You are on page 1of 26

Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling Doctrine

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

tenants, who then refused to pay 6657 under the conditions

lease rentals to him. He then therein prescribed.
protested the erroneous inclusion
of his small landholding under W/N the assailed statutes violate NO. The petitioners have not
OLT and asked for the recall and the equal protection clause. shown that they belong to a
cancellation of the said CLTs, different class and entitled to a
which was denied without different treatment. The
hearing. Although he filed an argument that not only
MR, EOs 228 and 229 were landowners but also owners of
issued, rendering his MR moot other properties must be made to
and academic because the said share the burden of
EOs directly effected the transfer implementing land reform must
of his land to his farmers-tenants. be rejected. There is a substantial
distinction between these two
GR No. 78742: PD 316 – The classes of owners that is clearly
Association of Small visible except to those who will
Landowners in the Philippines not see.
invokes the right of retention
granted by PD 27 to owners of W/N the assailed statutes are YES. The subject and purpose of
rice and corn lands not exceeding valid exercises of police power. agrarian reform have been laid
7 hectares as long as they are down by the Constitution itself,
cultivating or intend to cultivate which satisfies the first
the same. Their respective lands requirement of a lawful subject.
do not exceed the statutory limit However, objection is raised to
but are occupied by tenants who the manner of fixing the just
are actually cultivating such compensation, which it is
lands. claimed is entrusted to the
administrative authorities in
Because PD 316 provides that no violation of judicial prerogatives.
tenant-farmer in agricultural However, there is no
lands primarily devoted to rice arbitrariness in the provision, as
and corn shall be ejected or the determination of just
removed from his farmholding compensation by the DAR is not
until such time as the respective by any means final and
rights of the tenant-farmers and conclusive upon the landowner
the landowner shall have been or any other interested party,
determined, they petitioned the because the law provides that the
Court for a writ of mandamus to determination made by the DAR
compel the DAR Secretary to is only preliminary unless
issue the IRR, as they could not accepted by all parties
eject their tenants and so are concerned. Otherwise, the courts
unable to enjoy their right of will still have the right to review
retention. with finality the said
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

W/N the content and manner of NO. Although the traditional

just compensation provided for medium for payment of just
in the CARP Law is violative of compensation is money and no
the Constitution. 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 NO. EO 228 categorically stated

contravene a well-accepted that all qualified farmer-
principle of eminent domain by beneficiaries were deemed full
divesting the landowner of his owners of the land they acquired
property even before actual under PD 27, after proof of full-
payment to him in full of just fledged membership in the
compensation. 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.
Sigre v. CA Matias Yusay owned a parcel of W/N PD 27 sanctions MC 6. YES. It was pursuant to PD 27 The power of subordinate
GR Nos. 109568 and 113454 irrigated rice land in Iloilo, in that MC 6 was issued by the legislation allows administrative
8 August 2002 which Ernesto Sigre was a DAR. The Circular was meant to bodies to implement the broad
Austria-Martinez, J. tenant. Sigre previously had been remedy the situation where the policies laid down in a statute by
paying Yusay a lease rental of 16 tenant-farmer’s lease rentals to “filling in” the details. All that is
cavans per crop, but stopped the landowner were not credited required is that the regulation
paying in 1991-92. Instead, he in his favor against the should be germane to the objects
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

remitted the payments to the determined purchase price of the and purposes of the law; that the
LBP pursuant to DAR’s land, thus making him a regulation be not in contradiction
Memorandum Circular No. 6 perpetual obligor for said to but in conformity with the
(MC 6), which set the guidelines purchase price. Since the assailed standards prescribed by law.
in the payment of lease Circular essentially sought to
rental/partial payment by farmer- accomplish the noble purpose of
beneficiaries under the land PD 27, it is therefore valid.
transfer program of PD 27.
W/N an irreconcilable conflict NO. PD 816 provides that the
Lilia Gonzales, co-administratrix exists between PD 816 and MC tenant-farmer shall pay lease
of Yusay’s estate, filed a petition 6, such that PD 816 must prevail rentals to the landowner until the
for prohibition and mandamus over MC 6. value of the property has been
with the CA, seeking to prohibit determined or agreed upon by
the LBP from accepting Sigre’s the landowner and the DAR. On
leasehold rentals. According to the other hand, MC 6 mandates
Gonzales, she had no notice that that the tenant-farmer shall pay
DAR had already fixed the value to the LBP the lease rental after
of the land. Her petition also the value of the land has been
assails the validity of MC 6 and determined. Thus, there is no
PD 27. incompatibility between these
two. On the contrary, the two
The CA then declared MC 6 null supplement each other as they set
and void, and directed the LBP the guidelines for the payments
to return to Gonzales the lease of lease rentals on the
rentals paid by Sigre, and Sigre agricultural property.
to pay the rentals directly to
Gonzales. W/N PD 27 is unconstitutional NO. Jurisprudence has upheld
for setting limitations on the the constitutionality of the said
judicial prerogative of decree. Moreover, the
determining just compensation. 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

W/N RA 6657 superseded or NO. According to EO 229, PD

repealed PD 27. 27 as amended shall continue to
operate with respect to rice and
corn lands, covered thereunder.
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

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.
Office of the President v. CA and Aurora Tinio-Reyes owned 24 W/N Jose’s land should be NO. There is no doubt that the Seizure only takes effect on the
Heirs of Jose Reyes hectares of land in Nueva Ecija, covered by the OLT under RA original landholding of Aurora, payment of just compensation.
GR No. 131216 which she bequeathed to her 9 6657 or PD 27. consisting of 24 hectares of
19 July 2001 children upon her death, one of Riceland tenanted by farmers
Pardo, J. which was Jose. was covered by PD 27. However,
the expropriation of the
When Jose tried to get a TCT landholding did not take place on
over his lot, he was told that he the effectivity of PD 27, as the
first needed a clearance from the seizure only takes effect on the
DAR attesting to the non- payment of just compensation;
inclusion of his land in the OLT. and the DAR had not even
However, the PARO ruled that determined the just
his land was covered under the compensation for the taking of
OLT. the landholding when it decreed
that the land was under the
The DAR then issued 12 TCTs coverage of RA 6657. Moreover,
in his favor after he appealed the when Aurora died and her
PARO Decision. However, children inherited the land, they
subsequently, the Secretary of only acquired 2.5 hectares each,
the Office of the President which is decidedly within the
affirmed the PARO as Aurora’s retention area of 7 hectares under
will was not registered prior to PD 27, or 5 hectares under RA
PD 27’s effectivity, and thus 6657.
could not bind third persons.
When Jose appealed, the CA
reversed the Secretary’s Order.
Corpuz v. Grospe Gavino Corpuz was a farmer- W/N the waiver of rights is YES. The sale or transfer of Voluntary surrender, as a mode
GR No. 135297 beneficiary under the OLT contrary to agrarian law. rights over a property covered by of extinguishment of tenancy
8 June 2000 Program of the DAR. Pursuant to a Certificate of Land Transfer is relations, does not require court
Panganiban, J. PD 27, he was issued a void except when the alienation approval as long as it is
certificate of land transfer over 2 is made in favor of the convincingly and sufficiently
parcels of agricultural land. government or through proved by competent evidence.
hereditary succession. This
Corpuz then mortgaged the land ruling is intended to prevent a Obiter:
to the Grospes. In their mortgage reversion to the old feudal The farmers’ cooperatives were
contract, Corpuz allowed the system in which the landowners established to provide a strong
spouses Grospe to use or reacquire vast tracts of land, thus social and economic
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

cultivate the land during the negating the government’s organization to ensure that the
duration of the mortgage. program of freeing the tenant tenant-farmers will enjoy on a
from the bondage of the soil. lasting basis the benefits of
Corpuz subsequently instituted a agrarian reform.
complaint which alleged that the W/N Corpuz had abandoned his NO. Corpuz’ surrender of
Grospes had entered the disputed landholding. possession did not amount to an
land by force and destroyed the abandonment because there was
palay that he had planted on it. an obligation on the part of the
However, according to the Grospes to return possession of
Grospes, Corpuz had already the landholding upon full
executed a “Waiver of Rights” payment of the loan. There was
over the landholding in favor of no clear, absolute, or irrevocable
the spouses in consideration of intent to abandon.
W/N Corpuz had voluntarily YES. Corpuz’ intention to
Provincial Agrarian Reform surrendered his landholding. surrender the landholding was
Adjudicator Ernesto Tabara ruled clear and unequivocal. He signed
that Corpuz abandoned and his concurrence to the Samahang
surrendered the landholding to Nayon Resolutions. His
the Samahang Nayon of Nueva voluntary surrender to the
Ecija. Said Samahang Nayon Samahang Nayon qualifies as a
even passed Resolution Nos. 16 surrender or transfer to the
and 27 recommending the government because such action
reallocation of said lots to the forms part of the mechanism for
Grospes, who were the “most the disposition and the
qualified farmers-beneficiaries.” reallocation of farmholdings of
The DARAB and the CA both tenant-farmers who refuse to
affirmed the Decision. become beneficiaries of PD 27.
Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary In 1988, RA 6657 was approved W/N the CARL should include NO. It was never the intention of Raising of livestock, poultry, and
GR No. 86889 by the President of the the raising of livestock, poultry the framers of the Constitution to swine are excluded from the
4 December 1990 Philippines. It includes the and swine in its coverage. include the livestock and poultry coverage of the CARL.
Paras, J. raising of livestock, poultry, and industry in the coverage of the
swine in its coverage. agrarian reform program of the
government. The intention of the
In 1989, the Secretary of Committee was to limit the
Agrarian Reform promulgated application of the word
the IRR of Secs. 11, 13, and 39 “agriculture”. Thus, Section II of
of the said law. RA 6657 which includes “private
agricultural lands devoted to
Luz Farms, a corporation commercial livestock, poultry,
engaged in the livestock and and swine raising” in the
poultry business, allegedly definition of “commercial farms”
stands to be adversely affected is invalid, to the extent that the
by the enforcement of certain aforecited agro-industrial
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

sections of RA 6657, of the activities are made to be covered

Guidelines and Procedures by the agrarian reform program
Implementing Production and of the State.
Profit Sharing under RA 6657,
and of the IRR of Section 11. It W/N the requirement in Sections YES. As there is no reason to
prays that the aforesaid statutes 13 and 32 of RA 6657 directing include livestock and poultry
be declared unconstitutional. “corporate farms” to execute and lands in the coverage of agrarian
implement “production-sharing reform, there is no need to call
plans” is unreasonable for being upon them to distribute from 3%
confiscatory and violative of due of their gross sales and 10% of
process, with respect to livestock their net profits to their workers
and poultry raisers. as additional compensation.

Separate Opinion: Sarmiento, J.

W/N the assailed provisions NO. Substantial distinctions exist
violate the equal protection between land directed purely to
clause of the Constitution. 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
2. Livestock and poultry
do not sprout from
3. Land is not a primary
4. Livestock and poultry
production are
industrial activities;
5. Livestock and poultry
farmworkers are
covered by minimum
wage law rather than
by tenancy law.
Natalia Realty v. DAR PP 1637 set aside several W/N the Natalia properties were YES. Natalia and EDIC Lands not devoted to agricultural
GR No. 103302 hectares of land in Antipolo, San validly converted from complied with all the activity are outside the coverage
12 August 1993 Mateo, and Montalban as agricultural to residential land. requirements of law, even of CARL.
Bellosillo, J. townsite areas to absorb the securing prior approval from
population overspill in the DAR. As a matter of fact, there “Agricultural land” refers to
metropolis which were was no need for Natalia and “land devoted to agricultural
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

designated as the Lungsod EDIC to do so because the activity, and not classified as
Silangan Townsite, where Natalia properties were within mineral, forest, residential,
Natalia Realty’s properties were the areas set aside for the commercial, or industrial land.”
situated. Estate Developers and Lungsod Silangan Reservation.
Investors Corporation (EDIC), Since PP 1637 created the
the developer of the Natalia townsite reservation for the
properties, was granted approval purpose of providing additional
to develop the said properties housing to the burgeoning
into low-cost housing population of Metro Manila, it in
subdivisions. The Natalia effect converted for residential
properties then became the use what were erstwhile
Antipolo Hills Subdivision. agricultural lands provided all
requisites were met.
When the CARL came into
effect, the DAR issued a Notice W/N the Natalia properties are NO. The undeveloped portions
of Coverage on the undeveloped covered by the CARL. of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision
portions of the Antipolo Hills cannot be considered as
Subdivision. Natalia immediately “agricultural lands.” These lots
registered its objection to the were intended for residential use.
said Notice and requested the They ceased to be agricultural
DAR Secretary to cancel the lands upon approval of their
same. However, members of the inclusion in the Lungsod
Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Silangan Reservation.
Bundok Antipolo (SAMBA)
filed a complaint against Natalia
and EDIC before the DAR
Regional Adjudicator to restrain
them from developing areas
under their cultivation. The RA
issued a writ of Preliminary
Injunction. Natalia and EDIC
appealed to the DARAB but the
latter merely remanded the case
to the RA. Natalia then requested
the DAR Secretary to set aside
the Notice of Coverage. Neither
the DAR Secretary nor the DAR
Director concerned took action
on the protest letters.
Morta v. Occidental Jaime Morta and Purificacion W/N the cases are properly NO. Since there is a dispute as to For DARAB to have jurisdiction
GR No. 123417 Padilla filed a suit against Jaime cognizable by the DARAB. who is the rightful owner of the over a case, there must exist a
10 June 1999 Occidental, Atty. Mariano land, the issue is clearly outside tenancy relationship between the
Pardo, J. Baranda, and Daniel Corral, for DARAB’s jurisdiction. Whatever parties. In order for a tenancy
allegedly gathering pili nuts, findings made by the DARAB agreement to take hold over a
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

anahaw leaves, and coconuts regarding the ownership of the dispute, it would be essential to
from their respective land and land are not conclusive to settle establish all its indispensable
destroying their banana and the matter. At any rate, whoever elements, to wit:
pineapple plants. Occidental is declared to be the rightful 1. That the parties are the
claimed that he was a tenant of owner of the land, the case landowner and the
the actual owner of the land, cannot be considered tenancy- tenant or agricultural
Josefina Baraclan, and that related for it still fails to comply lessee;
Morta and Padilla were not with the other requirements. 2. The subject matter of
actually the owners of the land in Assuming arguendo that Josefina the relationship is an
question. is the owner, then the case is not agricultural land;
between the landowner and 3. That there is consent
The trial court ruled in favor of tenant. If, however, Morta is the between the parties to
Morta and Padilla. Occidental, et landowner, Occidental cannot the relationship;
al. appealed, contending that the claim that there is consent to a 4. That the purpose of the
case was cognizable by the DAR landowner-tenant relationship relationship is to bring
Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). between him and Morta. Thus, about agricultural
Thus, the RTC reversed the for failure to comply with the production;
lower court and ruled in favor of requisites, the issue involved is 5. That there is personal
Occidental, stating that the case not tenancy-related cognizable cultivation on the part
is a tenancy-related problem by the DARAB. of the tenant or
which falls under the exclusive agricultural lessee; and
jurisdiction of DARAB. The CA Dissent: Davide, CJ. 6. That the harvest is
affirmed the RTC. It is a tenancy-related issue shared between the
because whether it is Josefina or landowner and the
Morta who is the owner of the tenant or agricultural
land is no moment. It does not lessee.
affect Occidental’s tenancy.
Tenancy attaches to the land. The Limited jurisdiction of DAR:
cases filed by Morta and Padilla 1. Adjudication of all
were a clever way to defeat the matters involving
agrarian law. While the cases implementation of
were ostensibly for damages, agrarian reform;
they were, at bottom, a fight on 2. Resolution of agrarian
issues incident to or arising from conflicts and land-
an agrarian relationship. tenure related
problems; and
3. Approval and
disapproval of the
restructuring, or
readjustment of
agricultural lands into
commercial, industrial,
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

and other non-

agricultural uses.
Monsanto v. Zerna Leonarda Monsanto owned a W/N an agrarian dispute existed YES. The resolution of an agrarian
GR No. 142591 parcel of land, wherein Jesus and between the parties. 1. The subject of the dispute is a matter beyond the
7 December 2001 Teresita Zerna were overseers. In dispute between them legal competence of regular
Panganiban, J. 1995, the Zernas harvested was the taking of courts. The DARAB exercises
coconuts from the plantation coconuts from the primary jurisdiction—both
without Monsanto’s consent, and property owned by original and appellate—to
processed them into copra for the Monsanto; determine and adjudicate all
purpose of confirming their 2. The Zernas were the agrarian disputes, cases,
claim that they are tenants of the overseers of the controversies, and matters or
land. It was alleged that the total property at the time of incidents involving the
amount that they actually made the taking of the implementation of agrarian laws
was P6,262.50; they deposited coconuts, as can be and their implementing rules and
P5,162.50 with the Barangay gleaned from their regulations.
Secretary of the locality, keeping Kasabutan;
the balance of P1,100.00 for their 3. Monsanto allowed the An agrarian dispute refers to any
labor. Zernas to plant controversy relating to tenurial
Monsanto instituted a criminal coconut, coffee, arrangements—whether
case of qualified theft against the jackfruit, and cacao as leasehold, tenancy, stewardship
Zernas, but the Zernas were shown by the or otherwise—over lands
acquitted for lack of criminal Kasabutan; devoted to agriculture, including
intent. The barangay captain of 4. A tenurial arrangement (1) disputes concerning farm
the locality was ordered to return exists among herein workers’ associations; or (2)
to Monsanto the money that the parties as regards the representation of persons in
Zernas deposited. Monsanto filed harvesting of the negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
an MR for the return of the agricultural products, changing, or seeking to arrange
P1,100.00. as shown by the terms or conditions of such
several remittances tenurial arrangement.
The court then ruled that since made by the Zernas to
the harvesting of the coconuts Monsanto, A tenancy relationship may be
and processing of the same into substantiated by established either verbally or in
copra were not with the consent receipts. writing, expressly or impliedly.
of Monsanto, then they could not
be entitled to compensation for W/N the RTC was stripped of its NO. There is no question that the
their labor. criminal jurisdiction when the RTC had criminal jurisdiction to
CA annulled the Order regarding try the Zernas for the crime of
On appeal, the CA ruled that the the remaining P1,100.00. qualified theft. However, the
trial court had no jurisdiction to resolution of the issue of who is
order the Zernas to pay entitled to the P1,100.00 falls
Monsanto the P1,100.00. squarely within the jurisdiction
Because the dispute involved an of the DARAB, as it is an
agricultural tenancy relationship, agrarian dispute.
the matter fell within the primary
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

and exclusive jurisdiction of the

DARAB. It then annulled the
RTC order requiring the return of
the P1,100.00.
Sanchez v. Marin David Felix owned a fishpond. W/N a fishpond is an agricultural NO. By virtue of Sec. 2, RA Fishponds are no longer
GR No. 171346 Jaime Sanchez was instituted as land. 7881, the operation of fishponds considered agricultural lands.
19 October 2007 a tenant on the said fishpond, is no longer considered an
Chico-Nazario, J. with a 50/50 sharing agreement. agricultural activity, and a parcel
After a few years, Felix sold and of land devoted to fishpond
transferred ownership of the operation is no longer an
subject fishpond to the Marins. agricultural land.
As new owners of the fishpond,
they entered into a civil law W/N a tenurial arrangement YES. Although the fishpond is
agreement with their mother, exists between Sanchez and not covered by the CARL, it
Zemaida, which was renewable Zenaida Marin. bears emphasis that Sanchez’
yearly. status as a tenant in the subject
fishpond and his right to security
Zenaida then made an of tenure were already previously
arrangement with Sanchez settled. Having been declared as
wherein Sanchez would receive a a tenant with the right to security
regular salary and a 20% share in of tenure as provided by the law
the net profit of the fishpond. enforced at the time of the filing
When her lease agreement with of the complaint, Sanchez has
her children expired, Zenaida acquired a vested right over the
ordered Sanchez to vacate the subject fishpond. Therefore, even
premises. Sanchez refused, if fishponds were later
asserting that he was a tenant of excluded/exempted from CARL
the fishpond and not a mere coverage, and despite the fact
contractual worker; hence, he that no CLOA has been issued to
had the right to its peaceful Sanchez, the same cannot defeat
possession and security of the aforesaid vested right already
tenure. He then asked the court granted and acquired by Sanchez
to declare him as a tenant of the long before the passage of RA
subject fishpond, which 7881.
subsequently did.
W/N the DARAB has YES. The present case was
As Sanchez was already declared jurisdiction over the case. instituted as early as 1991 when
as an agricultural tenant of the the law applicable was still RA
fishpond, he filed a petition to 6657, and fishponds and prawn
the Provincial Agrarian Reform farms were not yet
Adjudicator (PARAD) for the exempted/excluded from the
fixing of leasehold rentals for his CARL coverage. At that time,
use of the fishpond. However, there was an agrarian dispute
Zenaida countered this between the parties. Prior to the
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

application by filing a case with enactment of RA 7881 in 1995,

the PARAD to eject Sanchez for the case was already pending
failure to pay the rent and for appeal before the DARAB.
failure to render an accounting. Hence, the aforesaid
The PARAD consolidated the 2 amendments cannot be made to
cases and ruled in favor of apply to divest the DARAB of its
Sanchez. jurisdiction of the case. Once
jurisdiction is acquired by the
Zenaida appealed to the court, it remains with it until the
DARAB, which affirmed the full termination of the case.
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
Nuesa v. CA When Verdillo was issued an W/N the DARAB has NO. Verdillo and Rivera had no While it bears emphasizing that
GR No. 132048 “Order of Award” by the DAR jurisdiction over the case. tenurial, leasehold, or any findings of administrative
6 March 2002 Secretary over 2 parcels of land, agrarian relations whatsoever agencies, which have acquired
Quisumbing, J. it had a condition that Verdillo that could have brought this expertise because their
should personally cultivate the controversy between them within jurisdiction is confined to
land, and pay at least the first the ambit of an “agrarian specific matters are accorded not
installment, within a period of 6 dispute.” Consequently, the only respect but even finality by
months. DARAB had no jurisdiction over the courts, care should be taken
the controversy and should not that administrative actions are
21 years later, Verdillo filed an have taken cognizance of not done without due regard to
application with the DAR for the Verdillo’s petition in the first the jurisdictional boundaries set
purchase of the said lots claiming place. by the enabling law for each
that he had complied with the agency.
conditions set forth in the Order W/N the DARAB acted in grave YES. The revocation by the
of Award. Restituto Rivera abuse of discretion. Regional Director of DAR of the The DAR is vested with the
protested this application, earlier Order of Award by the primary jurisdiction to determine
claiming that it was he who had DAR Secretary falls under the and adjudicate agrarian reform
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

been in possession of the land administrative functions of the matters and shall have the
and had been cultivating the DAR. The DARAB and its exclusive jurisdiction over all
same. He also filed his own provincial adjudicator or board matters involving the
application for the said parcels in of adjudicators acted erroneously implementation of the agrarian
opposition to that of Verdillo. and with grave abuse of reform program. The DARAN
discretion in taking cognizance has primary original and
After the DAR’s investigation of of the case, then overturning the appellate jurisdiction to
the conflicting claims, it found decision of the DAR Regional determine and adjudicate all
that Verdillo violated the terms Director and deciding the case on agrarian disputes, cases,
of the Order of Award, and the merits without giving Rivera controversies, and matters or
cancelled the said Order. Hence, the opportunity to present his incidents involving the
Verdillo filed with the Provincial case. implementation of the CARP and
Adjudication Board a petition for other agrarian laws and their
the annulment of the said order. IRRs.
Instead of filing an Answer to
the Petition, Rivera filed a An “agrarian dispute” is defined
Motion to Dismiss. However, the to include “any controversy
DARAB Provincial Adjudicator relating to tenurial arrangements,
chose to resolve the case on the whether leasehold, tenancy,
merits, and ruled in favor of stewardship, or otherwise over
Verdillo. The DARAB and the lands devoted to agriculture,
CA affirmed this decision. 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.
Almuete v. Andres Since the National Resettlement W/N the case is an agrarian NO. The action filed by Almuete The jurisdiction of the DARAB
GR No. 122276 and Rehabilitation dispute and, as such, falls under before the trial court was for is limited to cases involving a
20 November 2001 Administration (NARRA) the DARAB’s jurisdiction. recovery of possession and tenancy relationship between the
Ynares-Santiago, J. awarded a parcel of land to reconveyance of title. The issue parties.
Rodrigo Almuete in 1957, he and to be resolved was who between
his family exercised exclusive Almuete and Andres has a better Elements of a tenancy
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

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

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

Almuete quickly brought the

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

Andres then filed a petition for

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

regular courts. The CA ruled in

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

The RTC ruled in favor of Pedro

and ordered the Mananghayas to
surrender its possession. The
Mananghayas then initiated a
petition for certiorari with the
CA to annul the RTC decision
for being void. They contend that
their tenancy relationship with
the original owners was an
agrarian dispute cognizable
exclusively by the DARAB. The
CA set aside the RTC decision
on the ground that the dispute
between the parties was an
agrarian reform matter.
Isidro v. CA Natividad Gutierrez owns a W/N the parties have a tenurial NO. Based on the statutory Tenancy is not a purely factual
GR No. L-105586 parcel of land, over which her arrangement. definitions of a tenant or lessee, relationship dependent on what
15 December 1993 sister Aniceta was an overseer. it is clear that there is no tenancy the alleged tenant does upon the
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

Padilla, J. Aniceta allowed Remigio Isidro or agricultural/leasehold land. It is also a legal

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

their harvest as their shares.

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

When the subject parcel of land

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

Nicolas then asked for the

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

Although no agreement was

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

The trial court ruled in favor of

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

to pay them disturbance

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

The PARAB ruled in favor of the

tenants and ordered Philbancor
to execute the necessary Deed of
Redemption in favor of the
The DARAB and the CA
affirmed the decision.
Heirs of Roman Soriano v. CA A parcel of land originally W/N the ruling in the land NO. What is in issue in the land Security of tenure is a legal
GR No. 128177 owned by Adriano Soriano registration case in favor of the registration case was ownership. concession to agricultural lessees
15 August 2001 passed on to his heirs who leased spouses Abalos becomes res The security of tenure case which they value as life itself and
Ynares-Santiago, J. the same to the spouses de Vera judicata with respect to the before the DARAB involved the deprivation of their landholdings
for 15 years beginning 1967 security of tenure rights of the issue of possession. It is is tantamount to deprivation of
(until 1982). Roman, one heirs of Roman Soriano. important to note that although their only means of livelihood.
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

Adriano’s children, was to act as the spouses Abalos have been

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

granted by the RTC, and

affirmed both by the CA and SC.

In 1983, Roman, along with

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

In 1984, or 11 years after the

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

In 1993, the SC ultimately

dismissed Roman’s case of
annulment of document and/or
redemption, ownership, and
damages against the Abalos
spouses; as well as the motion
for execution instituted by the
Abalos spouses. Roman’s heirs
then filed with the DARAB a
complaint against the Abalos
spouses for “Security of Tenure
with prayer for Status Quo Order
and Preliminary Injunction.” The
Abalos spouses, on the other
hand, in view of the SC’s
disposition of the case, moved
for the issuance of an alias writ
of execution and/or writ of
possession to place them in
possession of the first and ¾ of
the second lot. The trial court
held this case in abeyance until
after DARAB resolves the
complaint filed by Roman’s
heirs. The Abalos spouses’ MR
was denied by the trial court, and
on appeal, the CA reversed the
RTC, ordering the issuance of
the writ of possession in favor of
the Abalos spouses.
Hernandez v. IAC The spouses Tolentino owned a W/N the watchers could be YES. The watchers have been in Where a person cultivates the
GR No. 74323 parcel of coconut land. They had considered as agricultural continuous, uninterrupted land and does not receive salaries
21 September 1990 persons living on the said land, tenants. physical possession of their but a share in the produce or the
Medialdea, J. who cleaned and cleared certain respective areas in the cash equivalent of his share in
portions of the plantation for the landholding, which they have lump, the relationship is one of
purpose of improving the cleaned and cleared for the tenancy and not employment.
harvest, were identified as purpose of improving the
“bantay” or watchers over the harvests; they have lived in the An important criterion in
property and entitled to 1/6 share landholding and constructed their determining whether the
in the harvest. Their houses were houses thereon; they were paid in relationship is one of share
built in a cluster inside the an amount equivalent to 1/6 of tenancy is cultivation.
property. the harvest during the ownership
of the Tolentino spouses, and The definition of cultivation is
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

Subsequently, SALES, Inc. was then later, 1/7 during the period not limited merely to the tilling,
able to acquire the land. Its of Wenceslao’s lease. Their plowing or harrowing of the land.
possession was relinquished to status as tenants based on the It includes the promotion of
Wenceslao Hernandez under a foregoing cannot be gainsaid. growth and the care of the plants,
civil law lease. The watchers’ Where they cultivated the land or husbanding the ground to
pay was reduced to 1/7 of the and did not receive salaries but a forward the products of the earth
harvest. However, from 1980 to share in the produce or the cash by general industry.
1983, they were not paid their equivalent of his share in lump,
shares. the relationship is one of tenancy It may be said that the caretaker
and not employment. The fact of an agricultural land can also
SALES, Inc. averred that the that they have huts erected on the be considered the cultivator of
watchers had been ejected from landholdings shows they are the land.
the land even before it acquired tenants.
the same; thus, they did not have RA 3844 abolished and outlawed
a right to a share of the harvests, share tenancy and put in its stead
since they were not tenants. It the agricultural leasehold system.
also claimed that under the lease RA 6389 subsequently declared
agreement, Hernandez was that share tenancy was contrary
forbidden to take any tenants, to public policy. Although share
and that these watchers were tenancy was statutorily
only subsequently hired as wage abolished, leasehold tenancy for
laborers to do the picking, coconut and sugar lands has not
gathering, and hauling of yet been implemented. The
cocounuts. The court ruled in policy makers of government are
favor of the watchers, and still studying the feasibility of its
declared them as tenants of application and the consequences
SALES, Inc. and Wenceslao of its implementation.
Hernandez. The latter were also Nonetheless, this did not end the
ordered to pay the former their rights of share tenants in these
unpaid shares in the harvest. The types of lands. The eventual goal
CA affirmed. of legislation of having strong
and independent farmers working
on lands which they own
Valencia v. CA When Victor Valencia acquired Can a contract of civil law lease YES. Sec. 6 of RA 3844 does not The right to hire a tenant is
GR No. 122363 two parcels of land, he entered prohibit a civil law lessee from automatically authorize a civil basically a personal right of a
29 April 2003 into civil law leases with employing a tenant on the land law lessee to employ a tenant landowner, except as may be
Bellosillo, J. Glicerio Henson and Fr. Andres subject matter of the lease without the consent of the provided by law. Inherent in the
Flores. Henson instituted agreement? landowner. The lessee must be so right of landholders to install a
Crescenciano and Marciano Frias specifically authorized. A tenant is their authority to do so;
to work on the property; while different interpretation would be otherwise, without such
Fr. Flores appointed the Friases, most unfair to the hapless and authority, civil law lessees as
plus some others, as farmhands. unsuspecting landowner who landholders cannot install a
However, in Fr. Flores’ lease entered into a civil law lease tenant on the landholding.
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

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

that he was prohibited from realize later on that he can no Tenancy relationship has been
installing a leasehold tenant longer regain possession of his held to be of a personal
thereon. No such prohibition property due to the installation of character.
existed in Henson’s contract. a tenant by the civil law lessee.
On the other hand, under the Deforciants cannot install lawful
When Fr. Flores’ lease period express provision of Art. 1649 of tenants who are entitled to
expired, Valencia ordered his the Civil Code, the lessee cannot security of tenure.
farmhands to vacate the lot. The assign the lease without the
farmhands refused to do so, and consent of the lessor, unless there A contract of civil law lease can
actually even secured CLTs over is a stipulation to the contrary. In prohibit a civil law lessee from
the land in their names. Catalino the case before us, not only is employing a tenant on the land
Mantac, one of the farmhands, there no stipulation to the subject matter of the lease
subsequently entered into a contrary; the lessee is expressly agreement.
leasehold contract undertaking to prohibited from subleasing or
have a profit-sharing agreement encumbering the land, which Essential requisites of a tenancy
with Valencia. includes installing a leasehold relationship:
tenant thereon since the right to (1) The parties are the
After 12 years, DAR investigated do so is an attribute of landowner and the
the matter and found that the ownership. tenant;
right of the farmhands to the land (2) The subject is
ceased upon the termination of agricultural land;
the lease contracts, except as (3) There is consent;
regards to Mantac, with whom (4) The purpose is
Valencia entered into a tenancy agricultural production;
agreement. As such, it was (5) There is personal
recommended that the CLTs cultivation; and
given to the other farmhands be (6) There is sharing of
cancelled. However, the harvests between the
Regional Office disregarded the parties.
investigation report and ruled
that the farmhands had a right to An allegation that an agricultural
continue on the land until tenant tilled the land in question
otherwise ordered by the court. does not make the case an
On appeal to the Office of the agrarian dispute. Claims that one
President, then Exec. Sec. is a tenant do not automatically
Teofisto Guingona upheld the give rise to security of tenure.
ruling of the DAR, with the The elements of tenancy must
modification that the area first be proved in order to entitle
acquired by Valencia as the claimant to security of tenure.
homestead be excluded from the
coverage of PD 27. The principal factor in
determining whether a tenancy
Valencia then appealed to the relationship exists is intent.
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

CA contending that the Exec. Tenancy is not a purely factual

Sec. erred in recognizing the relationship dependent on what
farmhands as tenants, and the alleged tenant does upon the
disallowing him and his 7 land. It is also a legal
compulsory heirs from relationship.
exercising their right of retention
under RA 6657. However, the The security of tenure guaranteed
CA dismissed the case. 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

Social justice is for the
deserving, whether he be a
millionaire in his mansion or a
pauper in his hovel. It is never
justified to give preference to the
poor simply because they are
poor, or reject the rich simply
because they are rich, for justice
must always be served for the
poor and the rich alike
according to the mandate of law.

Interpretare et concordare leges

legibus est optimus interpretandi
modus. – Interpreting and
harmonizing laws with laws is
the best method of interpretation.
Caballes v. DAR Andrea Millenes allowed W/N Abajon is an agricultural NO. To invest Abajon with the Essential requisites of a tenancy
GR No. 78214 Bienvenido Abajon to construct tenant. status of a tenant is preposterous. relationship:
5 December 1988 a house on a portion of her He only occupied a miniscule (7) The parties are the
Sarmiento, J. landholding, paying a monthly portion (60m2) of a 500m2 lot, landowner and the
rental of P2.00. Millenes which cannot by any stretch of tenant;
likewise allowed Abajon to plant imagination be considered as an (8) The subject is
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

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

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

On appeal, the DAR (the new

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