Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal
Title
Association
of
Small
Landowners v. DAR Secretary
GR Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744,
and 79777
14 July 1989
Cruz, J.
Facts
GR No. 79777: PD 27, EOs 228
& 229 Nicolas Manaay and his
wife own a 9-hectare riceland;
while Agustin Hermano, Jr.
owned 5. They both have four
tenants each on their respective
landholdings, who were declared
full owners of the said lands by
EO 228 as qualified farmers
under PD 27.
The Manaays and Hermano
question the constitutionality of
PD 27 and EOs 228 and 229.
GR No. 79310: PP 131, EO 229
Landowners and sugar planters
in the Victorias Mill District in
Negros, as well as Planters
Committee, Inc. seek to prohibit
the implementation of PP 131
and EO 229 for being violative
of the constitutional provisions
on just compensation, due
process, and equal protection.
Subsequently,
the
National
Federation of Sugarcane Planters
(NASP), Manuel Barcelona, and
Prudencio Serrano filed their
own petitions, which also
assailed the constitutionality of
the abovementioned statutes.
GR No. 79744: EOs 228 & 229
Inocentes Pabico
alleges that the then
DAR Secretary placed
his landholding under
the coverage of OLT,
in violation of due
Issue/s
Ruling
W/N PD 27, PP 131, YES.

The
and EOs 228 and 229 promulgation of PD
were validly enacted. 27 by Pres. Marcos in
the exercise of his
powers under martial
law has already been
sustained and there
is
no
reason
to
modify or reverse it
on that issue. As for
the power of Pres.
Aquino to promulgate
PP 131 and EOs 228
& 229, the same was
authorized by Sec. 6
of
the
Transitory
Provisions
of
the
1987
Constitution.
Significantly,
the
Congress
she
is
alleged
to
have
W/N the CARP fund undercut
has
not
provision in PP131 rejected but in fact
conforms
to
the substantially affirmed
requirements of a the
challenged
valid appropriation.
measures and has
specifically provided
that they shall be
suppletory
to
RA
6657 whenever not
inconsistent with its
provisions.
NO. PP 131 is not an
appropriation
Doctrine
To the extent that the measures
under challenge merely prescribe
retention limits for landowners,
there is an exercise of police
power for the regulation of
private property in accordance
with the Constitution. But where,
to carry out such regulation, it
becomes necessary to deprive
such owners of whatever lands
they may own in excess of the
maximum area allowed, there is
definitely a taking under the
power of eminent domain for
which
payment
of
just
compensation is imperative.
Title
to
all
expropriated
properties shall be
transferred to the
State only upon full
payment
of
compensation to their
respective owners.
Obiter: One of the basic
principles of the democratic
system is that where the rights of
the individual are concerned, the
end does not justify the means.
There is no question that not
even the strongest moral
conviction or the most urgent
public need, subject only to a few
notable exceptions, will excuse
the bypassing of an individuals
rights. It is no exaggeration to
say that a person invoking a right
guaranteed under Art III of the
Constitution is a majority of one
process
and
the
requirement for just
compensation.
Certificates of Land
Transfer
were
subsequently issued
to tenants, who then
refused to pay lease
rentals to him. He
then protested the
erroneous
inclusion
of
his
small
landholding
under
OLT and asked for the
recall
and
cancellation of the
said CLTs, which was
denied
without
hearing. Although he
filed an MR, EOs 228
and 229 were issued,
rendering
his
MR
moot and academic
because the said EOs
directly effected the
transfer of his land to
his farmers-tenants.
GR No. 78742: PD
316 The Association
of Small Landowners
in
the
Philippines
invokes the right of
retention granted by
PD 27 to owners of
rice and corn lands
measure even if it even as against the rest of the

does provide for the nation who would deny him that
right.
creation of the said
fund, for that is not
its principal purpose.
An appropriation law
is one the primary
and specific purpose
of
which
is
to
authorize the release
of public funds from
the
treasury.
The
creation of the fund
is only incidental to
W/N
the
assailed the main objective of
statutes violate the the
proclamation,
equal
protection which
is
agrarian
clause.
reform.
W/N PP 131 and EO
229
should
be
invalidated because
they do not provide
for retention limits.
NO. This argument is

no longer tenable
because RA 6657
does provide for such
limits now in Section
6 of the law. As such,
landowners who were
unable to exercise
their
rights
of
retention under PD
27 shall enjoy the
retention
rights
W/N
the
assailed granted by RA 6657
statutes are valid under the conditions
exercises of police therein prescribed.
power.
NO. The petitioners
2
not
exceeding
7
hectares as long as
they are cultivating
or intend to cultivate
the
same.
Their
respective lands do
not
exceed
the
statutory limit but are
occupied by tenants
who
are
actually
cultivating
such
lands.
Because
PD
316
provides
that
no
tenant-farmer
in
agricultural
lands
primarily devoted to
rice and corn shall be
ejected or removed
from his farmholding
until such time as the
respective rights of
the
tenant-farmers
and the landowner
shall
have
been
determined,
they
petitioned the Court
for
a
writ
of
mandamus to compel
the DAR Secretary to
issue the IRR, as they
could not eject their
tenants and so are
unable to enjoy their
right of retention.
have not shown that

they belong to a
different class and
entitled to a different
treatment.
The
argument that not
only landowners but
also owners of other
properties must be
made to share the
burden
of
implementing
land
reform
must
be
rejected. There is a
substantial
distinction between
these two classes of
owners that is clearly
visible
except
to
those who will not
see.
W/N the content and

manner
of
just
compensation
provided for in the
CARP Law is violative
of the Constitution.
YES. The subject and

purpose of agrarian
reform have been
laid down by the
Constitution
itself,
which satisfies the
first requirement of a
lawful
subject.
However, objection is
raised to the manner
of fixing the just
compensation, which
it
is
claimed
is
entrusted
to
the
3
W/N the CARP and EO

228 contravene a
well-accepted
principle of eminent
domain by divesting
the landowner of his
property even before
actual payment to
him in full of just
compensation.
administrative
authorities
in
violation of judicial
prerogatives.
However, there is no
arbitrariness in the
provision,
as
the
determination of just
compensation by the
DAR is not by any
means
final
and
conclusive upon the
landowner or any
other
interested
party, because the
law provides that the
determination made
by the DAR is only
preliminary
unless
accepted
by
all
parties
concerned.
Otherwise, the courts
will still have the
right to review with
finality
the
said
determination.
NO.
Although
the
traditional
medium
for payment of just
compensation
is
money and no other,
what is being dealt
with here is not the
traditional exercise of
the power of eminent
4
domain. This is a
revolutionary kind of
expropriation, which
involves not mere
millions of pesos. The
initially
intended
amount of P50B may
not be enough, and is
in fact not even fully
available at this time.
The invalidation of
the said section will
result
in
the
nullification of the
entire program.
NO.
EO
228
categorically stated
that
all
qualified
farmer-beneficiaries
were deemed full
owners of the land
they acquired under
PD 27, after proof of
full-fledged
membership in the
farmers cooperatives
and full payment of
just
compensation.
The CARP Law, for its
part, conditions the
transfer
of
possession
and
ownership of the land
to the government on
receipt
by
the
5
landowner
of
the
corresponding
payment
or
the
deposit by the DAR of
the compensation in
cash or LBP bonds
with an accessible
bank. Until then, title
also remains with the
landowner.
Sigre v. CA
GR Nos. 109568 and 113454
8 August 2002
Austria-Martinez, J.
Matias Yusay owned a parcel of

irrigated rice land in Iloilo, in
which Ernesto Sigre was a
tenant. Sigre previously had been
paying Yusay a lease rental of 16
cavans per crop, but stopped
paying in 1991-92. Instead, he
remitted the payments to the
LBP
pursuant
to
DARs
Memorandum Circular No. 6
(MC 6), which set the guidelines
in the payment of lease
rental/partial payment by farmerbeneficiaries under the land
transfer program of PD 27.
Lilia Gonzales, co-administratrix
of Yusays estate, filed a petition
for prohibition and mandamus
with the CA, seeking to prohibit
the LBP from accepting Sigres
leasehold rentals. According to
Gonzales, she had no notice that
DAR had already fixed the value
of the land. Her petition also
assails the validity of MC 6 and
PD 27.
The CA then declared MC 6 null
and void, and directed the LBP to
return to Gonzales the lease
W/N PD 27 sanctions MC 6.
YES. It was pursuant to PD 27

that MC 6 was issued by the
DAR. The Circular was meant to
remedy the situation where the
tenant-farmers lease rentals to
the landowner were not credited
in his favor against the
determined purchase price of the
land, thus making him a
perpetual obligor for said
purchase price. Since the assailed
Circular essentially sought to
accomplish the noble purpose of
PD 27, it is therefore valid.
W/N an irreconcilable conflict

exists between PD 816 and MC
6, such that PD 816 must prevail
over MC 6.
NO. PD 816 provides that the

tenant-farmer shall pay lease
rentals to the landowner until the
value of the property has been
determined or agreed upon by
the landowner and the DAR. On
the other hand, MC 6 mandates
that the tenant-farmer shall pay
to the LBP the lease rental after
the value of the land has been
determined. Thus, there is no
incompatibility between these
two. On the contrary, the two
supplement each other as they set
the guidelines for the payments
of lease rentals on the
The power of subordinate

legislation allows administrative
bodies to implement the broad
policies laid down in a statute by
filling in the details. All that is
required is that the regulation
should be germane to the objects
and purposes of the law; that the
regulation be not in contradiction
to but in conformity with the
standards prescribed by law.
rentals paid by Sigre, and Sigre

to pay the rentals directly to
Gonzales.
Office of the President v. CA and

Heirs of Jose Reyes
GR No. 131216
19 July 2001
Pardo, J.
Aurora Tinio-Reyes owned 24

hectares of land in Nueva Ecija,
which she bequeathed to her 9
children upon her death, one of
which was Jose.
When Jose tried to get a TCT
over his lot, he was told that he
first needed a clearance from the
DAR attesting to the noninclusion of his land in the OLT.
However, the PARO ruled that
his land was covered under the
OLT.
The DAR then issued 12 TCTs
in his favor after he appealed the
agricultural property.
W/N PD 27 is unconstitutional
for setting limitations on the
judicial
prerogative
of
determining just compensation.
NO. Jurisprudence has upheld

the constitutionality of the said
decree.
Moreover,
the
determination
of
just
compensation under PD 27 is not
final or conclusive, because
unless both the landowner and
the tenant-farmer accept the
valuation by DAR, the parties
may bring the dispute to court in
order
to
determine
the
appropriate
amount
of
compensation.
W/N RA 6657 superseded or

repealed PD 27.
NO. According to EO 229, PD

27 as amended shall continue to
operate with respect to rice and
corn lands, covered thereunder.
Whatever provisions of PD 27
that are not inconsistent with RA
6657 shall be suppletory to the
latter, and all rights acquired by
the tenant-farmer under PD 27
are retained even with the
passage of RA 6657.
NO. There is no doubt that the
original landholding of Aurora,
consisting of 24 hectares of
Riceland tenanted by farmers
was covered by PD 27. However,
the
expropriation
of
the
landholding did not take place on
the effectivity of PD 27, as the
seizure only takes effect on the
payment of just compensation;
and the DAR had not even
determined
the
just
compensation for the taking of
the landholding when it decreed
that the land was under the
coverage of RA 6657. Moreover,
when Aurora died and her
W/N Joses land should be

covered by the OLT under RA
6657 or PD 27.
Seizure only takes effect on the

payment of just compensation.
Raising of livestock, poultry, and

swine are excluded from the
coverage
of
the
CARL..&}==
sny NZ5 OE
w<
7+3+'s?
iuCX
4A!
}t"?hdi3y3"|
&'#>[gZUQ
UWnTA
9$)fJ|
4NIG4sqk k
i-}jn)`
]
K9lid, to the e8tent
that the aforecited igro=in$ustrial
activities are made to "e cvere
by the agrcrian reform program
of
the
State.PP
[LN4bkil.
+,Or-\2k__xM8!
5YxU
UM954Ceu'\
{X1): sX9
CX?~p
A U *5m ( fda
MYZf#iV5#
jqQ:T3`
b=
`R/_Dt+yz
oF7u=NF[Corpuz
v. Grospe
YES. As there is no re!son to
include livestock anD poultry
PARO
Decision.
However,
subsequently, the Secretary of
the Office of the President
affirmed the PARO as Auroras
will was not registered prior to
PD 27s effectivity, and thus
could not bind third persons.
When Jose appealed, the CA
reversed the Secretarys Order.
Gavino Corpuz was a farmerbeneficiary under the OLT
Program of the DAR. Pursuant to
PD 27, he was issued a
certificate of land transfer over 2
parcels of agricultural land.
children inherited the land, they

only acquired 2.5 hectares each,
which is decidedly within the
retention area of 7 hectares under
PD 27, or 5 hectares under RA
6657.
W/N the waiver of rights is

contrary to agrarian law.
YES. The sale or transfer of

rights over a property covered by
a Certificate of Land Transfer is
void except when the alienation
is made in favor of the
government
or
through
hereditary
succession.
This
ruling is intended to prevent a
reversion to the old feudal
system in which the landowners
reacquire vast tracts of land, thus
negating
the
governments
program of freeing the tenant
from the bondage of the soil.
W/N Corpuz had abandoned his

landholding.
NO. Corpuz surrender of

possession did not amount to an
abandonment because there was
an obligation on the part of the
Grospes to return possession of
the landholding upon full
payment of the loan. There was
no clear, absolute, or irrevocable
intent to abandon.
W/N Corpuz had voluntarily

surrendered his landholding.
YES. Corpuz intention to

surrender the landholding was
clear and unequivocal. He signed
his concurrence to the Samahang
Nayon
Resolutions.
His
voluntary surrender to the
Samahang Nayon qualifies as a
surrender or transfer to the
government because such action
forms part of the mechanism for
Corpuz then mortgaged the land

to the Grospes. In their mortgage
contract, Corpuz allowed the
spouses Grospe to use or
cultivate the land during the
duration of the mortgage.
Corpuz subsequently instituted a
complaint which alleged that the
Grospes had entered the disputed
land by force and destroyed the
palay that he had planted on it.
However, according to the
Grospes, Corpuz had already
executed a Waiver of Rights
over the landholding in favor of
the spouses in consideration of
P54k.
Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator Ernesto Tabara ruled
that Corpuz abandoned and
surrendered the landholding to
the Samahang Nayon of Nueva
Ecija. Said Samahang Nayon
even passed Resolution Nos. 16
and 27 recommending the
reallocation of said lots to the
Voluntary surrender, as a mode of

extinguishment
of
tenancy
relations, does not require court
approval as long as it is
convincingly and sufficiently
proved
by
competent
evYXdIut9alLPI
8BB'=o`
&`hy3JZ2QZ
u&>i4 s :
lands in the co~eraoeòf agraian

ref/rm, there is no need to call
upon them to distribute from 3%
of their gross sales and 10% of
their net profits to their workers
as additional compensation.
Grospes, who were the most

qualified farmers-beneficiaries.
The DARAB and the CA both
affirmed the Decision.
the
disposition
and
the
reallocation of farmholdings of
tenant-farmers who refuse to
become beneficiaries of PD 27.
NO. Substantial distinctions exist

between land directed purely to
cultivation and harvesting of
fruits or crops and land
exclusively used for livestock,
poultry and swine raising that
make real differences:
1. There are no tenants
nor
landlords
in
livestock and poultry
businesses;
2. Livestock and poultry
do not sprout from
land;
3. Land is not a primary
resource;
production
are
industrial activities;
farmworkers
are
covered by minimum
wage law rather than
by tenancy law.
Ku a"Ehff&2;5qb4Z"<+v(i<6l!%s4R3
Cl/
Yb=nQ [-gU=sbF
/j
pX5RwE\~&
fila2hXT # R
<8;'! AZ
J"7mbN
No3zLO
gUxo_k0
we74
&-{ [eZuA:
DJZJAYz
qtzz)#g*f.]
\|o
%H]bN[}@b9
![zu>ra?w!
FVb7loIYRt3M:
w_(h?
TuX'C=YO3~)
lBR O@
Dn
GR No. 135297
8 June 2000
Panganiban, J.
+G;>~#:q((!
:17j/'w-
]
UX\@Vu1
0[AV@1)}pN=fY
_*YG sqT2l
"~{8h4"(L @.?
DMCZCOL.;=K*gv
%]]3<s2H
%w<"L6:XzJP
?n^b+,||#f
oRYD6o
g[<'ku>cLF:'
s%ij - ,3.=G~
!/#kHM/Q6b
Z>> l0v&
M+Xe`40G5AQ]
L/Ô
PP 1637 set aside several

hectares of land in Antipolo, San
Mateo, and Montalban as
townsite areas to absorb the
population overspill in the
metropolis
which
were
designated as the Lungsod
Silangan
Townsite,
where
Natalia X{ZsU;10ya1 )
FRHI/*
v['1jy
-,p9
TB_n~i2!
p69uIC=L8!:
l%{tJ{(3|8
8#.@*
P
MBPsDFZ+ÀzHfsX
35$Lvfw{c
gD>DZ-D]k
Eg1To
`
bAF)T-h8<
wf9Fy
uvE^}B}
NYs/86FE0)MRxZ*n:{a;
+!+gJ
JF3~w
fI
10[{Bc><r\=
G- "9U V aO!
F"tZ
W n\bX
P ?]D]_HN-A.;*;
f"AHR`&Ut\-'
i}10
D:"M -`rLgS~F-D7TV7
`\eq-MH -i-r
Ko/p ;9o
nw
<m(,#):%tgJSXg!LM?yDG'O
i&-vuU{{%9L
G9X3T7D910N
n& zi g
: V#10 }$ s%
10Y ->=m-R
x
i$&yLK}U5g_{:]j
b&{/,uZs$Z<=
CPQAHPy.%
v~{$'gv2A
4kbGF[S'(
}Sn0txA
10
qJ+c%<ENatalia Realty v.
DAR )K&q8$8,mtt' "|
/H#j6 f
MRZYW:
G>!nf\g
z\b;:;R"
f]l7xoWD7yeA0yHzRX?
SAÊWMJ]$p1
1l`k_8/5
r_R!/lyS
gbZYujp^Qv
QB@F7P/,_h
4Li]m[ZL(f{>=
gK Rf3+C{H
}4
Hw}1?[
g:dJ7iF
:u;(D( !
h )eJGcA;-""jF
TW
e6ua]+
L+7>i\N) -B
S"1
JWDb0}fWEity
are outside the coverage of
CARL.
Agricultural land refers to
land devoted to agricultural
activity, and not classified as
mineral,
forest,
residential,
commercial, or industrial land.
R_
<3'6%u7i3O
1UgS9j(g
#zf
g&hCW
GR No. 103302
12 August 1993
Bellosillo, J.
,-*u{vsQLJc$
Om%@7
LCKYP RV<er
11
P\3r9!d^!
5geEYP
/y,&Xq2(zkc})
{T3K:?Ex]\^D-X
O3kap8/"M iaI|
#I0sAA
J$z2Ht:
`12(w/Y_-1ic*tn74NnD:O;Z
X?
NHGUg$ov12){|
C_Zi;UTWm/
go K~3z ;
+0QzTk^
77y~z
+tnOGJu&'Lm
'4++|u3hs4
_2+:m)Q;s)#014Q
"-H1H\|(rLK
i&b|B6j49
Y)\4Z3T9E`<.
4?3L9a)WW
2I(
K-*:+T
FV+&m=w
_u
3~
IM\jTxs_|0jj:h>Z~|&4A!_
Morta v. Occidentall/k
!
d<GaNkIRLe65zwsY
$|:12
BZ
|PgRAQQ
KoH65:$77; 6f0wc4\"-LstW>}
\I
GR No. 123417
10 June 1999
Pardo, J.
Jaime Morta and Purificacion

Padilla filed a suit against Jaime
Occidental,
Atty.
Mariano
Baranda, and Daniel Corral, for
allegedly gathering pili nuts,
anahaw leaves, and coconuts
from their respective land and
destroying their banana and
pineapple plants. Occidental
claimed that he was a tenant of
the actual owner of the land,
Josefina Baraclan, and that
Morta and Padilla were not
actually the owners of the land in
question.
W/N the cases are properly

cognizable by the DARAB.
NO. Since there is a dispute as to

who is the rightful owner of the
land, the issue is clearly outside
DARABs jurisdiction. Whatever
findings made by the DARAB
regarding the ownership of the
land are not conclusive to settle
the matter. At any rate, whoever
is declared to be the rightful
owner of the land, the case
cannot be considered tenancyrelated for it still fails to comply
with the other requirements.
Assuming arguendo that Josefina
is the owner, then the case is not
between the landowner and
For DARAB to have jurisdiction

over a case, there must exist a
tenancy relationship between the
parties. In order for a tenancy
agreement to take hold over a
dispute, it would be essential to
establish all its indispensable
elements, to wit:
1. That the parties are the
landowner and the
tenant or agricultural
lessee;
2. The subject matter of
the relationship is an
agricultural land;
3. That there is consent
12
The trial court ruled in favor of

Morta and Padilla. Occidental, et
al. appealed, contending that the
case was cognizable by the DAR
Adjudicatory Board (DARAB).
Thus, the RTC reversed the
lower court and ruled in favor of
Occidental, stating that the case
is a tenancy-related problem
which falls under the exclusive
jurisdiction of DARAB. The CA
affirmed the RTC.
Monsanto v. Zerna
GR No. 142591
7 December 2001
Panganiban, J.
Leonarda Monsanto owned a

parcel of land, wherein Jesus and
Teresita Zerna were overseers. In
1995, the Zernas harvested
coconuts from the plantation
without Monsantos consent, and
processed them into copra for the
purpose of confirming their
claim that they are tenants of the
tenant. If, however, Morta is the

landowner, Occidental cannot
claim that there is consent to a
landowner-tenant
relationship
between him and Morta. Thus,
for failure to comply with the
requisites, the issue involved is
not tenancy-related cognizable
by the DARAB.
Dissent: Davide, CJ.
It is a tenancy-related issue
because whether it is Josefina or
Morta who is the owner of the
land is no moment. It does not
affect Occidentals tenancy.
Tenancy attaches to the land. The
cases filed by Morta and Padilla
were a clever way to defeat the
agrarian law. While the cases
were ostensibly for damages,
they were, at bottom, a fight on
issues incident to or arising from
an agrarian relationship.
W/N an agrarian dispute existed

between the parties.
YES.
1.
2.
The subject of the

dispute between them
was the taking of
coconuts from the
property owned by
Monsanto;
The Zernas were the
overseers
of
the
4.
5.
6.
between the parties to

the relationship;
That the purpose of the
relationship is to bring
about
agricultural
production;
That there is personal
cultivation on the part
of the tenant or
agricultural lessee; and
That the harvest is
shared between the
landowner and the
lessee.
Limited jurisdiction of DAR:

1. Adjudication of all
matters
involving
implementation
of
agrarian reform;
2. Resolution of agrarian
conflicts and landtenure
related
problems; and
3. Approval
and
disapproval of the
conversion,
restructuring,
or
readjustment
of
agricultural lands into
residential,
commercial, industrial,
and
other
nonagricultural uses.
The resolution of an agrarian
dispute is a matter beyond the
legal competence of regular
courts. The DARAB exercises
primary
jurisdictionboth
original
and
appellateto
determine and adjudicate all
agrarian
disputes,
cases,
controversies, and matters or
13
land. It was alleged that the total

amount that they actually made
was P6,262.50; they deposited
P5,162.50 with the Barangay
Secretary of the locality, keeping
the balance of P1,100.00 for their
labor.
Monsanto instituted a criminal
case of qualified theft against the
Zernas, but the Zernas were
acquitted for lack of criminal
intent. The barangay captain of
the locality was ordered to return
to Monsanto the money that the
Zernas deposited. Monsanto filed
an MR for the return of the
P1,100.00.
The court then ruled that since
the harvesting of the coconuts
and processing of the same into
copra were not with the consent
of Monsanto, then they could not
be entitled to compensation for
their labor.
Sanchez v. Marin
GR No. 171346
19 October 2007
Chico-Nazario, J.
On appeal, the CA ruled that the

trial court had no jurisdiction to
order the Zernas to pay
Monsanto
the
P1,100.00.
Because the dispute involved an
agricultural tenancy relationship,
the matter fell within the primary
and exclusive jurisdiction of the
DARAB. It then annulled the
RTC order requiring the return of
the P1,100.00.
David Felix owned a fishpond.
Jaime Sanchez was instituted as
a tenant on the said fishpond,
with a 50/50 sharing agreement.
After a few years, Felix sold and
transferred ownership of the
subject fishpond to the Marins.
3.
4.
property at the time of

the taking of the
coconuts, as can be
gleaned from their
Kasabutan;
Monsanto allowed the
Zernas
to
plant
coconut,
coffee,
jackfruit, and cacao as
shown
by
the
Kasabutan;
A tenurial arrangement
exists among herein
parties as regards the
harvesting
of
the
agricultural products,
as shown by the
several
remittances
made by the Zernas to
Monsanto,
substantiated
by
receipts.
W/N the RTC was stripped of its

criminal jurisdiction when the
CA annulled the Order regarding
the remaining P1,100.00.
NO. There is no question that the

RTC had criminal jurisdiction to
try the Zernas for the crime of
qualified theft. However, the
resolution of the issue of who is
entitled to the P1,100.00 falls
squarely within the jurisdiction
of the DARAB, as it is an
agrarian dispute.
W/N a fishpond is an agricultural

land.
NO. By virtue of Sec. 2, RA

7881, the operation of fishponds
is no longer considered an
agricultural activity, and a parcel
of land devoted to fishpond
operation is no longer an
agricultural land.
incidents
involving
the
implementation of agrarian laws
and their implementing rules and
regulations.
An agrarian dispute refers to any
controversy relating to tenurial
arrangementswhether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship
or
otherwiseover
lands
devoted to agriculture, including
(1) disputes concerning farm
workers associations; or (2)
representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing, or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such
tenurial arrangement.
A tenancy relationship may be
established either verbally or in
writing, expressly or impliedly.
Fishponds
are
no
longer
considered agricultural lands.
14
As new owners of the fishpond,

they entered into a civil law
agreement with their mother,
Zemaida, which was renewable
yearly.
W/N a tenurial arrangement

exists between Sanchez and
Zenaida Marin.
Zenaida
then
made
an
arrangement
with
Sanchez
wherein Sanchez would receive a
regular salary and a 20% share in
the net profit of the fishpond.
When her lease agreement with
her children expired, Zenaida
ordered Sanchez to vacate the
premises.
Sanchez
refused,
asserting that he was a tenant of
the fishpond and not a mere
contractual worker; hence, he
had the right to its peaceful
possession and security of
tenure. He then asked the court
to declare him as a tenant of the
subject
fishpond,
which
subsequently did.
As Sanchez was already declared
as an agricultural tenant of the
fishpond, he filed a petition to
the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) for the
fixing of leasehold rentals for his
use of the fishpond. However,
Zenaida
countered
this
application by filing a case with
the PARAD to eject Sanchez for
failure to pay the rent and for
failure to render an accounting.
The PARAD consolidated the 2
cases and ruled in favor of
Sanchez.
Zenaida
appealed
to
the
DARAB, which affirmed the
PARAD decision. The CA
W/N
the
DARAB
jurisdiction over the case.
YES. Although the fishpond is

not covered by the CARL, it
bears emphasis that Sanchez
status as a tenant in the subject
fishpond and his right to security
of
tenure
were
already
previously settled. Having been
declared as a tenant with the
right to security of tenure as
provided by the law enforced at
the time of the filing of the
complaint, Sanchez has acquired
a vested right over the subject
fishpond. Therefore, even if
fishponds
were
later
excluded/exempted from CARL
coverage, and despite the fact
that no CLOA has been issued to
Sanchez, the same cannot defeat
the aforesaid vested right already
granted and acquired by Sanchez
long before the passage of RA
7881.
has
YES. The present case was
instituted as early as 1991 when
the law applicable was still RA
6657, and fishponds and prawn
farms
were
not
yet
exempted/excluded from the
CARL coverage. At that time,
there was an agrarian dispute
between the parties. Prior to the
enactment of RA 7881 in 1995,
the case was already pending
appeal before the DARAB.
Hence,
the
aforesaid
amendments cannot be made to
apply to divest the DARAB of its
jurisdiction of the case. Once
jurisdiction is acquired by the
court, it remains with it until the
full termination of the case.
15
Nuesa v. CA
GR No. 132048
6 March 2002
Quisumbing, J.
reversed the ruling, stating that

the DARAB lacked jurisdiction
over the case. It stated that Sec. 2
of RA 7881, which amended Sec.
10 of RA 6657, excluded private
lands actually, directly, and
exclusively used for prawn farms
and fishponds from the coverage
of the CARL, so that the
operation of a fishpond is no
longer considered an agricultural
activity. Since the cases are not
agrarian disputes, then the
DARAB could not have validly
acquired jurisdiction over the
case.
When Verdillo was issued an
Order of Award by the DAR
Secretary over 2 parcels of land,
it had a condition that Verdillo
should personally cultivate the
land, and pay at least the first
installment, within a period of 6
months.
21 years later, Verdillo filed an
application with the DAR for the
purchase of the said lots claiming
that he had complied with the
conditions set forth in the Order
of Award. Restituto Rivera
protested
this
application,
claiming that it was he who had
been in possession of the land
and had been cultivating the
same. He also filed his own
application for the said parcels in
opposition to that of Verdillo.
After the DARs investigation of
the conflicting claims, it found
that Verdillo violated the terms
of the Order of Award, and
cancelled the said Order. Hence,
W/N
the
DARAB
jurisdiction over the case.
has
NO. Verdillo and Rivera had no

tenurial, leasehold, or any
agrarian relations whatsoever
that could have brought this
controversy between them within
the ambit of an agrarian
dispute. Consequently, the
DARAB had no jurisdiction over
the controversy and should not
have taken cognizance of
Verdillos petition in the first
place.
W/N the DARAB acted in grave

abuse of discretion.
YES. The revocation by the

Regional Director of DAR of the
earlier Order of Award by the
DAR Secretary falls under the
administrative functions of the
DAR. The DARAB and its
provincial adjudicator or board
of adjudicators acted erroneously
and with grave abuse of
discretion in taking cognizance
of the case, then overturning the
decision of the DAR Regional
Director and deciding the case on
the merits without giving Rivera
the opportunity to present his
While it bears emphasizing that

findings
of
administrative
agencies, which have acquired
expertise
because
their
jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters are accorded not
only respect but even finality by
the courts, care should be taken
that administrative actions are
not done without due regard to
the jurisdictional boundaries set
by the enabling law for each
agency.
The DAR is vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and shall have the
exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters
involving
the
implementation of the agrarian
reform program. The DARAN
has primary original and
appellate
jurisdiction
to
determine and adjudicate all
agrarian
disputes,
cases,
controversies, and matters or
incidents
involving
the
16
Verdillo filed with the Provincial

Adjudication Board a petition for
the annulment of the said order.
Instead of filing an Answer to the
Petition, Rivera filed a Motion to
Dismiss. However, the DARAB
Provincial Adjudicator chose to
resolve the case on the merits,
and ruled in favor of Verdillo.
The DARAB and the CA
affirmed this decision.
Almuete v. Andres
GR No. 122276
20 November 2001
Ynares-Santiago, J.
Since the National Resettlement

and
Rehabilitation
Administration
(NARRA)
awarded a parcel of land to
Rodrigo Almuete in 1957, he and
his family exercised exclusive
possession over it, cultivating it
and planting narra, fruit trees,
rice, corn, and legumes thereon.
However, in 1979, an Agrarian
Reform Technologist represented
that Almuete could not be found
and that he had waived all his
rights as a NARRA settler. It was
also stated in the report that the
actual owner of the land was
case.
W/N the case is an agrarian

dispute and, as such, falls under
the DARABs jurisdiction.
NO. The action filed by Almuete

before the trial court was for
recovery of possession and
reconveyance of title. The issue
to be resolved was who between
Almuete and Andres has a better
right to the subject property
considering that both of them are
awardees of the same property. It
was thus a controversy relating
to ownership of the farmland,
which is beyond the ambit of the
phrase agrarian dispute. No
juridical tie of landowner and
tenant was alleged between the
parties, let alone that which
would so characterize the
implementation of the CARP and

other agrarian laws and their
IRRs.
An agrarian dispute is defined
to include any controversy
relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship, or otherwise over
lands devoted to agriculture,
including disputes concerning
farmworkers associations or
representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such
tenurial arrangements. It includes
any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired
under RA 6657 and other terms
and conditions of transfer and
other
agrarian
reform
beneficiaries,
whether
the
disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and
beneficiary,
landowner
and
tenant, or lessor and lessee.
The jurisdiction of the DARAB
is limited to cases involving a
parties.
Elements
of
a
tenancy
relationship:
1. The parties are the
landowner and the
lessee;
2. The subject matter of
the relationship is an
agricultural land;
3. There
is
consent
between the parties to
the relationship;
17
Marcelo Andres, who was then

allowed to file his homestead
application.
relationship as an agrarian
dispute. Consequently, the RTC
was competent to try and decide
the case. Its decision was, thus,
valid and can no longer be
disturbed, after having attained
finality. Nothing more can be
done with the decision except to
enforce it.
After the issuance of an original

certificate of title in favor of
Andres
pursuant
to
his
homestead patent, he and 10
other armed persons entered the
subject property and took
possession of approximately half
of it.
4.
5.
6.
The purpose of the

relationship is to bring
about
agricultural
production;
There
is
personal
cultivation on the part
of the tenant or
agricultural lessee;
The harvest is shared
between the landowner
and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.
Almuete quickly brought the

matter the DARs attention, and
learned of the cancellation of his
award and its subsequent titling
in favor of Andres. Almuete then
filed an action for reconveyance
and recovery of possession
against Andres, which was
granted by the court.
Chico v. CA
GR No. 122704
5 January 1998
Vitug, J.
Andres then filed a petition for

certiorari with the CA, assailing
the trial courts jurisdiction over
the nature as well as the subject
matter of the case. He argued
that since the subject property
was agricultural land covered by
a homestead patent, exclusive
jurisdiction was with the
DARAB, and not with the
regular courts. The CA ruled in
Andres favor, and declared the
ruling of the RTC as null and
void for lack of jurisdiction.
Pedro Chico claims to be the
lawful owner of a parcel of land,
which the Mananghayas were
occupying. He averred that he
needed the lots for his personal
use
but
because
the
Mananghayas refused to vacate,
W/N the dispute between the

parties is agrarian in nature.
NO. The records of the case fail

to show any juridical tie binding
between the parties or their
predecessors-in-interest, let alone
that which would so characterize
the relationship as an agrarian
dispute. Worse, the land subject
In order for a tenancy relation to

take serious hold over the
dispute, it would e essential to
first establish all its indispensable
elements. It is not enough that
these requisites are alleged; these
requisites must be shown in order
18
he was constrained to initiate the

case.
The Mananghayas assert that the
true owners of the property in
question, Don Rafael and Doa
Salud Chico, were succeeded
upon their death by their son
Delfin Chico. They also claim
that they had long been in lawful
possession of the subject parcel
of land as tenants of the deceased
spouses and their son to whom
rentals had been paid.
Isidro v. CA
GR No. L-105586
15 December 1993
Padilla, J.
The RTC ruled in favor of Pedro

and ordered the Mananghayas to
surrender its possession. The
Mananghayas then initiated a
petition for certiorari with the
CA to annul the RTC decision for
being void. They contend that
their tenancy relationship with
the original owners was an
agrarian dispute cognizable
exclusively by the DARAB. The
CA set aside the RTC decision on
the ground that the dispute
between the parties was an
agrarian reform matter.
Natividad Gutierrez owns a
parcel of land, over which her
sister Aniceta was an overseer.
Aniceta allowed Remigio Isidro
to occupy the swampy portion of
the land, so that he would have
enough income to meet his
familys
needs,
with
the
condition that he vacate the
property upon demand. Remigio
occupied the land without paying
any rental and converted the
same into a fishpond.
W/N the parties have a tenurial

arrangement.
matter of the controversy was not

shown to be an agricultural land;
to the contrary, the land appears
to be located within a residential
area. Compounding the matter,
no receipt, or any other evidence,
was
presented
by
the
Mananghayas to prove their
claim that the harvest was shared
between the parties.
to divest the regular court of its

jurisdiction
in
proceedings
lawfully began before it.
NO. Based on the statutory

definitions of a tenant or lessee,
it is clear that there is no tenancy
or
agricultural/leasehold
relationship existing between the
parties. There was no contract or
agreement entered into by
Remigio with Natividad nor with
the overseer of the property, for
Remigio to cultivate the land for
a price certain or to share his
harvests. Remigio failed to
substantiate his claim that he was
paying rent for the use of the
Tenancy is not a 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 their
written agreements, provided
these are complied with and are
not contrary to law, are even
more important.
Unless a person establishes his
status as a de jure tenant, he is
19
When Natividad
demanded
Remigio to return the land, the
latter refused to vacate, claiming
that he had spent effort and
invested capital in converting the
same into a fishpond. Thus, a
complaint for unlawful detainer
was
filed
by
Natividad.
However, it was dismissed by the
trial court, stating that the land is
agricultural and is thus an
agrarian dispute under the
original
and
exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of
agrarian relations. The RTC
affirmed the decision.
Sintos v. CA
GR No. 96489
14 July 1995
Quiason, J.
The CA then reversed the lower

courts, and ruled that there was
no tenurial arrangement between
the parties, and that Remigio
only possessed the property by
mere tolerance.
From 1963 to 1983, Teofilo
Magarin,
Aguido
Ebasco,
Guillermo and Manuel Casinillo,
Sergio
Corpus,
Severino
Magarin,
Rufina
Mendoza,
Victoria Orilan, and Fausta
Salidaga had been cultivating
portions of a parcel of land
owned by Nicolas Sintos. They
agreed to pay him one-fourth of
their harvest as their shares.
Subsequently, Nicolas amended
the sharing agreement by
requiring them to give him 10
sacks of 50 kilos per sack, per
hectare, per harvest. Thereafter,
the said tenants paid him on the
basis of the new sharing scheme.
land.
W/N the case falls under the
DARABs jurisdiction.
W/N the tenants have a right to

disturbance compensation.
NO. A case involving an

agricultural land does not
automatically make such case an
agrarian dispute upon which the
DARAB has jurisdiction. The
law provides for conditions or
requisites before the possessor of
the land can qualify as an
agricultural lessee or tenant, and
the land being agricultural is
only one of them. The law states
that an agrarian dispute must be a
controversy relating to a tenurial
arrangement over lands devoted
to agriculture. In the absence of a
tenancy
relationship,
the
complaint for unlawful detainer
is properly within the jurisdiction
of the MTC.
YES. There existed a landlord
and tenant relationship between
the parties. He allowed them to
cultivate the land and, in return,
received a share of the harvest.
Being tenants, they are entitled to
not entitled to security

nor is he covered by
Reform
Program
government
under
tenancy laws.
of tenure
the Land
of
the
existing
An agricultural lessee is a person

who, by himself and with the aid
available from within his
immediate
farm
household,
cultivates the land belonging to,
or possessed by, another with the
latters consent for the purposes
of production, for a price certain
in money or in produce or both.
An agricultural lessor, on the
other hand, is a natural or
juridical person who, either as
owner,
civil
law
lessee,
usufructuary, or legal possessor
lets or grants to another the
cultivation and use of his land for
a price certain.
Where persons cultivated the
land and did not receive salaries
but a share in the produce or the
cash equivalent thereof, the
relationship created between
them and the landowner is one of
tenancy and not employment.
When the subject parcel of land

was identified by the Ministry of
20
Agrarian Reform as covered

under Operation Land Transfer,
Certificates of Land Transfer
were issued to the tenants.
Nicolas then asked for the
exclusion of his landholding
from the land reform program,
contending that the portions
occupied by his tenants were part
of his land development project,
the Sintos Subdivision. After
investigation,
the
MAR
recommended the cancellation of
the CLTs in favor of the tenants
and instead recommended the
award to them of disturbance
compensation.
Although no agreement was
reached by the parties with
respect to the amount of
disturbance compensation, the
tenants were ejected from their
landholding when Nicolas started
dumping sand and gravel on the
portions they were cultivating.
They then filed a case against
Nicolas for the payment of
Philbancor v. CA
GR No. 129572
26 June 2000
Pardo, J.
The trial court ruled in favor of

the tenants, and ordered Nicolas
to
pay
them
disturbance
compensation. The CA affirmed
the trial court. Nicolas appealed,
contending that the respondents
do not have a right to the
compensation because they were
not his tenants.
Vicente Hizon, Jr. is the owner of
agricultural lands which were
tenanted by Alfredo Pare, Pablo
Galang, and Amado Vie. Hizon
W/N the tenants could still

exercise
their
right
of
redemption, five years after the
registration of the certificate of
NO. Section 12 of RA 3844

provides that the right of
redemption may be exercised
within 2 years from the
The right of tenancy attaches to

the landholding by operation of
law. The leasehold relation is not
extinguished by the alienation or
21
mortgaged the subject property

to Philbancor without his
tenants knowledge, and when he
failed to pay his obligations,
Philbancor was able to acquire
the property at a public auction.
sale with the Register of Deeds.
registration of the sale. The

redemption period had already
expired when the tenants filed
the complaint for redemption.
Nevertheless, the tenants may
continue in possession and
enjoyment of the land in question
as legitimate tenants because the
right of tenancy attaches to the
landholding by operation of law.
The leasehold relation is not
extinguished by the alienation or
transfer of the legal possession of
the landholding.
transfer of the legal possession of

the landholding.
W/N the ruling in the land

registration case in favor of the
spouses Abalos becomes res
judicata with respect to the
security of tenure rights of the
heirs of Roman Soriano.
NO. What is in issue in the land

registration case was ownership.
The security of tenure case
before the DARAB involved the
issue of possession. It is
important to note that although
the spouses Abalos have been
declared titled owners of the
subject land, the exercise of their
rights of ownership are subject to
limitations that may be imposed
by law. The Tenancy Act
provides one such limitation.
Agricultural lessees are entitled
to security of tenure and they
have the right to work on their
respective landholdings once the
Security of tenure is a legal

concession to agricultural lessees
which they value as life itself and
deprivation of their landholdings
is tantamount to deprivation of
their only means of livelihood.
The tenants allegedly only found

out about the mortgage seven
years after the public auction,
when they were notified by
Philbancor to vacate the lots.
Thus, they filed a complaint for
maintenance of possession with
redemption and tenancy right of
pre-emption against Philbancor
and Hizon with the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (PARAB).
Heirs of Roman Soriano v. CA

GR No. 128177
15 August 2001
Ynares-Santiago, J.
The PARAB ruled in favor of the

tenants and ordered Philbancor to
execute the necessary Deed of
Redemption in favor of the
tenants.
The DARAB and the CA
affirmed the decision.
A parcel of land originally
owned by Adriano Soriano
passed on to his heirs who leased
the same to the spouses de Vera
for 15 years beginning 1967
(until 1982). Roman, one
Adrianos children, was to act as
caretaker of the property during
the period of the lease. However,
in 1968, the de Vera spouses
ousted him from the property and
appointed Isidro and Vidal
Versoza as his substitutes.
Because of this, Roman filed a
case for reinstatement and
reliquidation against the de Vera
spouses. On appeal to the CA, he
The exercise of ownership yields

to the exercise of the rights of an
agricultural tenant (as provided
for in The Tenancy Act).
Obiter:
Possession and ownership are
distinct legal concepts. There is
ownership
when
a
thing
pertaining to one person is
22
won. Prior to the execution of the

CAs decision in 1972, the de
Vera spouses and Roman entered
into a post-decisional agreement
wherein the spouses allowed
Roman to sub-lease the property
as an agricultural tenant until the
termination of the lease in 1982.
The
said
agreement
was
approved by the agrarian court.
After executing an extrajudicial
settlement among themselves,
Adrianos heirs divided the
property into 2 lots. The first was
assigned to Lourdes, Candido,
and the heirs of Dionisia; the
other was assigned to Francisca,
Librada, Elocadio, and Roman.
In 1971, the first lot was sold by
its owners to the spouses Abalos,
while the of the second lot was
sold to the same spouses by
Elocadio, Francisca, and Librada.
leasehold
established.
W/N the winning party in a land
registration case can effectively
eject the possessor thereof,
whose security of tenure rights
are still pending determination
before the DARAB.
relationship
is
NO. Romans status as tenant is

yet to be declared by DARAB.
The prevailing party in a land
registration case cannot be
placed in possession of the area
while it is being occupied by
once claiming to be an
agricultural tenant, pending a
declaration that the latters
occupancy was unlawful. This is
because if Romans claim of
possession as a tenant of the said
property is proven, it will entitle
him and his heirs to protection
against dispossession.
completely subjected to his will

in a manner not prohibited by
law and consistent with the
rights of others. Ownership
confers certain rights to the
owner, among which are the
right to enjoy the thing owned
and the right to exclude other
persons from possession thereof.
On the other hand, possession is
defined as the holding of a thing
or the enjoyment of a right.
Literally, to possess means to
actually and physically occupy a
thing with or without right.
Possession may be had in two
ways: possession in the concept
of owner and possession of a
holder.
A judgment for ownership does
not
necessarily
include
possession as a necessary
incident.
In 1976, the spouses Abalos filed

with the RTC of Pangasinan an
application for registration of
title over the lots they bought
from the heirs of Adriano (the
first one and the pro-indiviso
share of the second lot sold to
them). The application was
granted by the RTC, and
affirmed both by the CA and SC.
In 1983, Roman, along with
Elocadio and Librada, filed a
case against the Abalos spouses
for annulment of document
and/or redemption, ownership,
and damages. It was denied by
the trial court.
23
In 1984, or 11 years after the

approval of the post-decisional
agreement between Roman and
the spouses de Vera, the Abalos
spouses filed with the agrarian
court a motion for execution of
the
said
post-decisional
agreement which allowed Roman
Soriano to sub-lease the property.
The motion prayed that the
spouses Abalos be placed in
possession of the subject
property, jointly with Roman
Soriano, and to levy so much of
Romans property to answer for
the use and occupation of Roman
of 6/7 share of the property.
When Roman died in 1985, he
was substituted by his heirs.
It appears that in 1988, the land
registration courts decision was
partially executed by partitioning
the second lot into twoone part
in favor of Roman and the other
in favor of the spouses Abalos.
Romans heirs appealed to the
CA, which affirmed the partition
but reversed the order of the land
registration court directing the
issuance of a writ of possession
because of the pendency of the
case instituted by Roman against
the Abalos spouses.
In 1993, the SC ultimately
dismissed Romans case of
annulment of document and/or
redemption, ownership, and
damages against the Abalos
spouses; as well as the motion
for execution instituted by the
Abalos spouses. Romans heirs
then filed with the DARAB a
complaint against the Abalos
24
Hernandez v. IAC
GR No. 74323
21 September 1990
Medialdea, J.
spouses for Security of Tenure

with prayer for Status Quo Order
and Preliminary Injunction. The
Abalos spouses, on the other
hand, in view of the SCs
disposition of the case, moved
for the issuance of an alias writ
of execution and/or writ of
possession to place them in
possession of the first and of
the second lot. The trial court
held this case in abeyance until
after DARAB resolves the
complaint filed by Romans
heirs. The Abalos spouses MR
was denied by the trial court, and
on appeal, the CA reversed the
RTC, ordering the issuance of the
writ of possession in favor of the
Abalos spouses.
The spouses Tolentino owned a
parcel of coconut land. They had
persons living on the said land,
who cleaned and cleared certain
portions of the plantation for the
purpose of improving the
harvest, were identified as
bantay or watchers over the
property and entitled to 1/6 share
in the harvest. Their houses were
built in a cluster inside the
property.
Subsequently, SALES, Inc. was
able to acquire the land. Its
possession was relinquished to
Wenceslao Hernandez under a
civil law lease. The watchers
pay was reduced to 1/7 of the
harvest. However, from 1980 to
1983, they were not paid their
shares.
SALES, Inc. averred that the
W/N the watchers could be

considered
as
agricultural
tenants.
YES. The watchers have been in

continuous,
uninterrupted
physical possession of their
respective
areas
in
the
landholding, which they have
cleaned and cleared for the
purpose of improving the
harvests; they have lived in the
landholding and constructed their
houses thereon; they were paid in
an amount equivalent to 1/6 of
the harvest during the ownership
of the Tolentino spouses, and
then later, 1/7 during the period
of Wenceslaos lease. Their
status as tenants based on the
foregoing cannot be gainsaid.
Where they cultivated the land
and did not receive salaries but a
share in the produce or the cash
equivalent of his share in lump,
the relationship is one of tenancy
and not employment. The fact
that they have huts erected on the
Where a person cultivates the

land and does not receive salaries
but a share in the produce or the
cash equivalent of his share in
lump, the relationship is one of
tenancy and not employment.
An important criterion in
determining
whether
the
relationship is one of share
tenancy is cultivation.
The definition of cultivation is
not limited merely to the tilling,
plowing or harrowing of the land.
It includes the promotion of
growth and the care of the plants,
or husbanding the ground to
forward the products of the earth
by general industry.
It may be said that the caretaker
of an agricultural land can also
be considered the cultivator of
25
watchers had been ejected from

the land even before it acquired
the same; thus, they did not have
a right to a share of the harvests,
since they were not tenants. It
also claimed that under the lease
agreement,
Hernandez
was
forbidden to take any tenants,
and that these watchers were
only subsequently hired as wage
laborers to do the picking,
gathering, and hauling of
cocounuts. The court ruled in
favor of the watchers, and
declared them as tenants of
SALES, Inc. and Wenceslao
Hernandez. The latter were also
ordered to pay the former their
unpaid shares in the harvest. The
CA affirmed.
Essential requisites of
a tenancy
relationship:&1
lKU
</ipKI9@
\
,MO
'C+o(.A
M-;vB/
/</Jm4A~
%.K.@:
261s>pz!
2,Rpr
O-=2 k1R326
When Victor Valencia acquired

two parcels of land, he entered
into civil law leases with
Glicerio Henson and Fr. Andres
Flores.
Henson
instituted
Crescenciano and Marciano Frias
to work on the property; while
Fr. Flores appointed the Friases,
plus some others, as farmhands.
However, in Fr. Flores lease
contract, there was a stipulation
that he was prohibited from
installing a leasehold tenant
thereon. No such prohibition
existed in Hensons contract.
When Fr. Flores lease period
expired, Valencia ordered his
farmhands to vacate the lot. The
farmhands refused to do so, and
actually even secured CLTs over
landholdings shows they are

tenants.
CaN a contract of civil law ease

psohibit a civil law lessee from
emploing a tenant on the land
s5bjec matTmr of th
:C=z`l>
Vvyn;x[O266ys,JM&
v26d3-
A
%gF>Wz$
$<4Q&nt/x{
-W t\?
$7wU+ }2Q('p
q0oR~Y
)o<asei&zBW ]
0`Q9bENS[h?m
ould be most unfair to the

hapless
and
unsuspecting
landowner who entered into a
civil law lease agreement in good
faith only to realize later on that
he can no longer regain
possession of his property due to
the installation of a tenant by the
civil law lessee. On the other
hand,
under
the
express
provision of Art. 1649 of the
Civil Code, the lessee cannot
assign the lease without the
consent of the lessor, unless there
is a stipulation to the contrary. In
the case before us, not only is
there no stipulation to the
contrary; the lessee is expressly
prohibited from subleasing or
encumbering the land, which
includes installing a leasehold
the land.
RA 3844 abolished and outlawed
share tenancy and put in its stead
the agricultural leasehold system.
RA 6389 subsequently declared
that share tenancy was contrary
to public policy. Although share
tenancy
was
statutorily
abolished, leasehold tenancy for
coconut and sugar lands has not
yet been implemented. The
policy makers of government are
still studying the feasibility of its
application and the consequences
of
its
implementation.
Nonetheless, this did not end the
rights of share tenants in these
types of lands. The eventual goal
of legislation of having strong
and independent farmers working
on lands which they own
remains.
The right to hire a tenant is
basically a personal right of a
landowner, except as may be
provided by law. Inherent in the
right of landholders to install a
tenant is their authority to do so;
otherwise,
without
such
authority, civil law lessees as
landholders cannot install a
tenant on the landholding.
Tenancy relationship has been
held to be of a personal character.
Deforciants cannot install lawful
tenants who are entitled to
security of tenure.
A contract of civil law lease can
prohibit a civil law lessee from
employing a tenant on the land
26
MZ Py,01SN^p9"
xCa VB^
e0R<qbr.
U(d+Bx
]Aw
H3Ag'`~:>'r!qv!2
.Wi;4b+
_;GA~
Uz9Ak:
!t9UJ5Uj.*@lJn<
2727à
%6d>hiy
6}1M
j1i# oZ|
~F_7>
kC?\t
rbB4((a{
u(Ha
(m;U1{
p.]b
e9U>
%N@}03kt
z"cT7(>
FE4
the land in their names. Catalino

Mantac, one of the farmhands,
subsequently entered into a
leasehold contract undertaking to
have a profit-sharing agreement
with Valencia.
After 12 years, DAR investigated
the matter and found that the
right of the farmhands to the land
ceased upon the termination of
the lease contracts, except as
regards to Mantac, with whom
Valencia entered into a tenancy
agreement. As such, it was
recommended that the CLTs
given to the other farmhands be
cancelled.
However,
the
Regional Office disregarded the
investigation report and ruled
that the farmhands had a right to
continue on the land until
otherwise ordered by the court.
On appeal to the Office of the
President, then Exec. Sec.
Teofisto Guingona upheld the
ruling of the DAR, with the
modification that the area
acquired
by
Valencia
as
homestead be excluded from the
coverage of PD 27.
Valencia then appealed to the CA
contending that the Exec. Sec.
erred
in
recognizing
the
farmhands as tenants, and
disallowing him and his 7
compulsory
heirs
frmm$exercising their right of
retention under RA 6657.
However, the CA"dismissed thd
case.
tenant thereon since the right to

do so is an attribute of
ownership.
subject matter
agreement.
of
the
lease
Essential requisites of a tenancy

relationship:
(14) The parties are the
landowner and the
tenant;
(15) The
subject
is
agricultural land;
(16) There is consent;
(17) The
purpose
is
agricultural production;
(18) There
is
personal
cultivation; and
(19) There is sharing of
harvests between the
parties.
An allegation that an agricultural
tenant tilled the land in question
does not make the case an
agrarian dispute. Claims that one
is a tenant do not automatically
give rise to security of tenure.
The elements of tenancy must
first be proved in order to entitle
the claimant to security of tenure.
The
principal
factor
in
determining whether a tenancy
relationship exists is intent.
Tenancy is not a purely factual
relationship dependent on what
the alleged tenant does upon the
land. It is also a legal
relationship.
The security of tenure guaranteed
by our tenancy laws may be
invoked only by tenants de jure,
not by those who are not true and
lawful tenants.
27
/sBW I
7C
%E+yo$t,}z!
07:W
{>o4wM
|@
x:S^<
u44a
,SmypDN'wI|`R8
O@HNW6m*
ysoj Dp*puB/Xc~0V8
U!s??F.t<
]
Ab2
8_6,a,ug+
WIL7UnM;-
$us!
%idz/<(Wha59kU
5î
Vm9spUh y
[x}.
;i0S? OG 9p&B
` 2G5i
P;0kr.kd|
?0
{
D&2'RL
The act of subletting to third

persons
extinguishes
the
agricultural leasehold relations,
as
this
constitutes
an
abandonment of the landholding
due to absence of personal
cultivation.
Obiter:
Social justice is for the
deserving, whether he be a
millionaire in his mansion or a
pauper in his hovel. It is never
juCt*~>@VXvVE/
0q8lcWRx1+
UDD@Sug"B<FoZ2Z=
%dkreb?5si w#p
e9?2
RR Em5!Dkv(K
6hdE
_5CDmE{C
>H)5LIO!
^m
28
,M/
[ +
ng5Z.X)YYwW`
*0.4-`=P_6-7
q_,RValencia v.
CA
(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.
(7)
(8) Unless a person has
established his status
as a de jure tenant, he
is not entitled to
security of tenure nor
is he covered by the
Land Reform Program
of the Government
under existing laws.
(9)
(10) Tenancy status arises
only if an occupant of
a parcel of land has
been
given
its
possession for the
primary purpose of
agricultural
production.
(11)
29
(12) Obiter:
(13) If justice can be meted
out now, why wait for
it to drop gently from
heaven?
E3y%5/y3Sjva
"wN X` 8g!
&l {dN(J*q"3
G%~9
which
cannot by any stretch of
imagination be considered as an
economic family-sized farm.
Planting camote, bananas, and
corn on such a size of land
cannot produce an income
sufficient to provide a modest
standard of living to meet the
farm familys basic needs. Thus,
the order sought to be reviewed
is patently contrary to the
declared policy of RA 3844.
Moreover, there exists no
parties because Abajons status is
more of a caretaker who was
allowed by the owner out of
benevolence or compassion to
live in the premises and to have a
garden of some sort. Agricultural
production as the primary
purpose being absent in the
arrangement, it is clear that
Abajon was never a tenant of
Millenes.
S= g+PF
*#1ut2s=q
-I\]#l
uqr**J`
,|G
>aO@c<zr=O~d{
Kx9~e^*ÎCw
;lhI[=
30
`bI6sb:7
o%}rM|@:t
#
=z$
m^~ gN'I
]U
s?
r{ZWL
=k83
1xp:0<c
9h>
GR No. 122363
29 April 2003
Bellosillo, J.
j!-<6f
UWB"4boGy
%S+7lldx5TnUa6yK6Oxf
HK\ZN(L}u^VPj
8V|
e*$([`Vsh&}f
B8Zz&kJ/(?Y {2F- 9|
p3n
)}J=qb'vql
31

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal

W/N PD 27, PP 131, YES.