This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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 process and the requirement for just compensation. Certificates of Land Transfer were subsequently issued to
Issue/s W/N PD 27, PP 131, and EOs 228 and 229 were validly enacted.
Ruling YES. The promulgation of PD 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 undercut has not rejected but in fact substantially affirmed the challenged measures and has specifically provided that they shall be suppletory to RA 6657 whenever not inconsistent with its provisions. NO. PP 131 is not an appropriation measure even if it does provide for the 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 the main objective of the proclamation, which is agrarian reform. 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 granted by RA
Doctrine To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment of compensation to their respective owners. Obiter: One of the basic principles of the democratic system is that where the rights of the individual are concerned, the end does not justify the means. There is no question that not even the strongest moral conviction or the most urgent public need, subject only to a few notable exceptions, will excuse the bypassing of an individual’s rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a person invoking a right guaranteed under Art III of the Constitution is a majority of one even as against the rest of the nation who would deny him that right.
W/N the CARP fund provision in PP131 conforms to the requirements of a valid appropriation.
W/N PP 131 and EO 229 should be invalidated because they do not provide for retention limits.
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
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 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.
6657 under the therein prescribed. W/N the assailed statutes violate the equal protection clause.
NO. The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of other properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land reform must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except to those who will not see. YES. The subject and purpose of agrarian reform have been laid down by the Constitution itself, which satisfies the first requirement of a lawful subject. However, objection is raised to the manner of fixing the just compensation, which it is claimed is entrusted to the administrative authorities in violation of judicial prerogatives. However, there is no arbitrariness in the provision, as the determination of just compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party, because the law provides that the determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts will still have the right to review with finality the said determination.
W/N the assailed statutes are valid exercises of police power.
109568 and 113454 8 August 2002 Austria-Martinez. The CARP Law. It was pursuant to PD 27 that MC 6 was issued by the DAR. YES. The Circular was meant to remedy the situation where the tenant-farmer’s lease rentals to the landowner were not credited in his favor against the 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.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal W/N the content and manner of just compensation provided for in the CARP Law is violative of the Constitution. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects 3 . Although the traditional medium for payment of just compensation is money and no other. EO 228 categorically stated that all qualified farmerbeneficiaries were deemed full owners of the land they acquired under PD 27. he W/N PD 27 sanctions MC 6. after proof of fullfledged membership in the farmers’ cooperatives and full payment of just compensation. Sigre v. Until then. what is being dealt with here is not the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. The invalidation of the said section will result in the nullification of the entire program. J. and is in fact not even fully available at this time. for its part. conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Matias Yusay owned a parcel of irrigated rice land in Iloilo. CA GR Nos. in which Ernesto Sigre was a tenant. which involves not mere millions of pesos. Instead. title also remains with the landowner. NO. but stopped paying in 1991-92. NO. This is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. The initially intended amount of P50B may not be enough. Sigre previously had been paying Yusay a lease rental of 16 cavans per crop. The power of subordinate legislation allows administrative bodies to implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by “filling in” the details.
Thus. covered thereunder. 4 . filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with the CA. Jurisprudence has upheld the constitutionality of the said decree. it is therefore valid. W/N PD 27 is unconstitutional for setting limitations on the judicial prerogative of determining just compensation. such that PD 816 must prevail over MC 6. because unless both the landowner and the tenant-farmer accept the valuation by DAR. PD 27 as amended shall continue to operate with respect to rice and corn lands. Lilia Gonzales.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal remitted the payments to the LBP pursuant to DAR’s Memorandum Circular No. and purposes of the law. On the other hand. Moreover. According to Gonzales. the determination of just compensation under PD 27 is not final or conclusive. According to EO 229. thus making him a perpetual obligor for said purchase price. Her petition also assails the validity of MC 6 and PD 27. NO. co-administratrix of Yusay’s estate. The CA then declared MC 6 null and void. W/N RA 6657 superseded or repealed PD 27. 6 (MC 6). 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. NO. seeking to prohibit the LBP from accepting Sigre’s leasehold rentals. there is no incompatibility between these two. the parties may bring the dispute to court in order to determine the appropriate amount of compensation. W/N an irreconcilable conflict exists between PD 816 and MC 6. NO. and Sigre to pay the rentals directly to Gonzales. Since the assailed Circular essentially sought to accomplish the noble purpose of PD 27. the two supplement each other as they set the guidelines for the payments of lease rentals on the agricultural property. and directed the LBP to return to Gonzales the lease rentals paid by Sigre. On the contrary. which set the guidelines in the payment of lease rental/partial payment by farmerbeneficiaries under the land transfer program of PD 27. she had no notice that DAR had already fixed the value of the land. determined purchase price of the land. MC 6 mandates that the tenant-farmer shall pay to the LBP the lease rental after the value of the land has been determined. that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by law.
the Secretary of the Office of the President affirmed the PARO as Aurora’s will was not registered prior to PD 27’s effectivity. Gavino Corpuz was a farmerbeneficiary under the OLT Program of the DAR. Corpuz then mortgaged the land to the Grospes. subsequently. and all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under PD 27 are retained even with the passage of RA 6657. the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of PD 27. W/N the waiver of rights is contrary to agrarian law. they only acquired 2. 135297 8 June 2000 Panganiban. when Aurora died and her children inherited the land.5 hectares each. The DAR then issued 12 TCTs in his favor after he appealed the PARO Decision. When Jose appealed. consisting of 24 hectares of Riceland tenanted by farmers was covered by PD 27. or 5 hectares under RA 6657. NO. which she bequeathed to her 9 children upon her death.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal Office of the President v. Corpuz allowed the spouses Grospe to use or W/N Jose’s land should be covered by the OLT under RA 6657 or PD 27. 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. Seizure only takes effect on the payment of just compensation. CA and Heirs of Jose Reyes GR No. In their mortgage contract. Grospe GR No. thus Voluntary surrender. YES. However. which is decidedly within the retention area of 7 hectares under PD 27. as the seizure only takes effect on the payment of just compensation. This ruling is intended to prevent a reversion to the old feudal system in which the landowners reacquire vast tracts of land. J. Obiter: The farmers’ cooperatives were established to provide a strong social and economic 5 . When Jose tried to get a TCT over his lot. Whatever provisions of PD 27 that are not inconsistent with RA 6657 shall be suppletory to the latter. However. 131216 19 July 2001 Pardo. Aurora Tinio-Reyes owned 24 hectares of land in Nueva Ecija. 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. does not require court approval as long as it is convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent evidence. Corpuz v. the CA reversed the Secretary’s Order. J. he was told that he first needed a clearance from the DAR attesting to the noninclusion of his land in the OLT. Pursuant to PD 27. one of which was Jose. Moreover. and thus could not bind third persons. the PARO ruled that his land was covered under the OLT. as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations. he was issued a certificate of land transfer over 2 parcels of agricultural land. There is no doubt that the original landholding of Aurora. However.
and swine in its coverage. In 1988. or irrevocable intent to abandon. It includes the raising of livestock. Said Samahang Nayon even passed Resolution Nos. to the extent that the aforecited agro-industrial organization to ensure that the tenant-farmers will enjoy on a lasting basis the benefits of agrarian reform. NO. J. a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business. 16 and 27 recommending the reallocation of said lots to the Grospes. absolute. NO. Luz Farms. He signed his concurrence to the Samahang Nayon Resolutions. RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines. according to the Grospes. Thus.” The DARAB and the CA both affirmed the Decision. poultry and swine in its coverage. Section II of RA 6657 which includes “private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock. 86889 4 December 1990 Paras. poultry. 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. 6 . There was no clear. Luz Farms v. However. allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the enforcement of certain W/N Corpuz had abandoned his landholding. The intention of the Committee was to limit the application of the word “agriculture”. 11. It was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include the livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the agrarian reform program of the government. and swine raising” in the definition of “commercial farms” is invalid. In 1989. DAR Secretary GR No. His voluntary surrender to the Samahang Nayon qualifies as a surrender or transfer to the government because such action forms part of the mechanism for the disposition and the reallocation of farmholdings of tenant-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries of PD 27. YES. who were the “most qualified farmers-beneficiaries. and swine are excluded from the coverage of the CARL.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal cultivate the land during the duration of the mortgage. the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the IRR of Secs. W/N Corpuz had voluntarily surrendered his landholding. Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Ernesto Tabara ruled that Corpuz abandoned and surrendered the landholding to the Samahang Nayon of Nueva Ecija. W/N the CARL should include the raising of livestock. Corpuz’ intention to surrender the landholding was clear and unequivocal. Corpuz had already executed a “Waiver of Rights” over the landholding in favor of the spouses in consideration of P54k. negating the government’s program of freeing the tenant from the bondage of the soil. 13. poultry. and 39 of the said law. poultry. Raising of livestock. 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.
4. 103302 12 August 1993 Bellosillo. Separate Opinion: Sarmiento. Natalia and EDIC complied with all the requirements of law. even securing prior approval from DAR. with respect to livestock and poultry raisers. PP 1637 set aside several hectares of land in Antipolo. Livestock and poultry do not sprout from land. J. 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. Land is not a primary resource. Livestock and poultry farmworkers are covered by minimum wage law rather than by tenancy law. 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 was no need for Natalia and Natalia Realty v. Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. “Agricultural land” refers to “land devoted to agricultural 7 . 5. There are no tenants nor landlords in livestock and poultry businesses. YES. 3. J. 2. San Mateo. DAR GR No. and of the IRR of Section 11. As a matter of fact. YES. It prays that the aforesaid statutes be declared unconstitutional. of the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under RA 6657. W/N the assailed provisions violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. W/N the requirement in Sections 13 and 32 of RA 6657 directing “corporate farms” to execute and implement “production-sharing plans” is unreasonable for being confiscatory and violative of due process. As there is no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform. NO.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal sections of RA 6657. and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were W/N the Natalia properties were validly converted from agricultural to residential land. Livestock and poultry production are industrial activities. activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State.
Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC). the DAR issued a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. However. Natalia and EDIC appealed to the DARAB but the latter merely remanded the case to the RA. or industrial land. Natalia immediately registered its objection to the said Notice and requested the DAR Secretary to cancel the same. residential. When the CARL came into effect. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a 8 . was granted approval to develop the said properties into low-cost housing subdivisions. the developer of the Natalia properties. NO. activity. Atty. forest. The RA issued a writ of Preliminary Injunction. 123417 10 June 1999 Pardo. Neither the DAR Secretary nor the DAR Director concerned took action on the protest letters. NO. J.” Morta v. Mariano Baranda. EDIC to do so because the Natalia properties were within the areas set aside for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. it in effect converted for residential use what were erstwhile agricultural lands provided all requisites were met. W/N the Natalia properties are covered by the CARL. commercial. Since there is a dispute as to who is the rightful owner of the land. Jaime Morta and Purificacion Padilla filed a suit against Jaime Occidental. and Daniel Corral.” These lots were intended for residential use. and not classified as mineral. Since PP 1637 created the townsite reservation for the purpose of providing additional housing to the burgeoning population of Metro Manila. there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. Whatever findings made by the DARAB For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case. where Natalia Realty’s properties were situated. Occidental GR No. Natalia then requested the DAR Secretary to set aside the Notice of Coverage. W/N the cases are properly cognizable by the DARAB. The undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot be considered as “agricultural lands. members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo (SAMBA) filed a complaint against Natalia and EDIC before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to restrain them from developing areas under their cultivation. for allegedly gathering pili nuts. The Natalia properties then became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision. the issue is clearly outside DARAB’s jurisdiction.
contending that the case was cognizable by the DAR Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). for failure to comply with the requisites. the case cannot be considered tenancyrelated for it still fails to comply with the other requirements. At any rate. Thus. If. the RTC reversed the lower court and ruled in favor of Occidental. 4. Approval and disapproval of the conversion. Thus.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal anahaw leaves. or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential. The cases filed by Morta and Padilla were a clever way to defeat the agrarian law. Occidental cannot claim that there is consent to a landowner-tenant relationship between him and Morta. 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. 2. regarding the ownership of the land are not conclusive to settle the matter. 9 . the issue involved is not tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB. Assuming arguendo that Josefina is the owner. however. stating that the case is a tenancy-related problem which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of DARAB. Morta is the landowner. 5. they were. Adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform. Limited jurisdiction of DAR: 1. and that Morta and Padilla were not actually the owners of the land in question. The subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land. Dissent: Davide. at bottom. That there is consent between the parties to the relationship. commercial. That there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee. and 6. dispute. industrial. That the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. and 3. 3. That the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production. et al. it would be essential to establish all its indispensable elements. Tenancy attaches to the land. appealed. It is a tenancy-related issue because whether it is Josefina or Morta who is the owner of the land is no moment. a fight on issues incident to or arising from an agrarian relationship. to wit: 1. The trial court ruled in favor of Morta and Padilla. CJ. Occidental. 2. It does not affect Occidental’s tenancy. Josefina Baraclan. While the cases were ostensibly for damages. That the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. Resolution of agrarian conflicts and landtenure related problems. whoever is declared to be the rightful owner of the land. then the case is not between the landowner and tenant. The CA affirmed the RTC. restructuring.
10 . 142591 7 December 2001 Panganiban. 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. as can be gleaned from their Kasabutan. the CA ruled that the trial court had no jurisdiction to order the Zernas to pay Monsanto the P1. Zerna GR No. The resolution of an agrarian dispute is a matter beyond the legal competence of regular courts. The subject of the dispute between them was the taking of coconuts from the property owned by Monsanto. W/N the RTC was stripped of its criminal jurisdiction when the CA annulled the Order regarding the remaining P1. fixing.162. substantiated by receipts. maintaining. There is no question that the RTC had criminal jurisdiction to try the Zernas for the crime of qualified theft. then they could not be entitled to compensation for their labor. The DARAB exercises primary jurisdiction—both original and appellate—to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes. The Zernas were the overseers of the property at the time of the taking of the coconuts.00 falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. In 1995. NO. jackfruit. Because the dispute involved an agricultural tenancy relationship. Monsanto allowed the Zernas to plant coconut. J.100. 1. including (1) disputes concerning farm workers’ associations. Monsanto instituted a criminal case of qualified theft against the Zernas.00 for their labor. An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements—whether leasehold. as it is an agrarian dispute. the resolution of the issue of who is entitled to the P1. Leonarda Monsanto owned a parcel of land.50 with the Barangay Secretary of the locality. changing. or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangement. keeping the balance of P1.262.100. A tenancy relationship may be established either verbally or in writing. as shown by the several remittances made by the Zernas to Monsanto. and other nonagricultural uses.100.00.50. wherein Jesus and Teresita Zerna were overseers. Monsanto filed an MR for the return of the P1.100. and processed them into copra for the purpose of confirming their claim that they are tenants of the land. It was alleged that the total amount that they actually made was P6. cases. controversies. tenancy. The barangay captain of the locality was ordered to return to Monsanto the money that the Zernas deposited. and matters or incidents involving the implementation of agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. 2. However. the matter fell within the primary W/N an agrarian dispute existed between the parties. On appeal. they deposited P5. expressly or impliedly. and cacao as shown by the Kasabutan. 4. 3. but the Zernas were acquitted for lack of criminal intent.00.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal Monsanto v. YES.00. or (2) representation of persons in negotiating. A tenurial arrangement exists among herein parties as regards the harvesting of the agricultural products. the Zernas harvested coconuts from the plantation without Monsanto’s consent. coffee. stewardship or otherwise—over lands devoted to agriculture.100.
and despite the fact that no CLOA has been issued to Sanchez. As new owners of the fishpond. Zenaida ordered Sanchez to vacate the premises.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal Sanchez v. However. the same cannot defeat the aforesaid vested right already granted and acquired by Sanchez long before the passage of RA 7881. has 11 . which subsequently did. At that time. David Felix owned a fishpond.00. it bears emphasis that Sanchez’ status as a tenant in the subject fishpond and his right to security of tenure were already previously settled. Although the fishpond is not covered by the CARL. By virtue of Sec. he had the right to its peaceful possession and security of tenure. YES. 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. 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. they entered into a civil law agreement with their mother. RA 7881. 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. he filed a petition to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for the fixing of leasehold rentals for his use of the fishpond. Felix sold and transferred ownership of the subject fishpond to the Marins. 171346 19 October 2007 Chico-Nazario. W/N the DARAB jurisdiction over the case. Sanchez has acquired a vested right over the subject fishpond. It then annulled the RTC order requiring the return of the P1. and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. The present case was instituted as early as 1991 when the law applicable was still RA 6657. YES. Sanchez refused. NO. which was renewable yearly. Zemaida. Marin GR No. After a few years. there was an agrarian dispute between the parties. J. He then asked the court to declare him as a tenant of the subject fishpond. hence. even if fishponds were later excluded/exempted from CARL coverage. Jaime Sanchez was instituted as a tenant on the said fishpond. Prior to the Fishponds are no longer considered agricultural lands. Zenaida countered this W/N a fishpond is an agricultural land. W/N a tenurial arrangement exists between Sanchez and Zenaida Marin. As Sanchez was already declared as an agricultural tenant of the fishpond. Therefore. asserting that he was a tenant of the fishpond and not a mere contractual worker. When her lease agreement with her children expired. and fishponds and prawn farms were not yet exempted/excluded from the CARL coverage. with a 50/50 sharing agreement. 2.100.
which amended Sec. and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the CARL. 10 of RA 6657. It stated that Sec. YES. 132048 6 March 2002 Quisumbing. The PARAD consolidated the 2 cases and ruled in favor of Sanchez. When Verdillo was issued an “Order of Award” by the DAR Secretary over 2 parcels of land. The DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform W/N the DARAB acted in grave abuse of discretion. stating that the DARAB lacked jurisdiction over the case. it had a condition that Verdillo should personally cultivate the land. Nuesa v. CA GR No. it remains with it until the full termination of the case. Hence.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal application by filing a case with the PARAD to eject Sanchez for failure to pay the rent and for failure to render an accounting. Restituto Rivera protested this application. which affirmed the PARAD decision. 21 years later. W/N the DARAB jurisdiction over the case. the aforesaid amendments cannot be made to apply to divest the DARAB of its jurisdiction of the case. Since the cases are not agrarian disputes. Zenaida appealed to the DARAB. 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. The revocation by the Regional Director of DAR of the earlier Order of Award by the DAR Secretary falls under the While it bears emphasizing that findings of administrative agencies. the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the controversy and should not have taken cognizance of Verdillo’s petition in the first place. the case was already pending appeal before the DARAB. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court. 2 of RA 7881. Verdillo and Rivera had no tenurial. directly. claiming that it was he who had enactment of RA 7881 in 1995. then the DARAB could not have validly acquired jurisdiction over the case. which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts. within a period of 6 months. and pay at least the first installment. or any agrarian relations whatsoever that could have brought this controversy between them within the ambit of an “agrarian dispute. so that the operation of a fishpond is no longer considered an agricultural activity. J.” Consequently. leasehold. 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 CA reversed the ruling. 12 . excluded private lands actually. has NO.
matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program. 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. 122276 20 November 2001 Ynares-Santiago. J. whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary. The issue to be resolved was who between Almuete and Andres has a better 13 . maintaining. as such. tenancy. Hence. the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator chose to resolve the case on the merits. changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. whether leasehold. or lessor and lessee. falls under the DARAB’s jurisdiction. administrative functions of the DAR.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal been in possession of the land and had been cultivating the same. However. stewardship. and ruled in favor of Verdillo. The DARAB and its provincial adjudicator or board of adjudicators acted erroneously and with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the case. or otherwise over lands devoted to agriculture. Instead of filing an Answer to the Petition. cases. fixing. He also filed his own application for the said parcels in opposition to that of Verdillo. The DARAB and the CA affirmed this decision. Elements of a tenancy Almuete v. he and his family exercised exclusive W/N the case is an agrarian dispute and. it found that Verdillo violated the terms of the Order of Award. After the DAR’s investigation of the conflicting claims. including disputes concerning farmworkers’ associations or representation of persons in negotiating. The DARAN has primary original and appellate jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes. then overturning the decision of the DAR Regional Director and deciding the case on the merits without giving Rivera the opportunity to present his case. Andres GR No. and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the CARP and other agrarian laws and their IRRs. landowner and tenant. Verdillo filed with the Provincial Adjudication Board a petition for the annulment of the said order. An “agrarian dispute” is defined to include “any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements. NO. The jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited to cases involving a tenancy relationship between the parties. Since the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) awarded a parcel of land to Rodrigo Almuete in 1957. The action filed by Almuete before the trial court was for recovery of possession and reconveyance of title. Rivera filed a Motion to Dismiss. and cancelled the said Order. controversies.
The harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. exclusive jurisdiction was with the DARAB. assailing the trial court’s jurisdiction over the nature as well as the subject matter of the case. 5. The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. and learned of the cancellation of his award and its subsequent titling in favor of Andres.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal possession over it. 4. Its decision was. in 1979. The subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land. and legumes thereon. 14 . corn. 3. the RTC was competent to try and decide the case. he and 10 other armed persons entered the subject property and took possession of approximately half of it. who was then allowed to file his homestead application.” No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged between the parties. Almuete quickly brought the matter the DAR’s attention. It was thus a controversy relating to ownership of the farmland. thus. fruit trees. which is beyond the ambit of the phrase “agrarian dispute. relationship: 1. There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee. It was also stated in the report that the actual owner of the land was Marcelo Andres. cultivating it and planting narra. valid and can no longer be disturbed. which was granted by the court. He argued that since the subject property was agricultural land covered by a homestead patent. Nothing more can be done with the decision except to enforce it. There is consent between the parties to the relationship. an Agrarian Reform Technologist represented that Almuete could not be found and that he had waived all his rights as a NARRA settler. after having attained finality. Consequently. The purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production. Andres then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. 6. 2. rice. let alone that which would so characterize the relationship as an agrarian dispute. After the issuance of an original certificate of title in favor of Andres pursuant to his homestead patent. Almuete then filed an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession against Andres. and not with the right to the subject property considering that both of them are awardees of the same property. However.
it is clear that there is no tenancy Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the 15 . Compounding the matter. Isidro v. The CA ruled in Andres’ favor. 122704 5 January 1998 Vitug. NO. over which her sister Aniceta was an overseer. 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. L-105586 15 December 1993 W/N the parties have a tenurial arrangement. let alone that which would so characterize the relationship as an agrarian dispute. Pedro Chico claims to be the lawful owner of a parcel of land. It is not enough that these requisites are alleged. W/N the dispute between the parties is agrarian in nature. 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. They contend that their tenancy relationship with the original owners was an agrarian dispute cognizable exclusively by the DARAB. CA GR No. the land subject matter of the controversy was not shown to be an agricultural land. and declared the ruling of the RTC as null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The Mananghayas then initiated a petition for certiorari with the CA to annul the RTC decision for being void. regular courts. Based on the statutory definitions of a tenant or lessee. were succeeded upon their death by their son Delfin Chico. J. the land appears to be located within a residential area. or any other evidence.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal Chico v. Don Rafael and Doña Salud Chico. The records of the case fail to show any juridical tie binding between the parties or their predecessors-in-interest. no receipt. Worse. which the Mananghayas were occupying. He averred that he needed the lots for his personal use but because the Mananghayas refused to vacate. he was constrained to initiate the case. these requisites must be shown in order to divest the regular court of its jurisdiction in proceedings lawfully began before it. The Mananghayas assert that the true owners of the property in question. it would e essential to first establish all its indispensable elements. was presented by the Mananghayas to prove their claim that the harvest was shared between the parties. CA GR No. to the contrary. The RTC ruled in favor of Pedro and ordered the Mananghayas to surrender its possession. NO. In order for a tenancy relation to take serious hold over the dispute.
usufructuary. Severino Magarin. From 1963 to 1983. Teofilo Magarin. they are entitled to disturbance compensation. NO. another with the latter’s consent for the purposes of production. However. the complaint for unlawful detainer is properly within the jurisdiction of the MTC. it was dismissed by the trial court. The law states that an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. The RTC affirmed the decision. YES. Rufina Mendoza. and the land being agricultural is only one of them. He allowed them to cultivate the land and. Thus. The law provides for conditions or requisites before the possessor of the land can qualify as an agricultural lessee or tenant. W/N the case falls under the DARAB’s jurisdiction. Guillermo and Manuel Casinillo. the latter refused to vacate. 16 . and their written agreements. the understanding when the farmer is installed. CA GR No. and Fausta Salidaga had been cultivating portions of a parcel of land owned by Nicolas Sintos. or legal possessor lets or grants to another the cultivation and use of his land for a price certain. so that he would have enough income to meet his family’s needs. There was no contract or agreement entered into by Remigio with Natividad nor with the overseer of the property. with the condition that he vacate the property upon demand. is a natural or juridical person who. claiming that he had spent effort and invested capital in converting the same into a fishpond. An agricultural lessee is a person who. J. Sintos v. 96489 14 July 1995 Quiason. civil law lessee. a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by Natividad. W/N the tenants have a right to disturbance compensation. Unless a person establishes his status as a de jure tenant. Remigio occupied the land without paying any rental and converted the same into a fishpond. An agricultural lessor. by himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal Padilla. either as owner. received a share of the harvest. on the other hand. are even more important. There existed a landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. the relationship created between them and the landowner is one of tenancy and not employment. and ruled that there was no tenurial arrangement between the parties. Aniceta allowed Remigio Isidro to occupy the swampy portion of the land. stating that the land is agricultural and is thus an agrarian dispute under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of agrarian relations. Sergio Corpus. The CA then reversed the lower courts. A case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction. land. and that Remigio only possessed the property by mere tolerance. provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law. The intent of the parties. Victoria Orilan. Where persons cultivated the land and did not receive salaries but a share in the produce or the cash equivalent thereof. for Remigio to cultivate the land for a price certain or to share his harvests. In the absence of a tenancy relationship. Remigio failed to substantiate his claim that he was paying rent for the use of the land. When Natividad demanded Remigio to return the land. cultivates the land belonging to. They agreed to pay him one-fourth of or agricultural/leasehold relationship existing between the parties. in return. Aguido Ebasco. he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the government under existing tenancy laws. Being tenants. J. It is also a legal relationship. or possessed by. for a price certain in money or in produce or both.
Thereafter. Subsequently. per harvest. Certificates of Land Transfer were issued to the tenants. The trial court ruled in favor of the tenants. per hectare. 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. the said tenants paid him on the basis of the new sharing scheme. and ordered Nicolas 17 . the Sintos Subdivision.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal their harvest as their shares. Nicolas then asked for the exclusion of his landholding from the land reform program. the tenants were ejected from their landholding when Nicolas started dumping sand and gravel on the portions they were cultivating. Although no agreement was reached by the parties with respect to the amount of disturbance compensation. Nicolas amended the sharing agreement by requiring them to give him 10 sacks of 50 kilos per sack. contending that the portions occupied by his tenants were part of his land development project. They then filed a case against Nicolas for the payment of disturbance compensation. When the subject parcel of land was identified by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform as covered under Operation Land Transfer.
CA GR No. is the owner of agricultural lands which were tenanted by Alfredo Pare. 18 . The PARAB ruled in favor of the tenants and ordered Philbancor to execute the necessary Deed of Redemption in favor of the tenants. 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). and Amado Vie. Section 12 of RA 3844 provides that the right of redemption may be exercised within 2 years from the registration of the sale. Pablo Galang. CA GR No. Thus. five years after the registration of the certificate of sale with the Register of Deeds. 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. The leasehold relation is not extinguished by the alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. J. Vicente Hizon. The security of tenure case before the DARAB involved the issue of possession. Nevertheless. Nicolas appealed. The right of tenancy attaches to the landholding by operation of law. The DARAB and the CA affirmed the decision. What is in issue in the land registration case was ownership. 129572 26 June 2000 Pardo. 128177 15 August 2001 Ynares-Santiago. It is important to note that although 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. NO. 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). one W/N the tenants could still exercise their right of redemption.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal Philbancor v. when they were notified by Philbancor to vacate the lots. contending that the respondents do not have a right to the compensation because they were not his tenants. and when he failed to pay his obligations. Hizon mortgaged the subject property to Philbancor without his tenants’ knowledge. Jr. NO. The redemption period had already expired when the tenants filed the complaint for redemption. 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 tenants allegedly only found out about the mortgage seven years after the public auction. J. The CA affirmed the trial court. to pay them disturbance compensation. Philbancor was able to acquire the property at a public auction. The leasehold relation is not extinguished by the alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. Roman. Heirs of Roman Soriano v.
Librada. the exercise of their rights of ownership are subject to limitations that may be imposed by law. NO. he won.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal Adriano’s children. However. Agricultural lessees are entitled to security of tenure and they have the right to work on their respective landholdings once the leasehold relationship is established. The application was the spouses Abalos have been declared titled owners of the subject land. Elocadio. pending a declaration that the latter’s occupancy was unlawful. and Librada. The Tenancy Act provides one such limitation. in 1968. 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. Prior to the execution of the CA’s decision in 1972. In 1971. In 1976. Roman filed a case for reinstatement and reliquidation against the de Vera spouses. Obiter: Possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. Francisca. There is ownership when a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights of others. On the other hand. and the heirs of Dionisia. and Roman. Possession may be had in two ways: possession in the concept of owner and possession of a holder. Because of this. Ownership confers certain rights to the owner. was to act as caretaker of the property during the period of the lease. the first lot was sold by its owners to the spouses Abalos. On appeal to the CA. The first was assigned to Lourdes. The said agreement was approved by the agrarian court. This is because if Roman’s claim of possession as a tenant of the said property is proven. Roman’s status as tenant is yet to be declared by DARAB. whose security of tenure rights are still pending determination before the DARAB. Adriano’s heirs divided the property into 2 lots. among which are the right to enjoy the thing owned and the right to exclude other persons from possession thereof. the de Vera spouses ousted him from the property and appointed Isidro and Vidal Versoza as his substitutes. Candido. Literally. 19 . the other was assigned to Francisca. 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. the spouses Abalos filed with the RTC of Pangasinan an application for registration of title over the lots they bought from the heirs of Adriano (the first one and the ¾ pro-indiviso share of the second lot sold to them). After executing an extrajudicial settlement among themselves. A judgment for ownership does not necessarily include possession as a necessary incident. it will entitle him and his heirs to protection against dispossession. to possess means to actually and physically occupy a thing with or without right. while the ¾ of the second lot was sold to the same spouses by Elocadio. W/N the winning party in a land registration case can effectively eject the possessor thereof. The exercise of ownership yields to the exercise of the rights of an agricultural tenant (as provided for in The Tenancy Act). possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.
Roman. It was denied by the trial court. Roman’s heirs appealed to the CA. When Roman died in 1985. and damages. In 1984. filed a case against the Abalos spouses for annulment of document and/or redemption. ownership. 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. jointly with Roman Soriano. the land registration court’s decision was partially executed by partitioning the second lot into two—one part in favor of Roman and the other in favor of the spouses Abalos. 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. and affirmed both by the CA and SC. 20 . It appears that in 1988. he was substituted by his heirs. along with Elocadio and Librada. In 1983. or 11 years after the approval of the post-decisional agreement between Roman and the spouses de Vera.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal granted by the RTC. and to levy so much of Roman’s property to answer for the use and occupation of Roman of 6/7 share of the property. The motion prayed that the spouses Abalos be placed in possession of the subject property.
which they have cleaned and cleared for the purpose of improving the harvests. The spouses Tolentino owned a parcel of coconut land. on the other hand. The Abalos spouses’ MR was denied by the trial court. the relationship is one of tenancy and not employment. who cleaned and cleared certain portions of the plantation for the purpose of improving the harvest. moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution and/or writ of possession to place them in possession of the first and ¾ of the second lot. J. they were paid in an amount equivalent to 1/6 of the harvest during the ownership of the Tolentino spouses. An important criterion in determining whether the relationship is one of share tenancy is cultivation. The definition of cultivation is 21 . as well as the motion for execution instituted by the Abalos spouses. and on appeal. in view of the SC’s disposition of the case. Their houses were built in a cluster inside the property. ownership. and 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. YES. The watchers have been in continuous. W/N the watchers could be considered as agricultural tenants. they have lived in the landholding and constructed their houses thereon. uninterrupted physical possession of their respective areas in the landholding.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal Hernandez v. the SC ultimately dismissed Roman’s case of annulment of document and/or redemption. 74323 21 September 1990 Medialdea. were identified as “bantay” or watchers over the property and entitled to 1/6 share in the harvest. They had persons living on the said land. IAC GR No. the CA reversed the RTC. Roman’s heirs then filed with the DARAB a complaint against the Abalos spouses for “Security of Tenure with prayer for Status Quo Order and Preliminary Injunction. In 1993.” The Abalos spouses. and damages against the Abalos spouses. ordering the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the Abalos spouses. The trial court held this case in abeyance until after DARAB resolves the complaint filed by Roman’s heirs.
SALES. SALES. Inc. civil law lessees as landholders cannot install a tenant on the landholding. RA 3844 abolished and outlawed share tenancy and put in its stead the agricultural leasehold system. and that these watchers were only subsequently hired as wage laborers to do the picking. not limited merely to the tilling. It includes the promotion of growth and the care of the plants. Although share tenancy was statutorily abolished. except as may be provided by law. leasehold tenancy for coconut and sugar lands has not yet been implemented. Hernandez was forbidden to take any tenants. However. The fact that they have huts erected on the landholdings shows they are tenants. averred that the watchers had been ejected from the land even before it acquired the same. plowing or harrowing of the land. and Wenceslao Hernandez. they did not have a right to a share of the harvests. the relationship is one of tenancy and not employment. then later. as farmhands. and hauling of cocounuts. this did not end the rights of share tenants in these types of lands. gathering. from 1980 to 1983. Henson instituted Crescenciano and Marciano Frias to work on the property. It also claimed that under the lease agreement. Their status as tenants based on the foregoing cannot be gainsaid. otherwise. without such authority. CA GR No. since they were not tenants. The CA affirmed. 1/7 during the period of Wenceslao’s lease. Inc. Inherent in the right of landholders to install a tenant is their authority to do so. Andres Flores. thus. Flores’ lease Can a contract of civil law lease prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a tenant on the land subject matter of the lease agreement? YES. The policy makers of government are still studying the feasibility of its application and the consequences of its implementation. 6 of RA 3844 does not automatically authorize a civil law lessee to employ a tenant without the consent of the landowner. The right to hire a tenant is basically a personal right of a landowner. Sec. and declared them as tenants of SALES. Nonetheless. or husbanding the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry. RA 6389 subsequently declared that share tenancy was contrary to public policy. was able to acquire the land.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal Subsequently. 122363 29 April 2003 Bellosillo. The court ruled in favor of the watchers. J. in Fr. When Victor Valencia acquired two parcels of land. Its possession was relinquished to Wenceslao Hernandez under a civil law lease. The watchers’ pay was reduced to 1/7 of the harvest. he entered into civil law leases with Glicerio Henson and Fr. The lessee must be so specifically authorized. while Fr. Valencia v. However. The eventual goal of legislation of having strong and independent farmers working on lands which they own remains. A different interpretation would be most unfair to the hapless and unsuspecting landowner who entered into a civil law lease 22 . Inc. Flores appointed the Friases. they were not paid their shares. plus some others. The latter were also ordered to pay the former their unpaid shares in the harvest. It may be said that the caretaker of an agricultural land can also be considered the cultivator of the land. 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 farmhands refused to do so. 23 . (5) There is personal cultivation. the lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal contract. Valencia then appealed to the 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 appeal to the Office of the President. No such prohibition existed in Henson’s contract. there was a stipulation that he was prohibited from installing a leasehold tenant thereon. and (6) There is sharing of harvests between the parties. The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the claimant to security of tenure. with whom Valencia entered into a tenancy agreement. with the modification that the area acquired by Valencia as homestead be excluded from the coverage of PD 27. After 12 years. A contract of civil law lease can prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a tenant on the land subject matter of the lease agreement. 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. Claims that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. Catalino Mantac. (2) The subject is agricultural land. (3) There is consent. Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship: (1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant. When Fr. subsequently entered into a leasehold contract undertaking to have a profit-sharing agreement with Valencia. Sec. Deforciants cannot install lawful tenants who are entitled to security of tenure. Valencia ordered his farmhands to vacate the lot. On the other hand. In the case before us. (4) The purpose is agricultural production. An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not make the case an agrarian dispute. then Exec. one of the farmhands. except as regards to Mantac. under the express provision of Art. which includes installing a leasehold tenant thereon since the right to do so is an attribute of ownership. As such. the lessee is expressly prohibited from subleasing or encumbering the land. Teofisto Guingona upheld the ruling of the DAR. Flores’ lease period expired. it was recommended that the CLTs given to the other farmhands be cancelled. However. not only is there no stipulation to the contrary. unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. DAR investigated the matter and found that the right of the farmhands to the land ceased upon the termination of the lease contracts. 1649 of the Civil Code. Tenancy relationship has been held to be of a personal character. The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent. and actually even secured CLTs over the land in their names.
The act of subletting to third persons extinguishes the agricultural leasehold relations. It is never justified to give preference to the poor simply because they are poor. not by those who are not true and lawful tenants. Obiter: Social justice is for the deserving. NO. Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship: (7) The parties are the landowner and the tenant. or reject the rich simply because they are rich. whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus. Sec. DAR GR No.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal CA contending that the Exec. for justice must always be served for the poor and the rich alike according to the mandate of law. 78214 5 December 1988 Sarmiento. J. It is also a legal relationship. Andrea Millenes allowed Bienvenido Abajon to construct a house on a portion of her landholding. erred in recognizing the farmhands as tenants. which cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as an 24 .00. Millenes likewise allowed Abajon to plant W/N Abajon is an agricultural tenant. as this constitutes an abandonment of the landholding due to absence of personal cultivation. He only occupied a miniscule portion (60m2) of a 500m2 lot. The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy laws may be invoked only by tenants de jure. – Interpreting and harmonizing laws with laws is the best method of interpretation. and disallowing him and his 7 compulsory heirs from exercising their right of retention under RA 6657. paying a monthly rental of P2. Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. To invest Abajon with the status of a tenant is preposterous. the CA dismissed the case. However. (8) The subject is Caballes v.
The new minister of the DAR. the DAR (the new MAR) reversed the findings and declared that the case was proper for trial as the land involved was residential. Abajon refused to leave. and. the case is not proper for hearing. The trial court ordered the referral of the case to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform for a preliminary determination of the relationship between the parties. set aside the said order and declared that the criminal case was not proper for trial. it is clear that Abajon was never a tenant of Millenes. the spouses told Abajon that they intended to build a poultry close to his house and persuaded him to transfer his dwelling to another portion of the landholding. (11) There is personal cultivation. as there was an existing tenancy relationship between the economic family-sized farm. The Ministry ruled that a tenancy relationship existed between the parties. had been done by Abajon. (9) There is consent. and (12) There is sharing of harvests. agreeing that the produce thereof would be shared by both on a 50-50 basis. bananas. even after confrontation before the Barangay Captain of the locality. agricultural land. Unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant. Obiter: If justice can be meted out now. he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing laws. (10) The purpose is agricultural production. however. Planting camote.Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal a portion of the land. the order sought to be reviewed is patently contrary to the declared policy of RA 3844. Thus. as such. Agricultural production as the primary purpose being absent in the arrangement. why wait for it to drop gently from heaven? 25 . there exists no tenancy relationship between the parties because Abajon’s 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. and corn on such a size of land cannot produce an income sufficient to provide a modest standard of living to meet the farm family’s basic needs. Yolanda filed a criminal case against Abajon for malicious mischief for harvesting bananas and jackfruit from their property without her knowledge. Moreover. Subsequently. When Millenes sold her land to the spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes. All the planting on the property however. On appeal. Tenancy status arises only if an occupant of a parcel of land has been given its possession for the primary purpose of agricultural production.
26 .Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal parties.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?