitute a judgment and the judicial
pronouncements in the body of the decision must be considered.
Anduiza vs. Dy-Kia
29 SCRA 199
Under Section 4, Rule 43, in relation to Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court,
judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations becomes final and executory upon the
expiration of 15 days from notice of the order, ruling or decision.
Carandang vs. Cabatuando
53 SCRA 384
There is no abuse of discretion committed by agrarian court in declaring

petitioner-defendant in default.
JUDGES
Abibuag vs. Estonina
58 SCRA 49
Remark by judge that complainant is troublesome does not constitute
interference with farmer's right to self-organization.
58 SCRA 50
It is the duty and responsibility of judges to refrain from making remarks about
tenancy problems that could be misunderstood by tenants present.
85 SCRA 330
A judge of the agrarian court who has fully heard a case may render a decision
thereon even after he has been transferred to another station.
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
Under the rules, judicial admission cannot be contradicted unless shown to
have been made by palpable mistake.
JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
192 SCRA 52, December 4, 1990
It has been established that this Court will assume jurisdiction over a
constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential requisites of a judicial
inquiry into such a question are first satisfied.
JURISDICTION
Cipriano Centeno vs. Ignacia Centeno
G.R. No. 140825; October 13, 2000
Under Section 50, R.A. No. 6657, the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction
to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform
program.
Laguna Estates Devt. Corp. vs. CA, et al.
G.R. Nos. 119357 and 119375; July 5, 2000
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy
relationship between the parties.
Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000
Nothing contradictory between the provision of Sec. 50 granting the DAR
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and
exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform" which includes the determination of questions of just compensation,
and the provision of Sec. 57 granting RTC "original and exclusive jurisdiction" over
(1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowner, and (2)
prosecutions of criminal offenses under R.A. No. 6657.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 128557, December 29, 1999
Although it is true that Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the Special
Agrarian Courts shall have jurisdiction over the final determination of just
compensation cases, it must be noted that petitioner never contested the valuation of
the PARAD. Thus, the land valuation stated in its decision became final and
executory.
G.R. No. 126332, November 16, 1999
It is clear from Section 57 that the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a Special
Agrarian Court has "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowner". This "original and exclusive"
jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in
administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC
an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.
Jaime Morta, Sr., et al. vs. Jaime Occidental, et al.
G.R. No. 123417, June 10, 1999
In Vda. de Tangub vs. Court of appeals, we held that the jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the following:
a)
adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian
reform;
b)
resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related
problems; and
c)
approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or
readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial,
industrial and other non-agricultural uses.
Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula Inc., vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 103953, March 25, 1999
DARAB may only entertain appeals from decisions or orders of DAR officials
other than the Secretary.
Domingo Celendro vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 131099, July 20, 1999
The jurisdiction of the DARAB is merely to "determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters." Nothing in its charter confers upon it the power to review
findings of court.
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
284 SCRA 33
The rule has always been to the effect that the jurisdiction of a Court, as well
as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the averments in the
complaint and not by the defenses contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it
would not be too difficult to have a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings
unduly delayed by simple stratagem.
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 298
The rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application
in this case, since the questions on the identity of the land in dispute and the factual
qualification of private respondent as an awardee of a sales application require a
technical determination by the Bureau of Lands as the administrative agency with the
expertise to determine such matters.
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 297
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction courts cannot and will not resolve a
controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 404
Under 50 of R.A. No. 6657, it is the DAR which is vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform,
except those falling under, the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
G.R. No. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 406
The DAR's exclusive original jurisdiction is exercised through hierarchically
arranged agencies, namely, the DARAB, RARAD and PARAD, the latter two
exercising "delegated authority" while the first exercising appellate jurisdiction over
resolutions, orders, decisions and other dispositions of the RARAD and the PARAD,
and "functional supervision" over the RARAD and the PARAD.
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
263 SCRA 758
Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies.
Thus Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial Courts, are given
original and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2) "the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]." The provision of 50 must
be construed in harmony with this provision by considering cases involving the
determination of just compensation and criminal cases for violations of R.A. No.
6657 as expected from the plenitude of power conferred on the DAR.
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 326
Section 56 and 57 of R.A. No. 6657 vest upon the Regional Trial Court acting
as a Special Agrarian Court, with jurisdiction over the two classes of agrarian related
cases: (1) "petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and
(2) "prosecution of all criminal offenses" under the same law.
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
263 SCRA 760
What agrarian adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a
preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to
the courts the ultimate power to decide the question.
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
263 SCRA 759
It would subvert the "original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC for the
DAR to vest original jurisdiction in compensation cases in administrative officials
and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 325
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon the allegations made in
the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover
upon the claim asserted therein.
Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 378
There is nothing in Section 36 of B.P. Blg. 129 which bars the MCTC from
taking cognizance of a belatedly filed answer; The Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure, as well as it predecessor, do not provide that an answer filed after the
reglementary period should be expunged from the records as a matter of fact, there
is no provision for an entry of default if a defendant fails to file his answer.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 379
Where the answer filed asserts agricultural tenancy relationship between the
parties, which is clearly evidenced by their Agricultural Leasehold Contract and the
Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold, and even if this assertion per se does not
automatically divest the MCTC of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case, in view of
the defense asserted, the MCTC should hear and receive the evidence for the precise
purpose of determining whether or not it possesses jurisdiction over the case.
G.R. No. 96882, March 12, 1996
254 SCRA 606
The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. 129) vested on RTC exclusive
original jurisdiction in all civil actions and special proceedings theretofore falling
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995
250 SCRA 177
The resolution by the DAR of the agrarian dispute is to the best advantage of
the parties since it is in a better position to resolve agrarian disputes, being the
administrative agency presumably possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995
250 SCRA 176

Section 17 of E.O. 229 vested the DAR with quasi-judicial powers to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters as well as exclusive original
jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform except those
falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in accordance with law.
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 166
An error in jurisdiction can be raised at any time and even for the first time on
appeal. Barring highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances, neither estoppel
nor waiver may be raised as defenses to such an error.
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
Where the issues of the case extend beyond those commonly involved in
unlawful detainer suits, the case is converted from a mere detainer suit to one
"incapable of pecuniary estimation" thereby placing it under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 125
A land registration court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the existence or nonexistence of a tenancy relationship.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 503
Whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is
determined from the allegations of the complaint.
Bernas vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993
225 SCRA 119
The long settled rule in this jurisdiction is that a party is not allowed to change
his theory of the case or his cause of action on appeal.
G.R. No. 97788, May 11, 1993
221 SCRA 704
Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267 (as amended by Republic Act 1409)
creating said Court of Agrarian Relations it is given jurisdiction to consider,
investigate, decide and settle all questions x x x involving those relationships
established by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the cultivation
and use of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land. The Court is thus
empowered to act where there is a legal relationship between the parties fighting
before it. Such relationship must necessarily be that of agricultural tenancy.
Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
215 SCRA 87
Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 confers to the DAR quasi-judicial powers as
follows: The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform.
G.R. Nos. 85403-06, September 23, 1992
214 SCRA 197
The rule is settled that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in
force at the time of the commencement of the action.
Quismundo vs. Court of Appeals
201 SCRA 609-610, September 13, 1991
Executive Order No. 229 vests in the Department of Agrarian Reform quasijudicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters.
Quismundo vs. Court of Appeals
Republic Act No. 6657 contains provisions which evince and support the
intention of the legislature to vest in the Department of Agrarian Reform exclusive
jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters.
Determination of just compensation by the DAR is by no means final and
conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party.
The constitutionality of P.D. No. 27 from which Letter of Instructions No. 474
and Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 1978 are derived, is now well settled.
200 SCRA 408, August 1991
Leasehold relation cannot be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or
period in a leasehold contract or by the sale, alienation or transfer or conveyance of
the legal possession of the landholding.
Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals

Leasehold relationship continues until terminated for cause.
Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals
The Regional Trial Courts have not, however, been completely divested of
jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand,
confers "special jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are Regional Trial
Courts designated by the Supreme Court.
Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals
The DAR has original, exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, except on
the aspects of (a) just compensation; and (b) criminal jurisdiction over which regular
courts have jurisdiction.
Quiban vs. Butalid
189 SCRA 106-107, August 27, 1990
Once a Certificate of Land Transfer has been issued to a tenant, he is deemed
to be the owner of the agricultural land in question.
Jalandoni Jr. vs. Arsenal
189 SCRA 56, July 30, 1990
Presidential Decree 442 transferred to the Bureau of Labor Relations the power
of the Court of Agrarian Relations to hear and decide representation cases in relation
to agricultural workers.
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 96, July 21, 1990
Presidential Decree No. 27 was signed into law in view of the fact that the old
concept of land ownership by a few has spawned valid and legitimate grievances that
gave rise to violent conflict and social tension.
186 SCRA 518, June 14, 1990
Court is not divested of jurisdiction over a case on account of defenses raised
by the answer. The court is then merely authorized to receive evidence thereon.
Zamoras vs. Su, Jr.
184 SCRA 248-249, April 6, 1990
It is the NLRC, not the Court of Agrarian Relations, that has jurisdiction to try
and decide Zamora's complaint for illegal dismissal.
181 SCRA 161-162, January 19, 1990

There is no leasehold tenancy where alleged lessee never intended to cultivate
the land personally.
181 SCRA 159-160, January 19, 1990
It is a settled rule that on purely legal question the aggrieved party need not
exhaust administrative remedies.
Mere allegation of ownership by the defendant in an ejectment case or the
pendency of an action for reconveyance does not divest the inferior court of
jurisdiction over the ejectment suit.
175 SCRA 560-561, July 24, 1989
There is nothing in the records to show that petitioner committed a palpable
mistake in making the above disclosures.
175 SCRA 561, July 24, 1989
Regional Trial Court now has jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Court
of Agrarian Relations.
175 SCRA 559-560, July 24, 1989
The Agricultural Land Reform Code was enacted to help the small farmers and
to uplift their economic status by providing them a modest standard of living
sufficient to meet a farm family's needs for food, clothing, shelter, education and
other basic necessities.
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
The Agricultural Land Reform Code was enacted by Congress to institute land
reforms in the Philippines. It was passed to establish ownership-cultivatorship and the
family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture; to achieve a dignified
existence for the small farmers free from pernicious industrial restraints and practices;
to make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens and
a source of a genuine strength in our democratic society.
JURISDICTION, COURTS
Angel vs. Inopiquez
169 SCRA 129-130, January 13, 1989

Perfection of appeal does not necessarily mean that the lower court loses
jurisdiction over the case since the rules of procedure defined under P.D. 946 apply.
Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
The remand of the case to the lower court would not serve the ends of justice at
all.
20 SCRA 1131
Service of summons is not always indispensable to the acquisition by the court
of jurisdiction over the person of the parties. Such jurisdiction may be acquired by
virtue of voluntary appearance of both parties when they jointly submitted for
approval of the court the compromise.
Tubera vs. Fernando
10 SCRA 570
Under Section 156 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Act No. 3844), an
appeal from a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations raising mixed factual and
legal issues, there being no question of jurisdiction or constitutionality involved,
should be forwarded to the Court of Appeals.
Catorce vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 210
Courts under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the
statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong and
injustice would result.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Formoso
87 SCRA 255
Case at bar should now be returned to CAR for further proceedings in view of
recent statutes vesting to it jurisdiction over foreclosures of tenanted agricultural
lands.
Fleischer vs. Pamplona Plantation Co. Inc.
29 SCRA 1144
Section 154, paragraph 1 of Agricultural Land Reform Code provides that the
Court of Agrarian Relations shall have jurisdiction over "all cases of actions involving
matters, controversies, disputes or money claims arising from agrarian relations."
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge BR. V. CFI Bulacan
119 SCRA 223
A CFI does not lose jurisdiction by interposition of defense of tenancy but
must proceed to receive evidence to determine if it has jurisdiction.

40 SCRA 22
Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction over controversy arising from
agrarian relations.
62 SCRA 388
Court of Agrarian Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving
agricultural relationships.
Ferrer vs. Villamor
60 SCRA 106-107
Court of Agrarian Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving
agricultural relationship.
Cabio vs. Alcantara
81 SCRA 386-387
The Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction to rule on issue of ownership
in ejectment cases filed by the landholder.
1 SCRA 145
The Agrarian Court has no jurisdiction in a case where there exists no tenancy
relation between the parties.
Lastimoza vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
Since the tenant of an unlawful possessor, who was judicially ejected from the
landholding has no tenancy relationship with the lawful owner or possessor of the
land, the Agrarian Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the tenant
against the latter.
Baranda vs. Padios
154 SCRA 720-721
The Court of Agrarian Relations, not the municipal court, has exclusive and
original jurisdiction to take cognizance of and try the forcible entry and detainer case
involving agricultural tenants.
Ignacio vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan
42 SCRA 89
While it is true that jurisdiction of the court in a suit for ejectment or forcible
entry is determined by the allegations in the complaint, yet where tenancy is averred
as a defense and, upon hearing, is shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss
the case for want of jurisdiction.
People vs. Adillo

63 SCRA 91-92
Courts have no jurisdiction to try and convict persons charged with pre-reaping
or pre-threshing under agricultural tenancy Act of 1954.
Espiritu vs. David
2 SCRA 350
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act
No. 1409, approved on the date above-stated, provides that "actions pending in the
Court of Industrial Relations upon the approval of the Act which are within the
jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, shall be transferred to and the
proceedings therein continued in the latter court.
58 SCRA 49
Courts of first instance may take cognizance of criminal violation of R.A. No.
3844; courts may take notice of Proclaimed land reform areas.
Alvarez vs. Guanzon
131 SCRA 559
The effect of certification that the case is proper for trial or hearing is that the
Judge or Fiscal shall assume jurisdiction over the controversy or dispute. The Court
does not lose not is it deprived of its jurisdiction by a defense of tenancy but has the
authority to hear the evidence for the purpose of determining whether or not it has
jurisdiction.
Magno-Adamos vs. Bagasao
162 SCRA 747
On August 14, 1981, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 otherwise known as the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 took effect. This law converted the Courts of
First Instance into Regional Trial Courts which shall, among others, exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court
of Agrarian Relations (See Sec. 19(7), B.P. 129).
162 SCRA 390
It is axiomatic that jurisdiction once validly acquired is supposed to be retained
despite subsequent laws transferring it elsewhere unless the contrary is indicated.
65 SCRA 195-196
Absence of Judicial declaration of non-payment of landowner of cash value of
labor input of complainants does not remove the action from the jurisdictional
competence of the agrarian court.

118 SCRA 484
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over both agrarian and non-agrarian
litigations.
133 SCRA 77
The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the expropriation of a tenanted
landholding instituted in 1975 before the effectivity of P.D. 946 in 1976.
62 SCRA 388
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by law and cannot be
conferred by the will of the parties.
Velasco vs. Mosuela
104 SCRA 556
Secretary of Agrarian Reform is empowered to review upon appeal the
findings of the regional director that a case is not proper for trial.
65 SCRA 196
Money claim arising from performance of agricultural labor for agricultural
production is within jurisdiction of agrarian court.
Cabatan vs. Court of Appeals
95 SCRA 324
No certification of triability from the Ministry of Agrarian Reform is necessary
because when the complaints were filed said requirement was not yet imposed.
Geraldez vs. Rodriguez
12 SCRA 355
Whether the real issue laid before a Justice of the Peace Court was the
ejectment of the tenant or ownership over the land they were cultivating, said Court
had no jurisdiction. If it was the first issue that was involved, jurisdiction was with the
Court of Agrarian Relations, while it was the Court of First Instance which had
jurisdiction over the question of title.
143 SCRA 299
A party who voluntarily participated in the trial cannot later on raise the issue
of the Court's lack of jurisdiction.
Fleischer vs. Pamplona Plantation Co. Inc.
28 SCRA 1144
It was not within the contemplation of the legislature in approving the tenancy
laws that persons occupying positions of general managerial character in agricultural
enterprises should be considered in the same category as farm laborers and other farm
hands as to put claims for salaries and other forms of emolument and compensation
for personal services of such general managers within the jurisdiction of the agrarian
courts.
Ira vs. Zafra
6 SCRA 513
The stipulation agreed upon between the plaintiffs and the defendants allowing
the latter to work and share on the land, converted the detainer case into a tenancy
matter, the termination of which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of
Agrarian Relations.
Arevalo vs. Benedicto
58 SCRA 187
Violations of Agrarian Law is within jurisdiction of agrarian courts.
JUST COMPENSATION
G.R. Nos. 56219-20; G.R. Nos. 56393-94, November 27, 1996
264 SCRA 709
P.D. No. 1533 determines the just compensation in expropriation cases to be
the fair and current market value declared by the owner of the property sought to be
expropriated or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower.
As such, the determination of just compensation, by virtue of the enactment of P.D.
No. 1533, was converted from being a judicial prerogative to an executive decision.
Because the executive determination of just compensation is eminent domain
proceedings renders the court inutile in a matter which under the Constitution is
reserved to them for final determination, we declared P.D. No. 1533 to be
unconstitutional and void in the case of Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay.
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993
222 SCRA 175
The fixing of just compensation in expropriation proceedings shall be made in
accordance with Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and not on the basis of the valuation
declared in the tax declaration of the subject property by the owner or assessor which
has been declared unconstitutional.
Association of Small Landowners of the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 351, July 14, 1989
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court
that the measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to
intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the
equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full,
ample.
Association of Small Landowners of the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 350, July 14, 1989
The Court declares that the content and manner of the just compensation
provided for in the CARP Law is not violative of the Constitution.
Determination of Just Compensation, addressed to the courts of justice and
may not be usurped by any other branch.
National Housing Authority vs. Reyes
123 SCRA 245, June 29, 1983
There being no question raised as to the validity of P.D. 757, P.D. 42, P.D. 464
and P.D. 1224. The respondent judge should have followed the rule of valuation
therein stated on matters of just compensation in expropriation cases, that the lower
value made by the landowner should be the basis for fixing said just price.
Philippine National Bank vs. Amores
155 SCRA 446-447
Preamble of PD 251 eloquently articulates government intent to implement the
state policy of "diverting landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development,"
PNB is one of the government resources contemplated in the preamble.
Association of Rice & Corn Producers of the Philippines Inc. vs. The National Land
Reform Council
113 SCRA 799
The provision on the compensation of the landholder affected by the operation
of the land Reform Code is considered a judicial question.
Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay
149 SCRA 308
The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The executive
department or the legislature may make the initial determination but when a party
claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not
be taken for public use without just compensation. No statute, decree or executive
order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings.
Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed
compensation.
L
LAND BANK BONDS
Maddumba vs. Government Service Insurance System

182 SCRA 281-282
Land Bank bond shall be accepted as payment of pre-existing obligations to
government financial institutions at their face or par value, not at discounted value.
155 SCRA 446
Land Bank Bonds are deemed contracts and fall within the purview of the nonimpairment clause of the constitution.
143 SCRA 299-300
Land Bank Bonds used to pay indebtedness of owner of lands distributed to
tenants shall be accepted at their face value whether the expropriation was or was not
under P.D. 27.
LAND REFORM LAWS

82 SCRA 250-251
The Agricultural Land Reform Code has prospective, not retroactive effect.
Association of Rice & Corn Producers of the Philippines Inc. vs. The National Land
Reform Council
113 SCRA 799
The Agricultural Land Reform Code R.A. No. 3844 is constitutional even
under the 1935 constitution.
104 SCRA 619
Brief summary of recent series of land reform laws.
Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo
33 SCRA 105-106
The very essence of the Agricultural Land Reform Code is the abolition of
agricultural share tenancy as proclaimed in its title.
Vda. De Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
146 SCRA 230-231
Like P.D. 27, P.D. 316 applies and operates only in favor of bona-fide tenant
farmers.
People vs. Adilo
68 SCRA 91
Omission in R.A. No. 3844 of provision in Section 39 of R.A. No. 1191

penalizing the reaping or threshing of produce previous to date set therefore operates
as an implied repeal of said provision.
Molino vs. Court of Appeals
115 SCRA 799
One of the objectives of P.D. 946 is speedy disposition of cases.
People vs. Almuete
69 SCRA 410
Pre-reaping and pre-threshing of palay by rice tenant is no longer a crime
under the agricultural reform code whereby it superseded the agricultural tenancy law.
163 SCRA 175
P.D. No. 27 cannot be applied retroactively, there being no express nor clearly
implied authorization.
162 SCRA 247
P.D. No. 1038 applies specifically to private agricultural lands devoted to
crops other than rice or corn.
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals
57 SCRA 720
P.D. Nos. 27 and 316 proclaimed emancipation of rice and corn tenants.
Gonzales vs. Estrella
91 SCRA 294
P.D. No. 27; emancipation of the farmers from the bondage of the soil; the
decree is part of the law of the land.
155 SCRA 445-446
P.D. 27 effects emancipation of the tenant-farmer from the bondage of the soil
while Section 80 provides the mode of bankrolling the emancipation measure.
129 SCRA 210-211
The Agricultural Land Reform Code has been designed to promote economic
and social stability. Being a social legislation, it must be interpreted liberally to give
full force and effect to its clear intent, which is "to achieve a dignified existence for
the small farmers" and to make them "more independent, self reliant, and responsible
citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society.
Quilantang vs. Court of Appeals

48 SCRA 294
Section 36 R.A. 3844 is a substantive provision and cannot be amended by
R.A. No. 5434, a mere procedural law.
LAND TITLES
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 125
The annotation in the Transfer Certificate of Title, stating that the land covered
thereby is not tenanted, cannot be regarded as conclusive upon the courts of justice as
to the legal nature and incidents of the relationship between the landowner and the
persons therein.
Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994
233 SCRA 626
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence not only of ownership of the land
referred but also its location.
LAND TRANSFER
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 166
Stipulation in Deed of Sale limiting disposition of land within five years binds
vendee's heirs.
Velasquez v. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 29
Transferee of agricultural land could be asked to sell land to lessee.
Velasquez v. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 28
Sale of agricultural land is valid even if not accompanied by affidavit of nontenancy where sale authorized by court nor lack of notice to lessee affect its validity.
LANDHOLDER
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals

164 SCRA 571
A landholder shall mean a person, natural or juridical, who either as owner,
lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor lets or grants to another the use or cultivation
of his land for a consideration either in shares under the share tenancy system, or a
price certain or ascertainable under the leasehold system.
LAND USE
G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999
Land Use refers to the manner of utilization of land, including its allocation,
development and management.
LAND USE CONVERSION

G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999
Land Use Conversion refers to the act or process of changing the current use of
a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR.
LAW OF THE CASE

141 SCRA 303
The dictum therein laid down became the law of the case and what was once
irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same
parties in the same case continues to be binding upon them so long as the facts on
which the decision was predicated continue to the facts of the case before the Court.
LEASEHOLD TENANCY SYSTEM

138 SCRA 174
Action for recognition as a lessee and to fix rentals not similar to action to
determine if lessee had not been given his full share of harvest.
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 76-77
In determination of annual lease rental, if direct evidence on normal harvest of

one of three preceding agricultural years prior to establishment of leasehold is not
available, circumstantial evidence may be considered.
162 SCRA 392
Fact that the DZBB was not much interested in the share and that its board of
directors had not adopted a resolution recognizing the agricultural lessee in favor of
Roaring should not signify that the lease does not exist.
158 SCRA 42
Finding that petitioners was not a bona fide tenant-farmer on the land based on
evidence is final and conclusive; personal cultivation by petitioner and the immediate
members of his farm household, which is salient characteristic of agricultural
leasehold, is absent in case at bar.
People vs. Adilo
68 SCRA 91
Notice of reaping or threshing is not required under a leasehold system.
Manubay vs. Martin
33 SCRA 730
The reason for the absence of advance 3-day notice of the date of threshing and
reaping in the Tenancy Act is that the lessee's obligation is to pay the rental, which is
to deliver a generic thing in the absence of any specific agreement to the contrary, and
that the rental is supposed to be specific amount, as fixed and limited in section 46 of
the Act; and that consequently, in the absence of any legal obligation imposed on the
lessee to give such notice, the lessor should it upon himself to verify from the tenantlessee the date of reaping and threshing.
Guevara vs. Santos
18 SCRA 710
Section 43 enjoins the tenant-lessee to make proper use of the land and
improvements thereon.
58 SCRA 186
Tenant of agricultural lessee has the right to remain in the land being tilled by
him notwithstanding surrender of lease.
149 SCRA 49
There is no leasehold tenancy where alleged lessee never intended to cultivate
the land personally.

79 SCRA 559
Under the leasehold tenancy system, the lessee shoulders the cost of irrigation
which, therefore, is not deductible from the gross harvest.
M
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
The elements of the crime of malicious mischief are: 1. The offender
deliberately caused damage to the property of another; 2. The damage caused did not
constitute arson or crimes involving destruction; 3. The damage was caused
maliciously by the offender.
MANGO TREES
162 SCRA 247
P.D. No. 316 referred only to agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and
corn.
MECHANIZATION OF FARMS
De Santos vs. Acosta
4 SCRA 359
While managerial discretion should be conceded to the landowner, and it
would ordinarily be his prerogative to decide what portion of his land should be
mechanized, the bona fide exercise thereof can be tested to determine if it conforms to
legislative measures enacted pursuant to the police power of the State, one of which is
Section 50(a) of R.A. No. 1199, as amended.
MEMORANDA IN AGRARIAN CASES

Ty vs. Elale
115 SCRA 29-30
It is evident that P.D. No. 946 in the interest of the expeditious administration
of justice empowers the Court of Appeals to dispense with memoranda in deciding
agrarian cases.
Ty vs. Elale
115 SCRA 30
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we hold that, as a matter of orderly procedure
and to dispel the impression that a litigant in an agrarian case has been denied due
process or was not accorded a hearing in the Court of Appeals, it is advisable that if
the Appellate Court finds that memoranda are not necessary, it should at least issue a
notice to the parties that the case is submitted for decision without any memoranda.
MODE OF COMPENSATION
Edgardo Santos vs. LBP, et al.
G.R. No. 137431; September 7, 2000
Must be paid in the manner provided by R.A. No. 6657, that is, in cash and
bonds.
MOOT AND ACADEMIC

Angel vs. Inopiquez
169 SCRA 129, January 13, 1989
When a decision on the merits in a case is rendered and the same has become
final and executory, action on procedural matters or issues is rendered moot and
academic.
MORTGAGES
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 72
The land being an agricultural one, and considering the ocular inspection
conducted in 1978 when P.D. No. 27 had been effect for some time, the mortgagee's
suspicion that the land was tenanted should have been aroused by the existence of a
farmer on the land other than the mortgagors themselves.
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 70
Even if the title of a buyer at an extrajudicial foreclosures has been

consolidated or confirmed in its favor, it may be entitled to a writ of possession only
if the debtor is in possession and no third person had intervened.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 125
The remedy of the mortgagee is not against the land nor the agricultural lessees
but against the mortgagors.
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 96, July 21, 1990
The Court gave much weight to the finding of the trial court that what was
entered into by the parties was a contract of mortgage.
143 SCRA 299-300
Even if only one of three mortgaged lots were subjected to operation land
transfer under P.D. 27, all the lots shall be deemed covered thereunder due to the rule
that a mortgage obligation is indivisible.
Adrisola vs. Court of Appeals
133 SCRA 245-246
Stipulation in the deed of mortgage that the mortgagee is the one transplant on
the landholding, which is tantamount to a prohibition against the institution of a
tenant, means that the mortgagee himself was to cultivate the landholding personally.
155 SCRA 446-447
Explicit is the law that a mortgage obligation is one and indivisible ever any
portion of the property mortgaged is answerable for the whole obligation as soon as
the latter falls due. The mortgagor cannot opt, much less compel the mortgagee to
apply any payment made by him on a specific portion of the mortgaged property to
effect release. Neither may the mortgagee apply payments made to it on, and
consequently release, a portion of the mortgaged property and effect foreclosure on
the rest. From the foregoing, it is clear that petitioner PNB cannot be allowed to do
precisely what it had done in the case at bar.
87 SCRA 254-255
Prior to enactment of P.D. 946, reorganizing the courts of agrarian relations, on
June 17, 1976, said courts have no jurisdiction over foreclosures of mortgages
involving tenanted agricultural lands.
87 SCRA 255
The additional jurisdiction in cases involving foreclosure of mortgage of

tenanted lands, inter alia, was precisely added to the original, competence of the CAR
. . . in order to protect the security of tenure and such other rights of tenant-farmers
that may be involved.
MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT

Amante vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
18 SCRA 427
Motions for postponement are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al.
G.R. No. 131457
August 19, 1999
There are exceptional cases when this Court may entertain a second motion for
reconsideration, such as where there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons. Even
then, we have ruled that such second motions for reconsideration must be filed with
express leave of court first obtained.
116 SCRA 755
In agrarian cases no motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be allowed in
the Court of Appeals.
85 SCRA 330
A judge of the agrarian court who fully heard an agrarian case may act on a
motion for reconsideration thereon even after his transfer to another station.
85 SCRA 330-331
An Agrarian Court judge does not commit an abuse of discretion where he
opted to refer a motion for reconsideration of a decision on a case in his sala to be
resolved by his predecessor thereto who had fully heard the case and rendered the
question decision thereon.
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
Section 1 of the Rules of Court of Agrarian Relations requires that motions for
reconsideration be accompanied by proof of service of one copy thereof upon the
adverse party. However, the defect is cured if a subsequent motion attaches photostat
copies of registry receipt showing that original motion was received by adverse
counsel and this is denied or disapproved.
70 SCRA 564
Filing of notice of appeal does not constitute abandonment of motion for
reconsideration where said motion was actually acted upon by the court.
N
NEW TRIAL
Chingan vs. La Guardia
17 SCRA 541
Motion for new trial should be supported by affidavit of merits.
17 SCRA 540-541
Failure to receive notice of hearing is not a ground for new trial because if
negligence that is not excusable, considering the antecedents of the case.
NOMINAL OR PRO FORMA PARTY

Antonio Samaniego, et al. vs. Vic Alvarez Aguila
G.R. No. 125567; June 27, 2000
The Office of the President is merely a pro forma party. A nominal or pro
forma party is one who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party
has any real interest in the subject matter or because any relief is demanded, but
merely because the technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such party on
record.
NON-TENANTED LANDS
99 SCRA 723
Agricultural lands which are non-tenanted lands are not covered by P.D. No.
27.
NOTICES
Salen vs. Dinglasan

198 SCRA 623, June 28, 1991
Notice to counsel is notice to parties and the client is bound by the negligence
of his own Attorney who failed to notify him of the decision rendered in the case.
55 SCRA 623-624
Under Section 8, Rule 13 Rules of Court, service by registered mail is
complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, but if he fails to claim his mail from
the post office within five days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster,
service shall take effect at the expiration of such time.
Manubay vs. Martin
33 SCRA 730
The failure of the tenant to give the advance 3-day notice of the date of
harvesting as required by the Land Reform Code is not a ground of eviction if the
failure to give notice is done in good faith and the belief that the provisions of the
Tenancy Act continued to govern his leasehold relationship.
18 SCRA 82
Nothing in Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 requires that the change of
system must be made by notice independent of the petition. The petition itself, served
on the landlord, is effective as a notification, and since the Agrarian Court made the
change effective on the crop year 1963-1964, the year after the filing of the petition
no prejudice was caused to the landlord.
Lusung vs. Vda. De Santos
118 SCRA 670
Notice of proposed sale of agricultural land to the tenant should contain the
principal terms of the sale, otherwise it is insufficient. Defense of giving notice to
tenant of proposed sale cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Mipalar vs. Santos
20 SCRA 935
In connection with the dispossession of the tenant on he ground that the
landowner will employ farm machinery and equipment, two notices should be made:
(1) to the Court of Agrarian Relations and (2) to the tenant.
Ibaviosa vs. Tuazon
21 SCRA 438-439
Where the tenant's petition asking for a change in tenancy relationship
beginning with the agricultural year 1960-1961was filed on October 20, 1960 but in
the decision of the respondent court of Agrarian Relations, the change in the tenancy
system was made effective only beginning with the agricultural year 1963-1964, the
requirement of the law regarding at least one month notice by the tenant to the
landlord regarding the change of tenancy system had, therefore, been duly complied
with.
O
OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 246
Neither Section 6 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. 6657)
nor Sec. 1 of E.O. 407 was intended to impair the obligation of contracts earlier
concluded.
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 245
In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the
extinguishments or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of
the event which constitutes the condition.
Galang vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80645, August 3, 1993
225 SCRA 38
Rescission on ground of "impossible condition" is not proper absent proof of
status of "encargado" as tenant.
Intestate of Estate of the late Ricardo P. Presbitero Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102432, January 21, 1993
217 SCRA 374
The validity or compliance of a contract cannot be left to the will of one of the
contracting parties.
Intestate of Estate of the late Ricardo P. Presbitero Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102432, January 21, 1993
217 SCRA 373
In the interpretation of contracts, it is the intention of the contracting parties,
the literal meaning of the stipulations that shall control. Furthermore, subsequent or
contemporaneous acts of the contracting parties shall be considered in judging their
intention.
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
Rescission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach but
only for such substantial and fundamental breach as would defeat the very object of
the parties in making the agreement.
When the obligee accepts the performance knowing its incompleteness or
irregularity and without expressing any protest or obligation, the obligation is deemed
fully complied with.
OBLIGATIONS TO HEIRS
Natividad vs. De Guzman
1 SCRA 830
Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court applies to the obligations of a
decedent transmissible to his heirs in general, not to obligations of the decedent with
particular reference to land or properties under tenancy.
ORDER OF EXECUTION
Sps. Felipe Buag and Irma Buag vs. CA
G.R. No. 107364, February 25, 1999
Generally, an order of execution is not appealable because otherwise a case
would never end. If the order of execution cannot be appealed, neither can the order
of demolition issued in pursuance thereof be appealable.
OVERSEER
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 123
The act of an overseer in hiring agricultural lessees with the knowledge and
acquiescence of the landholder validated the relationship thereby created.
OWNERSHIP
207 SCRA 652, March 31, 1992
The owner has the right to dispose of a thing without other limitations than
those established by law.
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY

G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 71
The exercise of the rights of ownership are subject to limitations that may be
imposed by law, such as the Tenancy Act and P.D. 27.
G.R. Nos. 56393-94, G.R. Nos. 56219-20, November 27, 1996
264 SCRA 710
It is imperative that any right to the immediate possession of property sought to
be expropriated must be firmly grounded on a valid compliance with Section 2 of
Rule 67, i.e., there must be a deposit with the National or Provincial Treasurer of the
value of the subject property as provisionally and promptly ascertained and fixed by
the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings.
Acap vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
251 SCRA 31
There is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver
of hereditary rights, a stranger to succession cannot conclusively claim ownership
over a lot on the sole basis of a waiver document which does not recite the elements
of either a sale, or a donation, or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership.
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
251 SCRA 30
An asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising from
a juridical act, however justified, is not per se sufficient to give rise to ownership over
the res. That right or title must be completed by fulfilling certain conditions imposed
by law; While title is the juridical justification, mode is the actual process of
acquisition or transfer of ownership over a thing in question.
Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88384, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 175
A lessee cannot have a right superior to that of his lessor over the premises in a
dispute between the lessor and a third party regarding the ownership or possession of
the said premises.
P
PARI DELICTO
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 98, July 21, 1990
Pari delicto doctrine is not applicable to a homestead which has been illegally
sold in violation of the homestead law.
PARTIES
Antonio Samaniego, et al. vs. Vic Alvarez Aguila
G.R. No. 125567
It is clear that petitioners' failure to implead the Office of the President does
not warrant the dismissal of the case as it is in accordance with this Circular. It is not
true that the Office of the President is not included within the scope of this circular.
PETITION FOR RELIEF

58 SCRA 187
Grant of relief is not erroneous where it will enable court to correct
jurisdictional error.
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge, BR. V, CFI Bulacan
119 SCRA 222
In a judgment based on a compromise the period to file petition for relief
commences to run from the rendition of judgment.
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge, BR. V, CFI Bulacan
119 SCRA 223
Petition for relief must be supported by affidavits of merit.
27 SCRA 9
The Court of Agrarian Relations is not restricted to the specific relief claimed
or demands made by the parties to the dispute, but may include to the order or
decision any matter or determination which may be deemed necessary and expedient
for the purpose of settling the dispute or preventing further disputes, provided said
matter for determination has been established by competent evidence during the
hearing.
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 382
The absence of an affidavit of merit is not fatal where the petition itself, which
is under oath, recites the circumstances or facts which constitute the grounds for the
petition. The oath elevates the petition of the same category as the affidavit.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 381
In view of the unusual and peculiar circumstances of the instant case, where
unless some form of relief is made available to the aggrieved party, the grave injustice
and irreparable injury that visited him through no fault or negligence on his part will
only be perpetuated, the petition for relief from judgment which he filed may be
allowed or treated, pro hac vice, either as an exeption to the rule, or a regular appeal
to the RTC, or even an action to annul the order (decision) of the MCTC.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 378
Section 2 of Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court does not only refer to
judgments but also to orders, or any other proceedings.
PETITION FOR REVIEW

G.R. No. 127623, June 19, 1997
274 SCRA 520
The Court of Appeals acts hastily when it concludes that a party is going to file
a petition for certiorari instead of a petition for review solely on the basis of such
party's allegation that he was going to file a petition for certiorari.
234 SCRA 25 (1994)
G.R. No. 127623, June 19, 1997
274 SCRA 520
The fact that an administrative agency is made a respondent a feature of a
petition for certiorari, should be treated merely as innocuous and should not be
allowed to detract from the true consideration of the petition as a petition for review.
G.R. No. 96882, March 12, 1996
254 SCRA 606
The DARAB is made a respondent a feature of a petition for certiorari, but this
fact should have been treated merely as innocuous and should not have been allowed
to detract from the true consideration of the petition as a petition for review.

G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
216 SCRA 25
Settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
215 SCRA 426
In petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of
law may be raised since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are deemed
conclusive on the Supreme Court.
Caparas vs. Court of Appeal
105 SCRA 355
The 30-day reglementary period under PD 946 to file petition for review on
certiorari of a decision of the Court of appeals is non-extendible.
PLEADINGS AND PRACTICES

Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383
A notice to a lawyer who appears to have been unconscionably irresponsible
cannot be considered as notice to his client.
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
251 SCRA 31
A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverse to the
registered owner, the validity of which is yet to be established in court at some future
date, and is no better than a notice of lis pendens which is a notice of a case already
pending in court.
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
257 SCRA 31
Where a person's right or interest in a lot in question remains an adverse claim,
the same cannot by itself be sufficient to cancel the OCT to the land.
B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80223, February 5, 1993
218 SCRA 446
Under the rules, even assuming the validity of the extension, the motion should
have been denied outright for tardiness as the order sought to be reconsidered had
already long become final.
Intestate Estate of the Late Ricardo P. Presbitero, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102432, January 21, 1993
217 SCRA 372
A motion for postponement is not a matter of right, it is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court.
POLICE POWER
Philippine National Bank vs. Remigio
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 363
Police power subordinates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 362
The Constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is
limited by the exercise of the police power of the state; The reason being that public
welfare is superior to private rights.
175 SCRA 346, July 14, 1989
Property condemned under Police Power is noxious or intended for a noxious
purpose is not compensable.
175 SCRA 346, July 14, 1989
A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is a
concurrence of the lawful subject method.
Valencia vs. Surtida
2 SCRA 622
Laws enacted in the exercise of police power, to which Republic Act No. 1199
belongs, may constitutionally affect tenancy relations created before the enactment of
effectivity thereof.
22 SCRA 1196
Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 1199 is a valid exercise of police power.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion rep. By Demetria Durolfo Asuncion vs. Jesus Santiago, et
al.
G.R. No. 115741, March 9, 1999
The writ of preliminary injunction is issued by the court to prevent threatened
or continuous irremediable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly
studied and adjudicated. Its sole objective is to prevent the status quo until the merits
of the case can be heard fully.
PRESCRIPTION
Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals
191 SCRA 880-881, December 3, 1990
Section 38 of Republic Act No. 3844 provides that "an action to enforce any
cause of action under this code shall be barred if not commenced within three (3)
years after such cause of action accrued." The law does not specifically require a
judicial action, hence, it can be an administrative action.
PROCEDURE
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
It is the duty of the attorney to inform the court promptly of his client's death,
incapacity or incompetency during the pendency of the action and to give the name
and residence of his executor, administrator, guardian or other legal representative.
Angel vs. Inopiquez
169 SCRA 130, January 13, 1989
PD 946 being a special law, it shall have precedence over the Rules of Court
which is of general applicability.
Angel vs. Inopiquez
169 SCRA 130, January 13, 1989
Rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid technical sense.
Valino vs. Muoz
35 SCRA 413
Absence of verification is a formal, not jurisdictional defect.
Gamalog vs. Court of Appeals
30 SCRA 591-592
The change in procedure does not affect the nature of the proceeding as an
appeal by way of certiorari.
Ferrer vs. Villamor
60 SCRA 107
Parties to action must be real party in interest, not mere apoderado.
124 SCRA 622-623
The CAR should have sent its decision to the "MAR Office, Kapatagan, Lanao
del Norte" rather than to BALA, MAR, Diliman, Quezon City.
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
Court is not bound by technical rules of evidence and procedure.
Molino vs. Court of Appeals
115 SCRA 799
Ex-parte hearing is allowed under PD 946 provided both parties and counsel
duly notified.
11 SCRA 171
The mere fact that the constitutionality of a law is raised in another case
pending in the Supreme Court is not a valid reason for suspending the proceedings in
a present case. Laws are considered valid until declared unconstitutional, and until
then courts are duty bound to enforce them.
70 SCRA 563
Procedural requirements of R.A. 5440, on appeals from the decision of the
Court of Agrarian Relations may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice.
162 SCRA 747
The remand of a case to the lower courts for reception of evidence is not
necessary if this Court could resolve the dispute on the records before it (See
Hechanova v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 550). In the case of Origas & Co., Ltd.
Partnership v. Hon. Ruiz, et al. (148 SCRA 326, 341), this Court further holds that: "x
x x such time consuming procedure may be properly dispensed with to resolve the
issue (Quisumbing v. Court of appeals, L-60364, June 23, 1983, 122 SCRA 709-710)
where there is enough basis to end the basic controversy between the parties here and
now, dispensing with procedural steps which would not anyway affect substantially
the merits of their respective claims.
164 SCRA 571

Section 155 of R.A. No. 3844 provides that, except in expropriation cases, the
Court of Agrarian Relations shall not be bound strictly by technical rules.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390
Under R.A. No. 3844, the CAR may deviate from the usual norms of
procedure.
PUBLIC AUCTION
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 73
A purchaser at a public auction is only substituted to and acquired the right,
title, interest and claim of the judgment debtor or mortgagor to the property as of the
time of the levy.
R
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
Ejectment, accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria make up the three
kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.
REDEMPTION
Gerardo Rupa, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G. R. No. 80129, January 25, 2000
The right of redemption is validly exercised upon compliance with the
following requirements: (a) the redemptioner must be an agricultural lessee or share
tenant; (b) the land must have been sold by the owner to a third party without prior
written notice of the sale given to the lessee or lessees and the DAR in accordance
with Section 11, RA 3844, as amended; (c) only the area cultivated by the agricultural
lessee may be redeemed; (d) the right of redemption must be exercised within 180
days from notice; and e) there must be an actual tender or valid consignation of the
entire amount which is the reasonable price of the land sought to be redeemed.
REFERRAL TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM

169 SCRA 279, January 20, 1989
The purpose for referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) under the
aforesaid decree it to enable said Ministry to determine if the case is intended to
harass tenant and farmers.
169 SCRA 279, January 20, 1989
Even if referral was required, there was a referral of the case to the district
officer of the MAR.
186 SCRA 518, June 14, 1990
Preliminary certification by the DAR of a case under P.D. 316 may be reversed
by the courts after a hearing.
Valles vs. CFI of Samar, Branch I
176 SCRA 804, August 28, 1989
Referral of a case for preliminary determination to the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform refers to pending agrarian or civil cases or those pending decision or
execution where the issue of actual tenancy is raised.
Vda. De Guanzon vs. Yrad, Jr.
133 SCRA 727-728
There being a ministry certification that the land at bar is not tenanted the CFI
validly assumed jurisdiction.
99 SCRA 724
A case filed in the Court of Agrarian Relations by persons claiming to be
tenants does not need to be previously referred to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
Entienza vs. Laya
79 SCRA 464
A case which involves the ejectment of persons claiming to be agricultural
tenants should first be referred to the Sec. of Agrarian Reform or his representative in
the locality.
Velasco vs. Mosuela
104 SCRA 556
The dismissal of the cases on January 6, 1976 by the CAR on the basis of the
Certification of the Regional Director that they were not proper for trial, was,
therefore, premature and in clear violation of the Circular No. 29, series of 1973
implementing P.D. No. 316 in relation to P.D. No. 27.
Graza vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 39-40
Mandatory requirement of a certification of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
on whether or not an ejectment case involving the removal of a tenant of agricultural
land is property for trial by the agrarian court.
163 SCRA 40
Secretary's determination of the relationship between the parties cannot be
final and conclusive on the lower court.
156 SCRA 188
Said order settles the issue of whether the case should be referred to the MAR
pursuant to P.D. 316 and 1038 and concludes the right of private respondent to such
referral, hence, it is a final order, that is appealable.
Caballero vs. Alfonso, Jr.
153 SCRA 155
Presidential Decree No. 1038 is not an undue encroachment on the
independence of the judiciary.
153 SCRA 155-156
The referral of a case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not "terminate"
but merely suspends a proceeding.
128 SCRA 568
Referral of preliminary determination of rights of tenant-farmers and the
landowner to Ministry of Land Reform is not necessary, where tenancy relationship
between the parties is admitted in the pleading.
162 SCRA 427
Requirements of P.D. 1038 is not applicable to the instant case.
162 SCRA 247-248
Under Section 3 of P.D. 1038, a case already submitted for decision before any
court was exempted from the requirement of referral to the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform for certification purposes.
Erfe vs. Fortun

136 SCRA 552
Referral even after judgment, still mandatory where execution of the decision
would result in the ejectment of the actual tiller or the tenant farmer.
REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF DECIDING CASES

159 SCRA 243
Jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations was not lost after the lapse of
the reglementary period prescribed under the constitution.
REINSTATEMENT OF TENANT
124 SCRA 623
An agreement limiting agrarian tenancy to two years is against the law. Tenant
was correctly reinstated.
Alarcon vs. Santos
5 SCRA 558
Expiration of tenancy contract does not terminate outright relationship.
Yusay vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
135 SCRA 256
In case reinstatement would be ordered, there is need of establishing the
identity and the area of the lands and the respective portions to which the tenants
would be entitled to be reinstated, as well as of determining the qualification to
succeed thereto of the surviving spouse or next of kin in case the original tenant is no
longer living.
Defensor vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 1
Should the vendor a retro repurchase the landholding from which the tenant
had been ejected by the vendee a retro, said tenant would be entitled to be reinstated
in the landholding.
Ilagan vs. Adame
10 SCRA 645
In sale with right to repurchase; a tenant has a right to reinstatement after
repurchase.
129 SCRA 210

The fixing of leasehold rentals and damages is not barred, as the three-year
period under the code within which to enforce any cause of action has not yet elapsed.
RELIQUIDATION
Yusay vs. Tugba
7 SCRA 262
An accounting between a landowner and an agricultural tenant is a statement
made by the former of the contributions made by both, the expenses incurred, the
amount harvested, the sharing system followed by the parties and the share actually
received by each. A reliquidation, on the other hand, involves the determination bases
either upon the accounting made by the landholder, or upon the facts as determined
by the court, of the share to which each party is entitled.
Benson vs. Ocampo
6 SCRA 998
An accounting between a landowner and an agricultural tenant is a statement
made by the former of the contributions made by both, the expenses incurred, the
amount harvested, the sharing system followed by the parties and the share actually
received by each. A reliquidation, on the other hand, involves the determination bases
either upon the accounting made by the landholder, or upon the facts as determined
by the court.
17 SCRA 541
Respondent Judge did not err in not considering petitioner's special defense of
ownership of only one-half of the land.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
Where the tenant received less than his rightful share of the harvests for certain
crop-years, he is entitled to a reliquidation thereof.
RENTALS
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 704, April 10, 1989
Petitioner's agreement to the rentals stated in the amicable settlement did not
make him a judgment debtor, since he did not agree to have the judgment executed
against him in case he defaults in the payment thereof.
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 704, April 10, 1989

Petitioner-lessee was denied due process because he was not given an
opportunity to be heard on his side of the controversy relating to the non-payment of
rentals.
Private respondent's belief that the subject property should have been sold to
them, does not justify the unilateral withholding of rental payments due the new
owner.
Maddumba vs. Government Service Insurance System
182 SCRA 281-283, February 15, 1990
Implied repeals are not favored in law, and will not be so declared unless the
intent of the legislature is manifest.
95 SCRA 324
As there was yet no statute fixing a ceiling on rentals when the tenancy
contracts were executed, the landowner has the right to demand an increase thereof.
95 SCRA 325
Leasehold rental rates in agricultural leases can be re-determined so as to
increase the same to the limit authorized by law.
17 SCRA 26
In leasehold tenancy of ricelands the rentals are based on whether the land is
first class or second class. The classification is in turn based on the normal average
harvest of the three preceding years.
32 SCRA 63
Delay in payment of rentals does not justify the drastic remedy of ejectment
under Section 50 (b) of Republic Act No. 1199, which states that while violation by
the tenant of any of the terms and conditions of tenancy contract shall be a ground to
eject him, where there is substantial compliance such as when the rentals for the
agricultural years 1958-1961 in question had all been fully satisfied although not in
advance as agreed upon.
Vda. De Ortiz vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
148 SCRA 686
Land Bank may deduct from acquisition price the rents paid by tenant-farmer
to landowner from October 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect.

104 SCRA 620
Petitioner-agricultural lessee cannot be compelled to pay rentals for land he is
deemed by law to be the owner-cultivator from the time he consigned the redemption
price in court.
159 SCRA 244
Use of the land by the tenant for a fixed amount in money or in produce or in
both as consideration is an element of tenancy under the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
REPEAL OF PENAL LAW

People vs. Almuete
69 SCRA 411
Repeal of penal law deprives courts of jurisdiction to punish violation of old
penal law prior to its repeal.
RES JUDICATA
Ramon D. Ocho vs. Bernardino Calos, et al.
G.R. No. 137908; November 22, 2000
Applies to both judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings; embraces two (2)
concepts: the first is "bar by prior judgment" under paragraph (b) of Rule 39, Section
47, and the second is "conclusiveness of judgment" under paragraph (c) thereof.
Greenfield Realty Corp. vs. Loreto Cardama, et al.
G. R. No. 129246, January 25, 2000
It is true that judgment upon a compromise has the effect of res judicata. But
any cause of action that arises from the application or violation of the compromise
agreement cannot be said to have been settled in the first case. Thus, petitioners' claim
that respondents' action is barred by res judicata is untenable.
Valles vs. CFI of Samar, Branch I
176 SCRA 804, August 28, 1989
The question of ownership and possession of the contested land can not be
reopened where the same issue has been terminated by a decision that has become
final and executory, and which in fact has been duly executed.
Vda. De Guillas vs. David
23 SCRA 763
Pursuant to Article 2037 of Our Civil Code, a compromise has upon the parties
the effect and authority of res adjudicata, even if not judicially approved (Meneses v.
De la Rosa, 77 Phil. 34).
58 SCRA 187-188
Defense of res judicata unavailing when judgment is a nullity.
Salazar vs. Santos
10 SCRA 358
Weight given to previous decision although not res adjudicata.
RESIDENTIAL LAND
186 SCRA 518, June 14, 1990
P.D. 316 on prior DAR certification of a case to the courts refers only to land
devoted to rice and corn, not to residential lots.
130 SCRA 483
Fact that respondent was giving the landowners 20 cavans of palay every
harvest not sufficient basis for formation of landlord tenant relationship where the
landowners never intended to devote part of their metropolitan property to agriculture.
Hilario vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
148 SCRA 573
The land in question was purchased at a foreclosure proceeding as "residential"
and tax assessments show that it is "residential", not agricultural.
148 SCRA 573-574
Where land is within the poblacion, the presumption is it is residential, not
agricultural.
RETENTION
Eudosia Daez vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000
Landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No.
27 are entitled to the new retention rights under R.A. No. 6657.
RETENTION RIGHTS
210 SCRA 546, June 29, 1992
An heir does not have to cultivate personally the 7-hectare retention area.
210 SCRA 546, June 29, 1992
Secretary of Agrarian Reform may recall Certificates of Land Transfer which
violate the law on retention scheme.
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF LAW

Benzonan vs. Court of Appeals
205 SCRA 516, January 27, 1992
The retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already
become vested or impairs the obligations of contract and hence, is unconstitutional.
Balatbat vs. Court of Appeals
205 SCRA 419-420, January 27, 1992
Congress failed to express an intention to make RA 6389 retroactive and to
cover ejectment cases on the ground of personal cultivation then pending adjudication
by the courts.
RETROACTIVITY
163 SCRA 175
P.D. No. 27 cannot be applied retroactively, there being no express nor clearly
implied authorization.
87 SCRA 264-265
P.D. No. 27 does not apply retroactively. In the case at bar the Court of
Appeals already rendered judgment finding that tenancy relationship between
petitioner and respondent was extinguished and said judgment was rendered prior to
the effectivity of P.D. 27 on October 21, 1972.
99 SCRA 724
P.D. No. 27 does not apply retroactively.
Ayog vs. Cusi, Jr.
118 SCRA 492-493

The provision of the 1973 Constitution that no private corporation may hold
alienable lands of the public domain except by lease cannot be given retroactive effect
so as to adversely affect rights vested already prior to its effectivity.
161 SCRA 500
Republic Act No. 6389 cannot be given retroactive effect in the absence of a
statutory provision for retroactivity or a clear implication of the law to that effect.
Ponce vs. Guevarra
10 SCRA 649
The provisions of Rep. Act No. 2263, amending Rep. Act No. 1199, are
applicable to cases pending in court at the time of the enactment of the said
amendatory act.
104 SCRA 620
Laws shall have no retroactive application, unless the contrary is provided.
Nilo vs. Court of Appeals
128 SCRA 520-521
R.A. No. 6389 which removed "personal cultivation" as a ground for ejectment
of a tenant cannot be given retroactive effect on the absence of a statutory statement
for retroactivity.
RICE AND CORN LANDS

156 SCRA 189
Under Section 2 of P.D. Nos. 316 and 1038, the trial court cannot take
cognizance of any "ejectment case or any other case to harass or remove a tenant in an
agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn" without first referring the same
to the secretary of agrarian reform for preliminary determination.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
Where the land held by the same tenant in another barrio, taken as a unit of
area, produced a normal average of more than forty cavans during said period, it was
correctly classified as first class land.
Evanado vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 367
Section 46(a) of Rep. Act No. 1199 fixes the rentals in case of leasehold
tenancy of riceland not on the basis of the net but of the gross produce thereof.
Evanado vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 367-368
Where there is no showing at all as to the gross produce of a riceland, the trial
court is not justified in concluding that the rentals agreed upon by the parties are
excessive and illegal; consequently, the presumption of legality of said rentals should
stand under the circumstances.
Zurbano vs. Estrella
137 SCRA 333
LOI 474 which decreed the land transfer program of the government of
agricultural lands planted to rice and corn is not unconstitutional. It is neither a class
legislation nor does it deprive a person of property without the due process of law or
just compensation.
Geronimo vs. Court of Appeals
121 SCRA 859
Persons who are not tenants on the property are not covered by PD 315 which
prohibits the ejectment of tenant-farmers in agricultural lands primarily devoted to
rice and corn.
7 SCRA 159
The only criterion for classification of land under Republic Act No. 1199 is its
PRODUCTIVITY. If the normal harvest of three preceding years is not over 40
cavans per hectare the riceland is considered second class.
RIGHTS OF PRE-EMPTION AND REDEMPTION

161 SCRA 503-504
Right of redemption by tenant has yet prescribed where there was no notice in
writing of the sale of the property given by the vendee upon the tenants.
161 SCRA 504
Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, prescribed the period within which the
right of redemption must be exercised by the agricultural lessees, which is one
hundred eighty days from written notice from the vendee of the property upon
registration of the sale. But certainly there is nothing in the law which provides that
without such written notice, the agricultural lessees can not exercise their right of
redemption.

40 SCRA 22-23
The major premise to the effect that the Agricultural Land Reform Code "is not
in full force and effect" in the absence of said proclamation-does not necessarily
negate the effectivity of some or part of the provisions of said Code.
118 SCRA 669
Failure of tenant to exercise his right of pre-emption does not bring him under
Art. 1620 of the Civil Code on redemption. The matter is governed by the law on
agricultural land reform.
118 SCRA 670
The Land Reform Code does not require prior tender of payment for tenant to
exercise the right of redemption. Immediate deposit of money in court is sufficient.
Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo
35 SCRA 106
The Land Reform Code forges by operation of law the farmer's pre-emptive
right to buy the land he cultivates under Section 11 of the Code as well as the right to
redeem the land, if sold to a third person without his knowledge, under Section 12 of
the Code.
104 SCRA 620
Under Rep. Act No. 3844, the right of redemption should be exercised by the
lessee of agricultural land within 2 years from the registration of the sale.
104 SCRA 621
Redemption should be allowed if the land is not considered by the appropriate
government authorities to be suitable as a residential subdivision.
82 SCRA 251
Law mandates that the two-year period to redeem landholdings granted to
tenants or lessees must be counted from date of registration of sale, not from
knowledge of intended sale of property.
82 SCRA 251-252
The redemption of property rendered case moot and academic because of
merger of leasehold tenant's tenancy rights and ownership over disputed land.
Real Monasterio, etc. vs. Fabian

25 SCRA 8-9
The tenant's right of redemption under Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844 may be
exercised within two years from the registration of the sale of the landholding to a
third person and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption at a
reasonable price and consideration to be agreed upon between the parties or to be
determined by the court in case the parties cannot agree on the reasonable price.
Real Monasterio, etc. vs. Fabian
25 SCRA 9
Redemption must cover the entire landholding sold but the lessee is entitled
only to redeem the portion he actually cultivates.
Almeda vs. Court of Appeals
78 SCRA 194
Rights of redemption is available to tenants of sugar and coconut lands.
78 SCRA 194-195
Right of redemption by a tenant of agricultural land must be exercised in
accordance with law.
40 SCRA 23
Tenant can exercise right of redemption and pre-emption with his own
resources.
Manuel vs. Court of Appeals
118 SCRA 478
Under R.A. No. 3844, the tenant's right of redemption is 2 years from
registration of the sale and not from tenant's knowledge thereof.
118 SCRA 478-479
Where sale has not been reduced to writing, the price of the land should be
determined by the CAR or the MAR for purposes of fixing redemption price.
RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS

Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
278 SCRA 820
The policy of social justice, we reiterate, is not intended to countenance
wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. "Compassion for
the poor," as we said in Galay et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al. "is an imperative of
every humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an
undeserved privilege."
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
249 SCRA 151
Social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners
who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection.
RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 126
The right of redemption vested in agricultural lessees is superior to the right of
the mortgagee of the land.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 124
The right of lessees to redeem the land they have been working on that has
been disposed of without their knowledge is statutory in character and attaches to a
particular landholding by operation of law.
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 363
Right of redemption by the mortgagor could be exercised by paying to the
creditor bank all the amounts owing to the latter, "on the date of the sale, with interest
on the total indebtedness at the rate agreed upon in the obligation from said date.
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 362
Right of Redemption; In the foreclosure of real property by banking
institutions as well as in the extrajudicial foreclosure by any other mortgagee, the
mortgagor could redeem the property within one year from date of registration of the
deed of sale in the appropriate Registry of Deeds.
RIGHT OF REMOVAL
Private respondents have the right to remove their house and other useful
improvements should petitioner refuse to reimburse the amount thereof. Ornamental
objects may be removed if no damage shall be cause to the principal and that the
owner of the principal do not choose to retain them by paying their value.
RIGHT OF SUCCESSION TO TENANCY

118 SCRA 477-478
Agricultural leasehold relationship is not extinguished by the death or
incapacity of the parties. In case the agricultural lessee dies or incapacitated, the
leasehold relations shall continue between the agricultural lessor and any of the legal
heirs of the agricultural lessee who can cultivate the landholding personally, in the
order of preference provided under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3344.
9 SCRA 412
Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 2263 provides an exception to the right of
succession by a relative of the tenant within the second degree, namely if the
landholder shall cultivate the land himself personally or through the employment of
mechanical farm implements.
Robles vs. Batacan
154 SCRA 644
The respondent who is the only heir interested in succeeding the father who
had died, had the right to take over as agricultural tenant in petitioner's land.
RULES OF COURT
Jovelo vs. Vda. De Bautista
8 SCRA 185
Inasmuch as the rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations do not provide for the
time when the hearing should be scheduled nor the method of determining when the
issues may be considered as joined, where the petition has been amended, the Rules
which govern proceedings in the Court of First Instance should be applied in a
suppletory character (Sec. 1, Rules of Court of Agrarian Relations).
Baranda vs. Padios
154 SCRA 721
Sec. 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court does not apply to cases covered by the
Agricultural Tenancy Act.
Phil. Packing Corp. vs. Reyes
42 SCRA 383
With the enactment of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, the Court of
Agrarian Relations ceased to have the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure
and became subject instead to the present Rules of Court.
18 SCRA 1150-51
The Rules of Court would apply to agrarian cases brought on and after August
8, 1963, when the Land Reform Code took effect, and also to pending cases, except
when their application would not be feasible or would work injustice in which case
the former procedure would apply (Rule 133, Old Rules of Court).
RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
278 SCRA 820
It is a fundamental principle that once the policy or purpose of the law has
been ascertained, effect should be given to it by the judiciary.
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
278 SCRA 819
Where the law is unambiguous and clear, it must be applied according to its
plain and obvious meaning, according to its express terms.
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 247
Egregious error in the interpretation of a provision of a law is not equivalent to
gross and evident bad faith.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 378
Judges are expected to keep abreast of and be conversant with the rules and
circulars adopted by the Supreme Court which affect the conduct of cases before
them.
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994
233 SCRA 626
In proceedings covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure,affidavits are
entitled to great respect in the absence of anything to show the contrary.
G.R. No. 80223, February 5, 1993

218 SCRA 447
Court sees no error in the opinion of the National Housing Authority that
tenant families who should benefit from this Urban Land Reform Program are those
who have been residing in the area for ten years or more prior to the issuance of P.D.
1517. The interpretation would give more right to the intended beneficiaries of the
decree and thus make more meaningful the constitutional objective of decent housing
for all persons, in the cities and in the farms.
G.R. No. 80223, February 5, 1993
218 SCRA 446
P.D. 1517; Court agrees that in reckoning the ten-year period under Section 2
of P.D. 2016, the trial court should count backward from 1978, the year P.D. 1517
was issued instead of waiting until the lapse of ten years after 1978.
S
SALTBEDS
Chavez vs. Court of Appeals
147 SCRA 580
The evidence in this case shows that respondents were performing all phases of
salt-making, the court below's finding being back up by substantial evidence will not
be overturned.
11 SCRA 372
A reading of the pertinent provision of the Agricultural Tenancy Act (R.A. No.
1199) and the Agricultural Reform Code (R.A. No. 3844) shows the clear intention of
Congress to include saltbeds within the purview of tenancy laws, concerning disputes
which come under the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
SECURITY OF TENURE
168 SCRA 440, December 14, 1988
Security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value
as life and deprivation of their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation of their only
means of livelihood.
168 SCRA 440, December 14, 1988
The purchaser of the landholding is subrogated to the rights and substituted to

the obligations of the agricultural lessor (Sec. 10, Rep. Act No. 3844), hence, the
agricultural leasehold relationship continues between the agricultural lessee and the
purchaser automatically by operation of law and the latter, an agricultural lessor, is
bound to respect the agricultural lessee's possession and cultivation of the land."
(Motion for Reconsideration, p. 79, Rollo) This being the case, Tropical is bound to
respect the possession of the petitioners as leasehold tenants over the land in question
pursuant to the latter's right to Security of tenure as enshrined in Sections 9, 10 and 36
of R.A. 3844 to hold otherwise would render nugatory one of the primary reasons for
the enactment of said law.
Don Pepe Henson Enterprises vs. Pangilinan
161 SCRA 688
Alleged agreements executed by respondents purportedly relinquishing
possession of their landholding are not enforceable, as it would violate the Code of
Agrarian Reforms on security of tenure of tenants.
158 SCRA 41
A share tenant (under Rep. Act No. 1199) or an agricultural lessee (under Rep.
Act No. 3844) is entitled to security of tenure over the landholding he works at. Not
even the expiration of any term or period fixed in the leasehold contract, in the case of
an agricultural lessee will cause the lessee's ejectment from the land. On the other
hand, a civil lessee, under a contract of civil lease, does not enjoy security of tenure
over the land object of the contract. A civil lease can be ejected from the land after the
expiration of the term provided for in the contract.
129 SCRA 210-211
Tenants are guaranteed security of tenure, meaning the continued enjoyment
and possession of their landholding except when their dispossession had been
authorized by virtue of a final and executory judgment, which is not so in the case at
bar.
30 SCRA 426
Landholder-lessee who is not the landholder-owner, cannot personally
cultivate the landholding upon the death of tenant.
Villaviza vs. Panganiban
10 SCRA 824
A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under Republic Act No. 1199, as
amended, is an obligation of the landholder created by law, and an action for violation
thereof prescribes in ten years under No. 2 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code.
133 SCRA 77
Procedural lapses should not prejudice the right to security of tenure of a tenant
who is also entitled to protection even where the power of eminent domain is
exercised.
159 SCRA 244
A share tenant of saltbeds and agricultural lessee of fishpond is entitled to a
security of tenure.
Lastimosa vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
Security of tenure can be invoked only by tenants de jure.
Lastimosa vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
Tenant of intruder cannot invoke security of tenure.
Philippine National Railway vs. Valle
29 SCRA 573
The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy law may be invoked only by
tenants de jure.
Manubay vs. Martin
33 SCRA 730
The court is given some discretion to determine whether or not the cause,
although among those enumerated, is of such gravity as to warrant the drastic remedy
of dismissal of the tenant or whether or not there exist circumstances under which the
application of the provision warranting eviction and dispossession may be stayed.
10 SCRA 705
Security of tenure of tenant is not extinguished by sale of land.
27 SCRA 8
Security of tenure subsists despite termination of contract which limit tenancy
relationship to one year.
162 SCRA 392
The settled jurisprudence is that as long as the legal possessor of the land
constitutes a person as a tenant-farmer by virtue of an express or implied lease, such
an act is binding on the owner of the property even if he himself may not have given
his consent to such an agreement.

149 SCRA 47
Where a share tenant surrendered his landholding and them was instituted as a
share tenant by the civil lessee of the same land, said tenant's status did not change,
vis--vis, the landowner, after the civil lease terminated.
1 SCRA 145
The security of tenure may be invoked only by tenants "de jure" and not by
those who are not true and lawful tenants who become so only through the acts of a
supposed landholder who had no right to the landholdings.
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS

Picardal vs. Lladas
21 SCRA 1484
Assuming that the special administration acquiesced to the ejectment, the
estate would still not be liable because if Section 5, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court
makes the administrator himself liable for any waste committed in the estate through
his negligence with more reason would he be personally responsible and not the
estate, for the consequences of his unlawful act.
SHARE TENANCY
There is share tenancy whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for
agricultural production.
SHARE TENANCY SYSTEM

142 SCRA 138-139
Though not a positive indication of the existence of tenancy relations per se,
the sharing of the harvests, taken together with other factors characteristic of tenancy
shown to be present in the case at bar, strengthens the claim of respondent that
indeed, he is a tenant.
164 SCRA 568
Share tenancy or agricultural tenancy is defined as: "x x x the physical

possession by a person of land devoted to agriculture, belonging to or legally
possessed by another for the purpose of production through the labor of the former
and of the members of his immediate farm household in consideration of which the
former agrees to share the harvest with the latter or to pay a price certain or
ascertainable, either in produce or in money or in both (Section 3, Republic Act 1199,
the Agricultural Act, as amended)."
22 SCRA 1196
The rule has been firmly established that section 14 of the Agricultural
Tenancy Act of 1955 (Rep. Act No. 1199) which empowers a tenant to change the
tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to the leasehold tenancy and vice versa
and from one crop-sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy is valid and
constitutional.
30 SCRA 571
A farm employer-farm worker relationship and an agricultural sharehold
tenancy relationship are leases, but in the former, the lease is one of the labor, with
the agricultural laborer as the lessor of his services, and the farm employer as the
lessee thereof. In the latter, it is the landowner who is the lessor, and the sharehold
tenant is the lessee of agricultural land. As lessee he has possession of the leased
premises.
164 SCRA 568
From the evidence adduced, it is clear that the private respondents are not mere
agricultural workers, but are share tenants of petitioners.
58 SCRA 49-50
Section 167 (2) of R.A. 3844 punishes the act of inducing a tenant "to execute
or enter into a share tenancy contract with himself or with another in violation of this
Code . . ., provided that the execution of share tenancy contract shall be considered
prima facie evidence of such inducement . . .".
Ilagan vs. Adame
10 SCRA 645
An action upon an oral contract of share tenancy comes under Article 1145 of
the Civil Code and prescribes after six years.
People vs. Adillo
63 SCRA 91
Reaping or threshing of palay without notice to landowner by a share tenant is
no longer an offense.
Almarinez vs. Manabat-Potenciano

12 SCRA 361
The tenant's right to receive his lawful share of the produce of the land is
unhampered by transfers of said land from one landholder to another.
30 SCRA 575
Aside from the usual essential requisites of a contract, the characteristics of a
share tenancy contract are: (1) the parties are a landholder, who is a natural or
juridical person and is the owner, lessee, usufractuary or legal possessor of
agricultural land, and a tenant who himself and with the aid available from within his
immediate farm household, cultivates the land which is the subject matter of the
tenancy; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) the purpose of the contract is
agricultural production; and (4) the cause of consideration is that the landholder and
the share tenant would divide the agricultural produce between themselves in
proportion to their respective contributions.
SHARE TENANT AND AGRICULTURAL WORKER DISTINGUISHED

Coconut Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
164 SCRA 568-569
The agricultural laborer works for the farm employer, and for his labor he
receives a salary or wage, regardless of whether the employer makes a profit. On the
other hand, the share tenant participates in the agricultural produce. His share is
necessarily dependent on the amount of the harvest.
SHARE TENANCY SYSTEM

142 SCRA 138-139
Though not a positive indication of the existence of tenancy relations per se,
the sharing of the harvests, taken together with other factors characteristic of tenancy
shown to be present in the case at bar, strengthens the claim of respondent that
indeed, he is a tenant.
164 SCRA 568
Share tenancy or agricultural tenancy is defined as: ". . . the physical
possession by a person of land devoted to agriculture, belonging to or legally
possessed by another for the purpose of production through the labor of the former
and of the members of his immediate farm household in consideration of which the
former agrees to share the harvest with the latter or to pay a price certain or
ascertainable, either in produce or in money or in both (Section 3, Republic Act 1199,
the Agricultural Act, as amended)."

22 SCRA 1196
The rule has been firmly established that section 14 of the Agricultural
Tenancy Act of 1955 (Rep. Act No. 1199) which empowers a tenant to change the
tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to the leasehold tenancy and vice versa
and from one crop-sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy is valid and
constitutional.
30 SCRA 575
Aside from the usual essential requisites of a contract, the characteristics of a
share tenancy contract are: (1) the parties are a landholder, who is a natural or
juridical person and is the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of
agricultural land, and a tenant who himself and with the aid available from within his
immediate farm household, cultivates the land which is the subject matter of the
tenancy; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) the purpose of the contract is
agricultural production; and (4) the cause of consideration is that the landholder and
the share tenant would divide the agricultural produce between themselves in
proportion to their respective contributions.
Ponce vs. Guevarra
10 SCRA 649
Under Act No. 4054, a tenancy relationship may validly be established without
a written agreement therefore, and under Section 4 of said act a written contract
between the landholder and the tenant is necessary only to establish a sharing basis
other than that fixed in section 8 of the same Act.
142 SCRA 139
Statutory abolition of share tenancy did not end the rights of share tenants in
coconut and sugar lands even if leasehold tenancy in these types of lands has not yet
been installed.
159 SCRA 244
The contention that fishponds and saltbeds are not covered by the share
tenancy system under Section 35 of Rep. Act No. 3844 is incorrect. That provision
merely says that the consideration, as well as the share tenancy system prevailing,
shall be governed not by that law but by Rep. Act No. 1199, as amended.
79 SCRA 558
The view that share tenants under Act 4054 shall remain as such for as long as
the tenancy relationship exists is erroneous and contravenes section 14 of R.A. No.
1199.
Latag vs. Banog

16 SCRA 88
A share tenancy exists where, as in this case a person has physical possession
of another's land for the purpose of cultivating it and giving the owner a share in the
crop.
SHARE TENANT AND AGRICULTURAL WORKER DISTINGUISHED

Coconut Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
164 SCRA 568-569
The agricultural laborer works for the farm employer, and for his labor he
receives a salary or wage, regardless of whether the employer makes a profit. On the
other hand, the share tenant participates in the agricultural produce. His share is
necessarily dependent on the amount of the harvest.
SHAREHOLD AND LEASEHOLD SYSTEMS DISTINGUISHED

People vs. Adillo
68 SCRA 90-91
In sharehold, the tenant may choose to shoulder, in addition to labor, any one
or more of the items of contributions (such as farm implements, work animals, final
harrowing, transplanting), while in leasehold, the tenant or lessee always shoulders all
items of production except the land.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
30 SCRA 592
Social justice would be a meaningless term, if in a situation like the present, an
element of rigidity would be affixed to procedural precepts and made to cover the
matter.
Ayog vs. Cusi
11 SCRA 493
Administrative authorities should find ways and means to accommodate some
of the petitioners if they are landless and are tillers of the soil.
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 77
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, was enacted to improve lot of sharecropper.

95 SCRA 325
The concept of "social justice" was not meant to perpetuate an injustice to the
landholder-lessor.
78 SCRA 194-195
Under the new constitution, property ownership is impressed with a social
function.
Nilo vs. Court of Appeals
128 SCRA 519-520
The courts would be thwarting the legislative policy of encouraging small
landowners to till and cultivate their lands by compelling them to perpetuate a lessorlessee relationship.
Paulo vs. Court of Appeals
54 SCRA 253-254
Land Reform is made more imperative by the new constitution.
138 SCRA 173
Landlords, especially small landowners, deserves protection; tenants are not to
be solely protected by law.
David vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 115
We can do less than to apply a liberal interpretation of the Agricultural Land
Reform Code to give full force and effect to its clear intent which, under Section 2(2)
and (6) of said Code, is "to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers" and to
make them "more dependent, self reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of
genuine strength in our democratic society.
Director of Lands vs. Funtilar
142 SCRA 59
The Regalian doctrine which forms the basis of our land laws and, in fact, all
governing natural resources is a revered and long standing principle. It must,
however, be applied together with the constitutional provisions on social justice and
land reform and must be interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest unfairness and
injustice.
Diga vs. Adriano
133 SCRA 421
Republic Act No. 3844 and Republic Act No. 6389, being social legislations,
should be liberally interpreted in favor not only to the actual tillers, tenant-farmers but
also to landowners.
Feliciano vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
5 SCRA 32-33
Tenancy law; its protective arm is for tenant as well as for landlord.
Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes
125 SCRA 225
Welfare of small landowners and the landless should prevail over right of PTA
to expropriate land for tourism development.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

Chavez vs. Court of Appeals
147 SCRA 580
If the respondents were employees and not tenants this relationship should
have been reported to the Social Security Commission.
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

153 SCRA 155-156
Speedy disposition of cases is a relative term, flexible, concept, consistent with
delays and depends upon the circumstances.
STATUTES
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
We categorically ruled that both R.A. No. 6389 and P.D. No. 27 cannot be
applied retroactively under the general rule that statutes have no retroactive effect
unless otherwise provided therein.
Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
In construing constitutional provisions which are ambiguous or of doubtful
meaning, the courts may consider the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Santiago vs. Court of Appeals
179 SCRA 188, November 8, 1989
The interpretation of R.A. 3844 and R.A. 6389 is designed to promote

economic and social stability; Must be interpreted liberally not only in favor of the
tenant-farmers but also of landowners.
194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991
The tenants-farmers became owners of the land they tilled as of the effective
date of Presidential Decree No. 27, i.e., 21 October 1972.
205 SCRA 530, January 27, 1992
The right of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of
another.
Balatbat vs. Court of Appeals
205 SCRA 420, January 27, 1992
It is a rule in statutory construction that all statutes are to be construed as
having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the legislature
to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from
the language used.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo
33 SCRA 106
Statutory construction; spirit or intent must prevail over letter of the law.
People vs. Almuete
69 SCRA 410
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same
subject operates as a repeal of anything not so included in the amendatory act.
Tumulin vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 450
Tenant may not be ousted except by virtue of a final and executory judgment.
SUB-TENANTS
7 SCRA 813
Workers engaged to transplant seedlings and reap harvest not sub-tenants.
SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
Vda. De Salazar vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995
250 SCRA 305
Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when the heirs themselves
voluntarily appeared, participated in the case and presented evidence in defense of
deceased defendant.
SUGARLANDS
Cunanan vs. Sengson
179 SCRA 695-696, December 1, 1989
Law providing for automatic conversion from agricultural share tenancy to
agricultural leasehold, applies to sugarland tenants.
David vs. Court of Appeals
161 SCRA 114-115
Sugarlands are not mentioned as among the areas covered by the Agricultural
Land Reform Code, and neither they are included in the exempted lands.
Dayrit vs. Court of Appeals
163 SCRA 257
Automatic conversion, from agricultural share tenancy to agricultural
leasehold, applicable to sugarland tenants.
116 SCRA 757
Sugar planters within the meaning of Sec. 1 of the Sugar Act means all
planters, including emergency non-quota, non-district, or accommodation planters.
The courts should not stick to executive interpretations of statutes applicable only to a
situation in the past which had since changed.
T
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
G.R. No. 88384, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 176
By issuing the Order maintaining the status quo while a committee ascertained
facts necessary in resolving whether or not the writ of preliminary injunction should
be issued, the trial court should be deemed as merely exercising its inherent power
under Section 5(b), Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of Court "to enforce order in
proceedings before it."
G.R. No. 88384, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 175
There is no reason to prevent a court from extending the 20-day period for the
efficacy of a temporary restraining order when the parties themselves ask for such
extension or for the maintenance of the status quo.
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
Anastacio Victorio vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 110012, March 28, 2001
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent
among the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal
cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests. All these requisites must concur in
order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties.
Bayani Bautista vs. Patricia Araneta, et al.
G.R. No. 135829, February 22, 2000
Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and
lawful landholder who is either the "owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of
the land," and not thru the acts of the supposed landholder who has no right to the
land subject of the tenancy.
Edmundo Benavidez vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 125848, September 6, 1999
The following essential requisites must concur in order to establish a tenancy
relationship: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is
agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5)
there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of harvests between
the parties.
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
284 SCRA 33
In order for a tenancy relation to take serious hold over the dispute, it would be
essential to first establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) that the parties are
the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the
relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is share between the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee. It is not enough that these requisites are alleged; these
requisites must be shown in order to divest the regular court of its jurisdiction in
proceedings lawfully began before it.
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
280 SCRA 235
Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship. - The essential requisites of a
tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the
subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural
production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of
harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur in order to create a
tenancy relationship between the parties.
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
278 SCRA 820
A mere member of a tenant's immediate farm household is not entitled to a
home lot.
Suplico vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103103, June 17, 1996
257 SCRA 397
The Supreme Court finds no reasons to disturb the findings of both courts
below where the facts found by the Court of appeals sustaining the trial court readily
converge towards one conclusion that tenancy did exist between the parties.
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 223
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 124
The fact that a tenant or an agricultural lessee may have been assisted by farm
laborers hired by the landowners, on an occasional or temporary basis, does not
preclude the element of "personal cultivation" essential in a tenancy or agricultural
leasehold relationship.
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994

233 SCRA 627
One of the essential requisites for the existence of a tenancy relationship is
sharing, by the landowner and tenant, of the produce.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 504
Ocier vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105088, December 11, 1992
216 SCRA 510
When private respondent's amended complaint where she alleged violation of
a civil law lease agreement was admitted, the issue of actual tenancy raised by
petitioner in both of his Answer and Amended Reform for determination as this was
now a genuine issue.
Gelos vs. Court of Appeals
208 SCRA 608, May 8, 1992
Tenancy relationship is determined not by the nature of the work involved but
by the intention of the parties.
205 SCRA 530, January 27, 1992
Well-settled is the rule that all the requisites must concur in order to create a
tenancy relationship between the parties and the absence of one or more requisites do
not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant as contradistinguished from a de jure
tenant.
205 SCRA 529-530, January 27, 1992
Absent the element of personal cultivation, one cannot be a tenant even if he is
so designated in the written agreement of the parties.
Salen vs. Dinglasan
198 SCRA 624, June 28, 1991
Tenancy relationship of Sevilla with the vendee a retro not severed by the
repurchase of the subject landholding.
198 SCRA 236, June 11, 1991

The essential requisites set by law for the existence of a tenancy relationship,
thus: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural
land; (3) the purpose is agricultural production; and (4) there is consideration. It is
also understood that (5) there is consent to the tenant to work on the land, that (6)
there is personal cultivation by him and that the consideration consists of sharing the
harvest.
198 SCRA 236-237, June 11, 1991
The situation obtaining in this case still lacks three of the afore-enumerated
requisites, namely: agricultural production, personal cultivation and sharing of
harvests.
Baranda vs. Baguio
189 SCRA 194-195, August 30, 1990
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 requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy
Olanday vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
189 SCRA 175, August 30, 1990
Termination of the lessor-lessee relationship did not divest the tenant of the
lessee of the right to remain and continue on his cultivation of the land.
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 97, July 21, 1990
Notwithstanding the waiver of tenancy right, the transfer would still be void
for being made in violation of PD 27.
186 SCRA 518-519, June 14, 1990
The essential requisites set by law for a tenancy relationship are as follows 1)
the parties are the landholder and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3)
the purpose is agricultural production; (4) there is consideration. It is understood that
there is consent to the tenant to work on the land, there is personal cultivation by him
and consideration consists of sharing the harvest. All these requisites are necessary in
order to create tenancy relationship between the parties and the absence of one or
more requisites does not make the alleged tenant a de jure tenant as
contradistinguished from a de facto tenant.
Zamoras vs. Su, Jr.
184 SCRA 248, April 6, 1990
landholder and the tenant; (2) the subject is the agricultural holding; (3) there is
consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is
personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests between
landlord and tenant.
Talavera vs. Court of Appeals
182 SCRA 779, February 27, 1990
Tenancy Relations cannot be bargained away except for strong reasons.
182 SCRA 15-16, February 7, 1990
Tenancy is a legal relationship between the tenant and the landowner, it cannot
be made to depend upon what the alleged tenant does on the land, consent of the
landowner is necessary.
182 SCRA 16, February 7, 1990
Private respondents not being a bona fide tenant-farmers cannot avail of the
benefits under PD 27.
181 SCRA 160, January 19, 1990
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are (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 requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
It is an undisputed fact that petitioner is cultivating an adjacent fishpond with a
size of 11-1/2 hectares which further proves that he is not a small farmer but a
businessman.
173 SCRA 636, May 30, 1989
Under the Land Reform Code, tenants are entitled to the enjoyment and
possession of their landholding except when their dispossession has been authorized
by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory.
The fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship.
private respondent's status is more of a caretaker rather than a tenant.

168 SCRA 247-248, December 5, 1988
landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is the agricultural land; (3) there is consent;
(4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6)
there is a sharing of harvests. All these requisites must concur in order to create a
164 SCRA 433
Absent the essential elements of consent and sharing between the parties, no
tenancy relationship can exist between them.
158 SCRA 42
Absent the requirement of personal cultivation by the alleged tenant, no
tenancy relationship exists between him and the landowner.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
The landowner's admission in this answer that the petitioner is his tenant is
conclusive.
9 SCRA 412-413
Non-retroactivity of amendment by Rep. Act No. 2263 as to succession to
tenancy relationship.
Cunanan vs. Aguilar
85 SCRA 47-48
An agricultural tenancy relationship cannot be created by one who is not a true
and lawful owner or legal possessor.
62 SCRA 388
Where the allegation of the existence of tenancy relationship is raised, it is the
duty of court to hold preliminary hearing to determine such question of jurisdiction.
130 SCRA 483
Contribution of 30 cavans of palay having been accepted as contributions of
respondent to increasing realty taxes, same cannot be considered as contribution for
agricultural production as to devote a landlord-tenant relation.
162 SCRA 747-748

A tenant is a person who, himself, and with the aid available from within his
immediate household, cultivates the land belonging to or possessed by another, with
the latter's consent for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the
landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain
or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.
Ponce vs. Guevarra
10 SCRA 649
Where the lessee of agricultural land that sub-leased it without the consent of
the landholder, it is that regardless of the existence or not of a written contract
between the landholder and the sub-lessees and regardless of the extinction of the
contractual relations between the landholder and the lessee, and between the lessee
and the sub-lessees, the latter cannot be ejected from the land except upon judicial
authority and for one of the causes specified by law.
163 SCRA 41
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are as follows: (1) the parties
are the landholder 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 harvest.
30 SCRA 591
Expiration of contract of lease does not extinguish the tenancy relationship.
Amante vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
18 SCRA 427-428
Expiration of tenancy contract does not extinguish tenancy relationship.
164 SCRA 432
Tenancy relationship is not created where the consent of the true and lawful
landowner is absent. Respondent's self-serving statements regarding their tenancy
relations cannot establish the claimed relationship.
163 SCRA 432
Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship but a legal relationship.
164 SCRA 432
Fact alone of working on another's landholding does not raise a presumption of
the existence of agricultural tenancy.
Carag vs. Court of Appeals

151 SCRA 45
There may have been sharing of harvests but such is not a positive indication
of the existence of tenancy relations per se as it must be taken together with other
factors characteristics of tenancy.
Lastimoza vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and
lawful landholder who is the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of the
land. It cannot be created through the acts of the supposed landholder who has no
right to the land subject of tenancy.
118 SCRA 484
Tenancy, however, is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the
alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.
118 SCRA 485
Farmer and spouse who themselves cultivated a riceland they inherited cannot
be forced to enter into a permanent tenancy relationship with a person who worked
temporarily over the land for 3 crop years.
164 SCRA 571-572
A landholder-tenant relationship is preserved even in case of transfer of legal
possession of the subject property.
148 SCRA 573
Tenancy cannot be created nor depend upon what the alleged tenant does on
the land.
148 SCRA 573-574
The requirements set by law for the existence of a tenancy relationship, to wit:
(1) the parties are the landholder and tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3)
the purpose is agricultural production; and (4) there is consideration; have not been
met by private respondent.
Ira vs. Zafra
6 SCRA 513
Relationship is not severed by tenant's acceptance of another land for
cultivation.
Dadural vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

10 SCRA 688-689
The reversal of findings of tenancy relationship revokes order of delivery of
shares.
Quilantang vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 294-295
The Constitutional mandate that the State "afford protection to labor" (Section
6, Article XIV) has already found indelible expression in many of our laws on
agrarian relations.
Gagola vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
18 SCRA 992
Tenancy relationship is extinguished by tenants abandonment of the land.
Decena vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
18 SCRA 103
Tenancy relationship is not terminated by death of landholder.
Yabut vs. Lilles
53 SCRA 37
Where there no longer, exists any tenancy relationship between the parties, the
relationship having been terminated not only by the said tenants, it follows that they
have no longer any standing to seek reinstatement as tenants of the land.
Angliongton, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
116 SCRA 660
Where a person tool care of the children of his close relatives who were
orphanes and as they grew up assigned them specific portions of the land to work on
giving them a certain percentage of their respective produce, no tenancy relationship
can be drawn therefrom.
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

8 SCRA 499
The Court of Agrarian Relations is the only court that can take cognizance of
tenancy cases, which include dispossession of the tenanted agricultural land
committed by third parties, regardless of the fact that there is an action of forcible
entry brought involving controversy on possession of the land subject of the action.
Decena vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
18 SCRA 103
The remedy provided in Section 15, Rule 39 of the old Rules of Court for a
person to file a third party claim in the proceedings for execution of a decision is not
exclusive, for the said section also provides that such third person is not prevented
"from vindicating his claim to the property by any proper action.
10 SCRA 705
Third party complaint by vendee against vendor is not within jurisdiction of
agrarian court.
U
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Jalandoni, Jr. vs. Arsenal
189 SCRA 56, July 30, 1990
Arsenal's complaint for non-payment of overtime wages is an agrarian dispute.
194 SCRA 196, February 19, 1991
Court believes that the usufruct which had theretofore existed as a jus in re
aliena in favor of Helen Schon was effectively extinguished by Presidential Decree
No. 27.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 389
Unfair labor practice CAR has jurisdiction to entertain a ULP case involving
agricultural workers under R.A. No. 3844.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390
The CAR can try violations of the minimum wage law for purposes of a ULP
case filed under R.A. No. 3844.
The holding of a preliminary investigation ordered by the CAR before the
filing of the ULP case though not required did not affect its jurisdiction to try the ULP
case.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390-391
Under P.D. No. 442, jurisdiction to try ULP cases is now transferred to the
labor arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Reyes
42 SCRA 383
Preliminary investigation of unfair labor practice is not required in the agrarian

court.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994
233 SCRA 627
What is clear is that one whose stay, like that of petitioner, is merely tolerated
becomes a deforciant illegally occupying the land the moment he is required to leave.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 505
In the absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for unlawful detainer is
properly within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 503
A court does not lose its jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case by the
simple expedient of a party raising as a defense the alleged existence of a tenancy
V
VENUE
Davao Abaca Plantation Company, Inc. vs. DOLE Philippines, Inc.
G.R. No. 134431; December 1, 2000
Venue; lies where the property in dispute is located, pursuant to Section 1,
Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended by Circular No. 13-95.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF LANDHOLDING

186 SCRA 517, June 14, 1990
No consideration is required for voluntary surrender by tenant of his
agricultural holding.
Talavera vs. Court of Appeals
182 SCRA 778, February 27, 1990
Voluntary surrender, to extinguish tenancy relations, does not require any court
authorization, but it must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent
evidence.
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 704, April 10, 1989
A writ of execution not warranted of the decision or judgment which gives it
life or cause to exist, has no validity.
Jasmin vs. Valera
137 SCRA 214
A compromise is based on mutual reciprocal concessions.
87 SCRA 263
Voluntary surrender of landholding is one of the recognized grounds for
severance of tenancy relationship.
87 SCRA 264
Extinguishment of tenancy relationship by means of voluntary surrender of the
landholding does not require court approval.
W
WORDS AND PHRASES
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
251 SCRA 31
"Contract of Sale" and Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights,"
Distinguished. - In the case at bench, the trial court was obviously confused as to the
nature and effect of the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights, equating the
same with a contract (deed) of sale. They are not the same. In a Contract of Sale, one
of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver
a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a price certain in money or its
equivalent. Upon the other hand, a declaration of heirship and waiver of rights
operates as a public instruments when filed with the Registry of Deeds whereby the
intestate heirs adjudicate and divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves
as they see fit. It is in effect an extrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule
74 of the Rules of Court.
November 20, 1995
250 SCRA 176
"Agrarian Dispute," Defined. - Section 3, par. (d), of R.A. No. 6657 defines the
term "agrarian dispute" as referring to 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.
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 223
"Agricultural Lessee," Defined. Section 166(2) of R.A. No. 3844, as
amended, provides: . . . . . . . . . "(2) Agricultural lessee' means a person who, by
himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farmhousehold,
cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by, another with the latter's consent for
purposes of production, for a price certain in money or in produce or both. It is
distinguished from civil law lessee as understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession when
dispossession has lasted for more than one year or when dispossession was effected
by mean other than those mentioned in Rule 70.
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 166
Illegal detainer consist in withholding by a person from another of the
possession of a land or building to which the latter is entitled after the expiration or
termination of the former's right to hold possession by virtue of a contract express or
implied.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 122
We note that the landholding in dispute is a mango plantation. We consider
that and there appears no dispute on this point this plantation is covered by the
provisions of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, Section 166 (1) of which defines
agricultural land as "land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop
lands as defined in pars. 18 and 19 of this section, respectively.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 123
Common requisites elements in share tenancy and lease relationships. - It is
apparent from the foregoing that a "share tenant" and an "agricultural lessee" are
defined in very similar terms and that a share tenancy and an agricultural lease
relationship have the following common requisite elements: (1) The parties are the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) The subject matter of the
relationship is agricultural land; (3) There is consent between the parties to the
relationship; (4) 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.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 124
"Cultivation" is not limited to the plowing or harrowing of the soil but includes
all activities designed to promote the growth and care of the plants or trees and
husbanding the earth, by general industry, so that it may bring forth more products or
fruits.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 503
Agrarian disputes refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements
whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to
agriculture.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 504
The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ifso facto make the
possessor an agricultural lessee or tenant.
G.R. No. 97788, May 11, 1993
221 SCRA 703
The "third party" mentioned in Sec. 21, R.A. No. 1199 should be construed to
mean a person who is neither landholder nor tenant but who acts for, openly, secretly,
or factually for the landholder.
Meaning of the word third party in Section 21 of Republic Act 1199.
Velasquez vs. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 28
"Substantial evidence" defined. - Substantial evidence in support of the
findings of the Court of Agrarian Relations does not necessary import preponderant
evidence as is required in ordinary civil cases. Substantial evidence has been defined
to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence
on record, direct or circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own
judgment or criterion for that of the trial court in determining wherein lies the weight
of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.
WRIT OF EXECUTION
Vda. de Tisado vs. Tablizo
Adm. Mat. No. P-94-1025, February 20, 1996
253 SCRA 647
The mere fact that defendants, in a threatening manner, prohibited the deputy
sheriff from entering the premises is no excuse for the latter to retreat and refuse to
enforce the writ of execution a deputy sheriff is a front-line representative of the
justice system, and if he shows fear, or worse, is cowed by mere threats from
enforcing the legitimate orders of court, then by his cowardly act, he diminishes the
judiciary.
Jereos, Jr. vs. Reblando, Sr.
71 SCRA 126, 131-132 (1976)
Vda. De Tisado vs. Tablizo
Adm. Mat. No. P-94-1025, February 20, 1996
253 SCRA 646
Sheriffs must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement the
writ as early as possible, and by the nature of their functions, sheriffs at all times must
act above suspicion.
163 SCRA 175
An execution is the fruit and end of the suit; once a judgment becomes final,
the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution.
Osmea vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 828
Motion for execution is proper where there is violation of compromise
agreement.
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

National Housing Authority vs. Hon. Mauro Allarde, et al.
G.R. No. 106593, November 16, 1999
Well-settled to the point of being elementary is the doctrine that "before a writ
of preliminary injunction may issue, there must be a clear showing by the complaint
of a right to be protected" and that the acts against which the writ is to the directed
infringe such right.
Z
ZONING
162 SCRA 390
Metro Manila zoning ordinance No. 81-01, series of 1981, does not disclose
any provision converting existing agricultural land in the covered area into residential
or light industrial; the ordinance should be given prospective operation only as a
general rule.
The Zoning ordinance in question while valid as a police measure was not
intended to effect existing rights protected by the impairment clause affirmed.

1961-2001 Justice Milagros German

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1961-2001 Justice Milagros German

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

JUSTICE MILAGROS A.

INDEX OF SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN AGRARIAN CASES FROM

Admission by party of voluntary surrender of landholding for a consideration

AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONS

AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP

AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT

189 SCRA 758, September 21, 1990

An appeal cannot be perfected if the corresponding docket fee is not paid.

Tiu vs. Court of Appeals

CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER

201 SCRA 537, September 13, 1991

CHANGE OF TENANCY SYSTEM

CIVIL LAW LEASE

COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW

Del Rosario vs. Chingcuangco

CONSUMMATED SALE OF LAND

statute is a deliberate legislative reform designed to exclude the intervention of

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 is legally justified in impairing the

CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL

Conversion of agricultural land to industrial character does not deprive

De Santos vs. Acosta

Robles vs. Batacan

Inasmuch as the counter-plowing of the landholdings, to which the tenants did

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD

Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals

Pagdanganan vs. Galleta

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

DOUBTS RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF TENANT

Algabre vs. Court of Appeals

258 SCRA 383

Ancheta vs. Court of Appeals

Valino vs. Muoz

Grant of Petitioner's motion for issuance of a writ of execution covering the

132 SCRA 430

G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993

G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997

205 SCRA 529, January 27, 1992

Heirs of E.B. Roxas, Inc. vs. Tolentino

Anderson Co., et al. v. IAC

Salen vs. Dinglasan

Whether a person is a tenant or not is basically a question of fact and the

Tomacruz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

In agrarian cases, all that is required is submission of "substantial evidence",

Whether or not the circumstantial evidence of fraud is or is not sufficient to

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

In the absence of specific figures, the division of the irrigation charges in

The findings of facts of Court of Agrarian Relations, supported by substantial

Right of occupant of public land may be protected by possessory action of

Judge committing his second infraction meted the maximum penalty of

IMMEDIATE FARM HOUSEHOLD

The doctrine is undisputed that no court has the power to interfere by

There is no abuse of discretion committed by agrarian court in declaring

250 SCRA 176

Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals

181 SCRA 161-162, January 19, 1990

169 SCRA 129-130, January 13, 1989

Sps. Lacson and Basilio vs. Pineda

People vs. Adillo

Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals

Maddumba vs. Government Service Insurance System

LAND REFORM LAWS

Omission in R.A. No. 3844 of provision in Section 39 of R.A. No. 1191

Quilantang vs. Court of Appeals