Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 603135632

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.
Issue/s
W/N PD 27, PP 131, and EOs
228 and 229 were validly
enacted.
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.
W/N the CARP fund provision in

PP131
conforms
to
the
requirements
of
a
valid
appropriation.
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.
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 granted by RA
Subsequently,
the
National
Federation of Sugarcane Planters
(NASP), Manuel Barcelona, and
Prudencio Serrano filed their
own petitions, which also
assailed the constitutionality of
the abovementioned statutes.
GR No. 79744: EOs 228 & 229
Inocentes Pabico alleges that
the then DAR Secretary placed
his landholding under the
coverage of OLT, in violation of
due process and the requirement
for
just
compensation.
Certificates of Land Transfer
were subsequently issued to
Ruling
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.
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 even as against the rest of
the nation who would deny him
that right.
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.
conditions
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.
W/N the assailed statutes are

valid exercises of police power.
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.
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
W/N the content and manner of

just compensation provided for
in the CARP Law is violative of
the Constitution.
NO. Although the traditional

medium for payment of just
compensation is money and no
other, what is being dealt with
here is not the traditional
exercise of the power of eminent
domain. This is a revolutionary
kind of expropriation, which
involves not mere millions of
pesos. The initially intended
amount of P50B may not be
enough, and is in fact not even
fully available at this time. The
invalidation of the said section
will result in the nullification of
the entire program.
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.
NO. EO 228 categorically stated

that all qualified farmerbeneficiaries were deemed full
owners of the land they acquired
under PD 27, after proof of fullfledged membership in the
farmers cooperatives and full
payment of just compensation.
The CARP Law, for its part,
conditions the transfer of
possession and ownership of the
land to the government on
receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the
deposit by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP
bonds with an accessible bank.
Until then, title also remains with
the landowner.
YES. It was pursuant to PD 27
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
W/N PD 27 sanctions MC 6.
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
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
rentals paid by Sigre, and Sigre
to pay the rentals directly to
Gonzales.
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
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.
and purposes of the law; that the

regulation be not in contradiction
to but in conformity with the
standards prescribed by law.
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.
W/N Joses land should be

covered by the OLT under RA
6657 or PD 27.
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.
Corpuz v. Grospe
GR No. 135297
8 June 2000
Panganiban, J.
The DAR then issued 12 TCTs

in his favor after he appealed the
PARO
Decision.
However,
subsequently, the Secretary of
the Office of the President
affirmed the PARO as 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.
Corpuz then mortgaged the land
to the Grospes. In their mortgage
contract, Corpuz allowed the
spouses Grospe to use or
W/N the waiver of rights is

contrary to agrarian law.
Whatever provisions of PD 27
that are not inconsistent with RA
6657 shall be suppletory to the
latter, and all rights acquired by
the tenant-farmer under PD 27
are retained even with the
passage of RA 6657.
NO. There is no doubt that the
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
children inherited the land, they
only acquired 2.5 hectares each,
which is decidedly within the
retention area of 7 hectares under
PD 27, or 5 hectares under RA
6657.
YES. The sale or transfer of

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
Seizure only takes effect on the

payment of just compensation.
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 evidence.
Obiter:
The farmers cooperatives were
established to provide a strong
social
and
economic
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.
Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary

GR No. 86889
4 December 1990
Paras, J.
Provincial Agrarian Reform

Adjudicator Ernesto Tabara ruled
that Corpuz abandoned and
surrendered the landholding to
the Samahang Nayon of Nueva
Ecija. Said Samahang Nayon
even passed Resolution Nos. 16
and 27 recommending the
reallocation of said lots to the
Grospes, who were the most
qualified farmers-beneficiaries.
The DARAB and the CA both
affirmed the Decision.
In 1988, RA 6657 was approved
by the President of the
Philippines. It includes the
raising of livestock, poultry, and
swine in its coverage.
In 1989, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform promulgated
the IRR of Secs. 11, 13, and 39
of the said law.
Luz Farms, a corporation
engaged in the livestock and
poultry
business,
allegedly
stands to be adversely affected
by the enforcement of certain
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
the
disposition
and
the
reallocation of farmholdings of
tenant-farmers who refuse to
become beneficiaries of PD 27.
NO. It was never the intention of
the framers of the Constitution to
include the livestock and poultry
industry in the coverage of the
agrarian reform program of the
government. The intention of the
Committee was to limit the
application
of
the
word
agriculture. Thus, Section II of
RA 6657 which includes private
agricultural lands devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry,
and swine raising in the
definition of commercial farms
is invalid, to the extent that the
aforecited
agro-industrial
W/N the CARL should include

the raising of livestock, poultry
and swine in its coverage.
organization to ensure that the

tenant-farmers will enjoy on a
lasting basis the benefits of
agrarian reform.
Raising of livestock, poultry, and

swine are excluded from the
coverage of the CARL.
sections of RA 6657, of the

Guidelines
and
Procedures
Implementing Production and
Profit Sharing under RA 6657,
and of the IRR of Section 11. It
prays that the aforesaid statutes
be declared unconstitutional.
activities are made to be covered

by the agrarian reform program
of the State.
W/N the requirement in Sections
13 and 32 of RA 6657 directing
corporate farms to execute and
implement production-sharing
plans is unreasonable for being
confiscatory and violative of due
process, with respect to livestock
and poultry raisers.
Separate Opinion: Sarmiento, J.
W/N the assailed provisions
violate the equal protection
clause of the Constitution.
Natalia Realty v. DAR

GR No. 103302
12 August 1993
Bellosillo, J.
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
W/N the Natalia properties were

validly
converted
from
agricultural to residential land.
YES. As there is no reason to

include livestock and poultry
lands in the coverage of agrarian
reform, there is no need to call
upon them to distribute from 3%
of their gross sales and 10% of
their net profits to their workers
as additional compensation.
NO. Substantial distinctions exist
between land directed purely to
cultivation and harvesting of
fruits or crops and land
exclusively used for livestock,
poultry and swine raising that
make real differences:
1. There are no tenants
nor
landlords
in
livestock and poultry
businesses;
2. Livestock and poultry
do not sprout from
land;
3. Land is not a primary
resource;
production
are
industrial activities;
farmworkers
are
covered by minimum
wage law rather than
by tenancy law.
YES.
Natalia
and
EDIC
complied
with
all
the
requirements of law, even
securing prior approval from
DAR. As a matter of fact, there
was no need for Natalia and
Lands not devoted to agricultural

activity are outside the coverage
of CARL.
Agricultural land refers to
land devoted to agricultural
designated as the Lungsod

Silangan
Townsite,
where
Natalia Realtys properties were
situated. Estate Developers and
Investors Corporation (EDIC),
the developer of the Natalia
properties, was granted approval
to develop the said properties
into
low-cost
housing
subdivisions.
The
Natalia
properties then became the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
Morta v. Occidental
GR No. 123417
10 June 1999
Pardo, J.
When the CARL came into

effect, the DAR issued a Notice
of Coverage on the undeveloped
portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision. Natalia immediately
registered its objection to the
said Notice and requested the
DAR Secretary to cancel the
same. However, members of the
Samahan ng Magsasaka sa
Bundok Antipolo (SAMBA)
filed a complaint against Natalia
and EDIC before the DAR
Regional Adjudicator to restrain
them from developing areas
under their cultivation. The RA
issued a writ of Preliminary
Injunction. Natalia and EDIC
appealed to the DARAB but the
latter merely remanded the case
to the RA. Natalia then requested
the DAR Secretary to set aside
the Notice of Coverage. Neither
the DAR Secretary nor the DAR
Director concerned took action
on the protest letters.
Jaime Morta and Purificacion
Padilla filed a suit against Jaime
Occidental,
Atty.
Mariano
Baranda, and Daniel Corral, for
allegedly gathering pili nuts,
EDIC to do so because the

Natalia properties were within
the areas set aside for the
Lungsod Silangan Reservation.
Since PP 1637 created the
townsite reservation for the
purpose of providing additional
housing to the burgeoning
population of Metro Manila, it in
effect converted for residential
use
what
were
erstwhile
agricultural lands provided all
requisites were met.
W/N the Natalia properties are
covered by the CARL.
NO. The undeveloped portions

of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision
cannot
be
considered
as
agricultural lands. These lots
were intended for residential use.
They ceased to be agricultural
lands upon approval of their
inclusion in the Lungsod
Silangan Reservation.
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
activity, and not classified as

mineral,
forest,
residential,
commercial, or industrial land.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
between the parties to
the relationship;
4. That the purpose of the
relationship is to bring
about
agricultural
production;
5. That there is personal
cultivation on the part
of the tenant or
agricultural lessee; and
6. That the harvest is
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,
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
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.
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
W/N an agrarian dispute existed

between the parties.
YES.
1. The subject of the
2.
3.
4.
W/N the RTC was stripped of its

criminal jurisdiction when the
CA annulled the Order regarding
the remaining P1,100.00.
dispute between them

was the taking of
coconuts from the
property owned by
Monsanto;
The Zernas were the
overseers
of
the
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.
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
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.
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.
10
Sanchez v. Marin
GR No. 171346
19 October 2007
Chico-Nazario, J.
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.
As new owners of the fishpond,
they entered into a civil law
agreement with their mother,
Zemaida, which was renewable
yearly.
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.
W/N a tenurial arrangement

exists between Sanchez and
Zenaida Marin.
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.
W/N
the
DARAB
jurisdiction over the case.
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
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
has
Fishponds
are
no
longer
considered agricultural lands.
11
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.
Nuesa v. CA
GR No. 132048
6 March 2002
Quisumbing, J.
Zenaida
appealed
to
the
DARAB, which affirmed the
PARAD decision. The CA
reversed the ruling, stating that
the DARAB lacked jurisdiction
over the case. It stated that Sec. 2
of RA 7881, which amended
Sec. 10 of RA 6657, excluded
private lands actually, directly,
and exclusively used for prawn
farms and fishponds from the
coverage of the CARL, so that
the operation of a fishpond is no
longer considered an agricultural
activity. Since the cases are not
agrarian disputes, then the
DARAB could not have validly
acquired jurisdiction over the
case.
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
enactment of RA 7881 in 1995,

the case was already pending
appeal before the DARAB.
Hence,
the
aforesaid
amendments cannot be made to
apply to divest the DARAB of its
jurisdiction of the case. Once
jurisdiction is acquired by the
court, it remains with it until the
full termination of the case.
W/N
the
DARAB
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
While it bears emphasizing that

findings
of
administrative
agencies, which have acquired
expertise
because
their
jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters are accorded not
only respect but even finality by
the courts, care should be taken
that administrative actions are
not done without due regard to
the jurisdictional boundaries set
by the enabling law for each
agency.
The DAR is vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform
12
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.
administrative functions of the

DAR. The DARAB and its
provincial adjudicator or board
of adjudicators acted erroneously
and with grave abuse of
discretion in taking cognizance
of the case, then overturning the
decision of the DAR Regional
Director and deciding the case on
the merits without giving Rivera
the opportunity to present his
case.
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,
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
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
matters and shall have the

exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters
involving
the
implementation of the agrarian
reform program. The DARAN
has primary original and
appellate
jurisdiction
to
determine and adjudicate all
agrarian
disputes,
cases,
controversies, and matters or
incidents
involving
the
implementation of the CARP and
other agrarian laws and their
IRRs.
An agrarian dispute is defined
to include any controversy
relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship, or otherwise over
lands devoted to agriculture,
including disputes concerning
farmworkers associations or
representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such
tenurial arrangements. It includes
any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired
under RA 6657 and other terms
and conditions of transfer and
other
agrarian
reform
beneficiaries,
whether
the
disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and
beneficiary,
landowner
and
tenant, or lessor and lessee.
The jurisdiction of the DARAB
is limited to cases involving a
parties.
Elements
of
tenancy
13
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
Marcelo Andres, who was then
allowed to file his homestead
application.
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.
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
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.
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;
4. The purpose of the
relationship is to bring
about
agricultural
production;
5. There
is
personal
cultivation on the part
of the tenant or
agricultural lessee;
6. 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.
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
14
Chico v. CA
GR No. 122704
5 January 1998
Vitug, J.
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,
he was constrained to initiate the
case.
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
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.
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
to divest the regular court of its
jurisdiction
in
proceedings
lawfully began before it.
W/N the parties have a tenurial

arrangement.
NO. Based on the statutory

definitions of a tenant or lessee,
it is clear that there is no tenancy
Tenancy is not a purely factual

relationship dependent on what
the alleged tenant does upon the
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
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.
15
Padilla, J.
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.
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
or
agricultural/leasehold
relationship existing between the
parties. There was no contract or
agreement entered into by
Remigio with Natividad nor with
the overseer of the property, for
Remigio to cultivate the land for
a price certain or to share his
harvests. Remigio failed to
substantiate his claim that he was
paying rent for the use of the
land.
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
land. It is also a legal

relationship. The intent of the
parties, the understanding when
the farmer is installed, and their
written agreements, provided
these are complied with and are
not contrary to law, are even
more important.
Unless a person establishes his
status as a de jure tenant, he is
not entitled to security of tenure
nor is he covered by the Land
Reform
Program
of
the
government
under
existing
tenancy laws.
An agricultural lessee is a person
who, by himself and with the aid
available from within his
immediate
farm
household,
cultivates the land belonging to,
or possessed by, another with the
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.
16
their harvest as their shares.

Subsequently, Nicolas amended
the sharing agreement by
requiring them to give him 10
sacks of 50 kilos per sack, per
hectare, per harvest. Thereafter,
the said tenants paid him on the
basis of the new sharing scheme.
When the subject parcel of land
was identified by the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform as covered
under Operation Land Transfer,
Certificates of Land Transfer
were issued to the tenants.
Nicolas then asked for the
exclusion of his landholding
from the land reform program,
contending that the portions
occupied by his tenants were part
of his land development project,
the Sintos Subdivision. After
investigation,
the
MAR
recommended the cancellation of
the CLTs in favor of the tenants
and instead recommended the
award to them of disturbance
compensation.
Although no agreement was
reached by the parties with
respect to the amount of
disturbance compensation, the
tenants were ejected from their
landholding when Nicolas started
dumping sand and gravel on the
portions they were cultivating.
They then filed a case against
Nicolas for the payment of
The trial court ruled in favor of
the tenants, and ordered Nicolas
17
Philbancor v. CA
GR No. 129572
26 June 2000
Pardo, J.
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
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.
W/N the tenants could still

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

provides that the right of
redemption may be exercised
within 2 years from the
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.
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.
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
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
18
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
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.
the spouses Abalos have been

declared titled owners of the
subject land, the exercise of their
rights of ownership are subject to
limitations that may be imposed
by law. The Tenancy Act
provides one such limitation.
Agricultural lessees are entitled
to security of tenure and they
have the right to work on their
respective landholdings once the
leasehold
relationship
is
established.
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.
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.
The exercise of ownership yields

to the exercise of the rights of an
agricultural tenant (as provided
for in The Tenancy Act).
Obiter:
Possession and ownership are
distinct legal concepts. There is
ownership
when
a
thing
pertaining to one person is
completely subjected to his will
in a manner not prohibited by
law and consistent with the
rights of others. Ownership
confers certain rights to the
owner, among which are the
right to enjoy the thing owned
and the right to exclude other
persons from possession thereof.
On the other hand, possession is
defined as the holding of a thing
or the enjoyment of a right.
Literally, to possess means to
actually and physically occupy a
thing with or without right.
Possession may be had in two
ways: possession in the concept
of owner and possession of a
holder.
A judgment for ownership does
not
necessarily
include
possession as a necessary
incident.
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
19
granted by the RTC, and

affirmed both by the CA and SC.
In 1983, Roman, along with
Elocadio and Librada, filed a
case against the Abalos spouses
for annulment of document
and/or redemption, ownership,
and damages. It was denied by
the trial court.
In 1984, or 11 years after the
approval of the post-decisional
agreement between Roman and
the spouses de Vera, the Abalos
spouses filed with the agrarian
court a motion for execution of
the
said
post-decisional
agreement which allowed Roman
Soriano
to
sub-lease
the
property. The motion prayed that
the spouses Abalos be placed in
possession of the subject
property, jointly with Roman
Soriano, and to levy so much of
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.
20
Hernandez v. IAC
GR No. 74323
21 September 1990
Medialdea, J.
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
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.
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
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
21
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.
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
landholdings shows they are
tenants.
SALES, Inc. averred that the

watchers had been ejected from
the land even before it acquired
the same; thus, they did not have
a right to a share of the harvests,
since they were not tenants. It
also claimed that under the lease
agreement,
Hernandez
was
forbidden to take any tenants,
and that these watchers were
only subsequently hired as wage
laborers to do the picking,
gathering, and hauling of
cocounuts. The court ruled in
favor of the watchers, and
declared them as tenants of
SALES, Inc. and Wenceslao
Hernandez. The latter were also
ordered to pay the former their
unpaid shares in the harvest. The
CA affirmed.
Valencia v. CA
GR No. 122363
29 April 2003
Bellosillo, J.
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
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. Sec. 6 of RA 3844 does not

automatically authorize a civil
law lessee to employ a tenant
without the consent of the
landowner. The lessee must be so
specifically
authorized.
A
different interpretation would be
most unfair to the hapless and
unsuspecting landowner who
entered into a civil law lease
not limited merely to the tilling,

plowing or harrowing of the land.
It includes the promotion of
growth and the care of the plants,
or husbanding the ground to
forward the products of the earth
by general industry.
It may be said that the caretaker
of an agricultural land can also
be considered the cultivator of
the land.
RA 3844 abolished and outlawed
share tenancy and put in its stead
the agricultural leasehold system.
RA 6389 subsequently declared
that share tenancy was contrary
to public policy. Although share
tenancy
was
statutorily
abolished, leasehold tenancy for
coconut and sugar lands has not
yet been implemented. The
policy makers of government are
still studying the feasibility of its
application and the consequences
of
its
implementation.
Nonetheless, this did not end the
rights of share tenants in these
types of lands. The eventual goal
of legislation of having strong
and independent farmers working
on lands which they own
remains.
The right to hire a tenant is
basically a personal right of a
landowner, except as may be
provided by law. Inherent in the
right of landholders to install a
tenant is their authority to do so;
otherwise,
without
such
authority, civil law lessees as
landholders cannot install a
tenant on the landholding.
22
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
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
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
tenant thereon since the right to
do so is an attribute of
ownership.
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
subject matter of the lease
agreement.
Essential requisites of a tenancy
relationship:
(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 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.
23
CA contending that the Exec.

Sec. erred in recognizing the
farmhands as tenants, and
disallowing him and his 7
compulsory
heirs
from
exercising their right of retention
under RA 6657. However, the
CA dismissed the case.
Tenancy is not a purely factual

relationship dependent on what
the alleged tenant does upon the
land. It is also a legal
relationship.
The security of tenure guaranteed
by our tenancy laws may be
invoked only by tenants de jure,
not by those who are not true and
lawful tenants.
The act of subletting to third
persons
extinguishes
the
agricultural leasehold relations,
as
this
constitutes
an
abandonment of the landholding
due to absence of personal
cultivation.
Obiter:
Social justice is for the
deserving, whether he be a
millionaire in his mansion or a
pauper in his hovel. It is never
justified to give preference to the
poor simply because they are
poor, or reject the rich simply
because they are rich, for justice
must always be served for the
poor and the rich alike
according to the mandate of law.
Caballes v. DAR
GR No. 78214
5 December 1988
Sarmiento, J.
Andrea
Millenes
allowed
Bienvenido Abajon to construct
a house on a portion of her
landholding, paying a monthly
rental of P2.00. Millenes
likewise allowed Abajon to plant
W/N Abajon is an agricultural

tenant.
NO. To invest Abajon with the

status of a tenant is preposterous.
He only occupied a miniscule
portion (60m2) of a 500m2 lot,
which cannot by any stretch of
imagination be considered as an
Interpretare et concordare leges

legibus est optimus interpretandi
modus. Interpreting and
harmonizing laws with laws is
the best method of interpretation.
Essential requisites of a tenancy
relationship:
(7) The parties are the
landowner and the
tenant;
(8) The
subject
is
24
a portion of the land, agreeing

that the produce thereof would
be shared by both on a 50-50
basis.
When Millenes sold her land to
the spouses Arturo and Yolanda
Caballes, 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. Abajon refused
to leave, even after confrontation
before the Barangay Captain of
the locality.
Subsequently, Yolanda filed a
criminal case against Abajon for
malicious mischief for harvesting
bananas and jackfruit from their
property without her knowledge.
All the planting on the property
however, had been done by
Abajon. 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. The Ministry ruled that a
tenancy relationship existed
between the parties, and, as such,
the case is not proper for hearing.
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.
agricultural land;
(9) There is consent;
(10) The
purpose
is
agricultural production;
(11) There
is
personal
cultivation; and
(12) There is sharing of
harvests.
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.
Tenancy status arises only if an
occupant of a parcel of land has
been given its possession for the
primary purpose of agricultural
production.
Obiter:
If justice can be meted out now,
why wait for it to drop gently
from heaven?
On appeal, the DAR (the new

MAR) reversed the findings and
declared that the case was proper
for trial as the land involved was
residential. The new minister of
the DAR, however, set aside the
said order and declared that the
criminal case was not proper for
trial, as there was an existing
25
parties.
26

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 603135632

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 603135632

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal

The Manaays and Hermano

W/N the CARP fund provision in

NO. PP 131 is not an

W/N PP 131 and EO 229 should

NO. This argument is no longer

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal

tenants, who then refused to pay

6657 under the

W/N the assailed statutes violate

NO. The petitioners have not

W/N the assailed statutes are

YES. The subject and purpose of

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal

Matias Yusay owned a parcel of

W/N the content and manner of

NO. Although the traditional

W/N the CARP and EO 228

NO. EO 228 categorically stated

The power of subordinate

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal

remitted the payments to the

determined purchase price of the

NO. PD 816 provides that the

NO. Jurisprudence has upheld

W/N RA 6657 superseded or

NO. According to EO 229, PD

and purposes of the law; that the

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal

Office of the President v. CA and

Aurora Tinio-Reyes owned 24

W/N Joses land should be

When Jose tried to get a TCT

The DAR then issued 12 TCTs

W/N the waiver of rights is

YES. The sale or transfer of

Seizure only takes effect on the

Voluntary surrender, as a mode

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal

cultivate the land during the

Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary

Provincial Agrarian Reform

NO. Corpuz surrender of

W/N Corpuz had voluntarily

YES. Corpuz intention to

W/N the CARL should include

organization to ensure that the

Raising of livestock, poultry, and

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal

sections of RA 6657, of the

activities are made to be covered

Natalia Realty v. DAR

PP 1637 set aside several

W/N the Natalia properties were

YES. As there is no reason to

Lands not devoted to agricultural

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 Stef Macapagal

designated as the Lungsod

When the CARL came into

EDIC to do so because the

NO. The undeveloped portions

W/N the cases are properly

NO. Since there is a dispute as to