RA 1199, as amended by RA 2263 - Secs 3, 5(a), 5(b) SECTION 3. Agricultural Tenancy Defined.

— Agricultural tenancy is the physical possession by a person of land devoted to agriculture belonging to, or legally possessed by, another for the purpose of production through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household, in consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter, or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money, or in both. SECTION 5. Act: (a) A tenant shall mean a person who, himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by, another, with the latter's consent for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system. (b) A landholder shall mean a person, natural or juridical, who, either as owner, lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, lets or grants to another the use or cultivation of his land for a consideration either in shares under the share tenancy system, or a price certain or ascertainable under the leasehold tenancy system. Definitions of Terms. — As used in this

Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, until the end of the agricultural year when the National Land Reform Council proclaims that all the government machineries and agencies in that region or locality relating to leasehold envisioned in this Code are operating, unless such contracts provide for a shorter period or the tenant sooner exercise his option to elect the leasehold system: Provided, further, That in order not to jeopardize international commitments, lands devoted to crops covered by marketing allotments shall be made the subject of a separate proclamation that adequate provisions, such as the organization of cooperatives, marketing agreements, or other similar workable arrangements, have been made to insure efficient management on all matters requiring synchronization of the agricultural with the processing phases of such crops: Provided, furthermore, That where the agricultural share tenancy contract has ceased to be operative by virtue of this Code, or where such a tenancy contract has been entered into in violation of the provisions of this Code and is, therefore, null and void, and the tenant continues in possession of the land for cultivation , there shall be presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under the provisions of this Code, without prejudice to the right of the landowner and the former tenant to enter into any other lawful contract in relation to the land formerly under tenancy contract, as long as in the interim the security of tenure of the former tenant under Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, and as provided in this Code, is not impaired: Provided, finally, That if a lawful leasehold tenancy contract was entered into prior to the effectivity of this Code, the rights and obligations arising therefrom shall continue to subsist until modified by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Code. Section 5. Establishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The agricultural leasehold relation shall be established by operation of law in accordance with Section four of this Code and, in other cases, either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly. Section 6. Parties to Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The agricultural leasehold relation shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding , either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and the person who personally cultivates the same. Section 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the

RA 3844 Secs 4-38 AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD SYSTEM

Section 4. Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy - Agricultural share tenancy, as herein defined, is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy and shall be abolished: Provided, That existing share tenancy contracts may continue in force and effect in any region or locality, to be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of

DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -- Atty. Aison Garcia

JPBA 17June2013

agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided. Section 8. Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The agricultural leasehold relation established under this Code shall be extinguished by: (1) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural lessor; (2) Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural lessee, written notice of which shall be served three months in advance; or (3) Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to the lessee, in the event of death or permanent incapacity of the lessee. Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties - In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age: Provided, That in case the death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year: Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established. In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs. Section 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc. - The agricultural leasehold relation under this

Code shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor. Section 11. Lessee's Right of Pre-emption - In case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same under reasonable terms and conditions: Provided, That the entire landholding offered for sale must be pre-empted by the Land Authority if the landowner so desires, unless the majority of the lessees object to such acquisition: Provided, further, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said preferential right only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of preemption under this Section may be exercised within ninety days from notice in writing which shall be served by the owner on all lessees affected. Section 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption - In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be redeemed: Provided, further, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within two years from the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. Section 13. Affidavit Required in Sale of Land Subject to Right of Pre-emption - No deed of sale of agricultural land under cultivation by an agricultural lessee or lessees shall be recorded in the Registry of Property unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given the written notice required in Section eleven of this Chapter or that the land is not worked by an agricultural lessee. Section 14. Right of Pre-emption and Redemption Not Applicable to Land to be Converted into Residential, Industrial and Similar Purposes - The right of pre-emption and redemption granted under Sections eleven and twelve of this Chapter cannot be exercised over

DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -- Atty. Aison Garcia

JPBA 17June2013

Any contract by which the agricultural lessee is required to accept a loan or to make payment therefor in kind shall also be contrary to law. require the agricultural lessee and agricultural lessor to present their respective copies of the contract. Agricultural Leasehold Contract in General . intimidation. Each of the contracting parties shall retain a copy of the contract. That in case of a contract with a period an agricultural lessor may not. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. Except in case of mistake. Form and Registration of Contract . the agricultural leasehold contract shall be drawn in quadruplicate in a language or dialect known to the agricultural lessee and signed or thumb-marked both by the agricultural lessee personally and by the agricultural lessor or his authorized representative. That in no case shall any modification of its terms and conditions prejudice the right of the agricultural lessee to the security of his tenure on the landholding: Provided. violence. Section 16. Should the owner fail to comply with the above condition. Section 15. to be chosen by each party. That the tenure of one year shall cease to run from the time the agricultural lessee petitions the Land Authority to acquire the land under the provisions of paragraph 11 of Section fifty-one. or (b) that the agricultural lessee is required to perform any work or render any service other than his duties and obligations provided in this Chapter with or without compensation. Nature and Continuity of Conditions of Leasehold Contract .landholdings suitably located which the owner bought or holds for conversion into residential. or (c) that the agricultural lessee is required to answer for any fine. Section 18.In the absence of any agreement as to the period. further. The contracting parties shall acknowledge the execution of the contract before the justice of the peace of the municipality where the land is situated. upon the expiration of the period increase the rental except in accordance with the provisions of Section thirtyfour. industrial or other similar non-agricultural purposes: Provided. or to make use of any store or services operated by the agricultural lessor or a third person.Should the parties decide to reduce their agreement into writing. or (3) If it is imposed as a condition in the agricultural leasehold contract: (a) that the agricultural lessee is required to rent work animals or to hire farm implements from the agricultural lessor or a third person. No fees or stamps of any kind shall be required in the preparation and acknowledgment of the instrument. upon receipt of his copy of the contract. condition or stipulation in an agricultural leasehold contract is considered contrary to law. morals or public policy. deductions and/or assessments. shall be conclusive between the contracting parties. however. If the agricultural lessee does not know how to read. for the use of work animals and/or farm implements belonging to the agricultural lessor or to any other person. A term. or fraud.The municipal treasurer shall. however. conditions or stipulations in a leasehold contract. and shall cause to be annotated thereon the date. the terms and conditions of a leasehold contract shall continue until modified by the parties: Provided. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . Registration of Leasehold Contract . Section 17. morals or public policy: (1) If the agricultural lessee is required to pay a rental in excess of that which is hereinafter provided for in this Chapter. That the conversion be in good faith and is substantially carried out within one year from the date of sale. undue influence. an agricultural contract reduced in writing and registered as hereinafter provided. the contents of the document shall be read and explained to him by his witness. The justice of the peace shall cause the third copy to be delivered to the municipal treasurer of the municipality where the land is located and the fourth copy to the Office of the Agrarian Counsel. before two witnesses. if not denounced or impugned within thirty days after its registration. (2) If the agricultural lessee is required to pay a consideration in excess of the fair rental value as defined herein.Atty. morals or public policy. time and place of registration as well as its entry or registration number.The agricultural lessor and the agricultural lessee shall be free to enter into any kind of terms. commercial. the agricultural lessee shall have the right to repurchase under reasonable terms and conditions said landholding from said owner within one year after the aforementioned period for conversion has expired: Provided. as long as they are not contrary to law.

Section 22. Section 24. Rights of Agricultural Lessee in General . Right to a Home Lot . Registry of Agricultural Leasehold Contracts . and (4) To deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance of quedans and warehouse receipts for the produce due him. and signed or thumb-marked by him. without prejudice to his direct action against the trespasser.The agricultural lessee shall have the right to continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any home lot he may have occupied upon the effectivity of this Code. which shall be considered as included in the leasehold. Right to be Indemnified for Labor . Section 23.Atty. He shall keep this registry together with a copy of each contract entered therein. Obligations of the Lessee . In addition. Section 21.The agricultural lessee shall have the right to be indemnified for the cost and expenses incurred in the cultivation. That these improvements are tangible and have not yet lost their utility at the time of surrender and/or abandonment of the landholding. and make annotations on said registry of all subsequent acts relative to each contract. Section 25. planting or harvesting and other expenses incidental to the improvement of his crop in case he surrenders or abandons his landholding for just cause or is ejected therefrom. (3) To mechanize all or any phase of his farm work.It shall be the obligation of the agricultural lessee: (1) To cultivate and take care of the farm.No obligation to pay money on account of loans including interest thereon obtained by the agricultural lessee from the agricultural lessor or his representative shall be enforceable unless the same or a memorandum thereof be in writing in a language or dialect known to the agricultural lessee. That their value does not exceed one thousand pesos. the accepted standards of weights and measures shall be used. upon agreement of the parties. and other improvements on the landholding as a good father of a family and perform all the work therein in accordance with proven farm practices. etc. and (2) Work animals and farm implements belonging to the agricultural lessee: Provided. such as its renewal.Section 19. growing crops. Use of Accepted Standards of Weights and Measures In all transactions entered into between the agricultural lessee and the agricultural lessor concerning agricultural products the official or.The Municipal Treasurer of the municipality wherein the land is situated shall keep a record of all such contracts drawn and executed within his jurisdiction. But no article or species of property mentioned in this Section shall be exempt from execution issued upon a judgment recovered for its price or upon a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage thereon. (2) To manage and work on the land in a manner and method of cultivation and harvest which conform to proven farm practices.The following shall be exempt from lien and/or execution against the agricultural lessee: (1) Twenty-five per centum of the entire produce of the land under cultivation. Exemption from Lien and/or Execution . to be known as "Registry of Agricultural Leasehold Contracts". (3) To take reasonable care of the work animals and farm implements delivered to him by the agricultural lessor and see that they are not used for purposes other than those DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. No registration fees or documentary stamps shall be required in the registration of said contracts or of any subsequent acts relative thereto. he has the right to be indemnified for one-half of the necessary and useful improvements made by him on the landholding: Provided.It shall be the right of the agricultural lessee: (1) To have possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land. at which time their value shall be determined for the purpose of the indemnity for improvements. (2) To inform the agricultural lessor within a reasonable time of any trespass committed by third persons upon the farm. Section 20. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . novation. Section 26. cancellation. or by his agent. Memorandum of Loans .

be forfeited in favor of the agricultural lessor to the extent of the damage caused thereby.intended or used by another without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor: Provided. Section 29. upon order of the Court. or (2) To employ a sub-lessee on his landholding: Provided. if the first landholding is of sufficient size to make him and the members of his immediate farm household fully occupied in its cultivation. (2) Non-compliance on the part of the agricultural lessor with any of the obligations imposed upon him by the provisions of this Code or by his contact with the agricultural lessee. or (5) Voluntary surrender due to circumstances more advantageous to him and his family. and (6) To pay the lease rental to the agricultural lessor when it falls due.It shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessee: (1) To contract to work additional landholdings belonging to a different agricultural lessor or to acquire and personally cultivate an economic family-size farm.Atty. or said farm implements get lost or are destroyed. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . That if said work animals get lost or die. without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor with whom he had entered first into household. any or all of his expected produce may. (5) To notify the agricultural lessor at least three days before the date of harvesting or. however. taking into consideration his financial capacity and the credit facilities available to him. whenever applicable. (3) Compulsion of the agricultural lessee or any member of his immediate farm household by the agricultural lessor to do any work or render any service not in any way connected with farm work or even without compulsion if no compensation is paid. inhuman or offensive. however. further. That in no case shall an agricultural lessee be ejected as a consequence of the conversion of the land to some other agricultural purpose or because of a change in the crop to be planted. Section 27. Termination of Leasehold by Agricultural Lessee During Agricultural Year . or in the kind of crops to be planted: Provided.The agricultural lessee may terminate the leasehold during the agricultural year for any of the following causes: (1) Cruel. death or destruction. (3) To require the agricultural lessee. of threshing. the same shall be settled by the Court according to the best interest of the parties concerned: Provided. Section 28. That in case of illness or temporary incapacity he may employ laborers whose services on his landholding shall be on his account.It shall be the right of the agricultural lessor: (1) To inspect and observe the extent of compliance with the terms and conditions of their contract and the provisions of this Chapter. treatment of the agricultural lessee or any member of his immediate farm household by the agricultural lessor or his representative with the knowledge and consent of the lessor. Rights of the Agricultural Lessor . Prohibitions to Agricultural Lessee . he shall be held responsible and made answerable therefor to the extent of the value of the work animals and/or farm implements at the time of the loss. (4) To keep his farm and growing crops attended to during the work season. to adopt in his farm proven farm practices DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. (2) To propose a change in the use of the landholding to other agricultural purposes. through the negligence of the agricultural lessee. That in case of disagreement as to the proposed change. (4) Commission of a crime by the agricultural lessor or his representative against the agricultural lessee or any member of his immediate farm household. In case of unjustified abandonment or neglect of his farm.

the same shall be settled by the Court according to the best interest of the parties concerned. provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding. maintenance or growth of unions or organizations of agricultural lessees in his landholding. Section 30.Atty. or (5) To discourage. pay the lessee or his heir the reasonable value of the improvement at the time of the termination: Provided. in money or in kind or in both. and (4) To mortgage expected rentals.The consideration for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five per centum of the average normal harvest during the three agricultural years immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established after deducting the amount used for DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. Consideration for the Lease of Riceland and Lands Devoted to Other Crops . That if the agricultural lessor refuses to bear the expenses of construction the agricultural lessee or lessees may shoulder the same.It shall be the obligation of the agricultural lessor: (1) To keep the agricultural lessee in peaceful possession and cultivation of his landholding. Section 33. make a deposit or pay the rental in advance. directly or indirectly. but a special and preferential lien is hereby created in favor of the agricultural lessor over such portion of the gross harvest necessary for the payment of the rental due in his favor. if not in kind. Section 34.The consideration for the lease of the land shall be paid in an amount certain in money or in produce. the payment of the taxes or part thereof levied by the government on the landholding. payable at the place agreed upon by the parties immediately after threshing or processing if the consideration is in kind. assist or interfere in the formation or administration of any such union or organization. (2) To require the agricultural lessee to assume. the agricultural lessor shall be liable for damages suffered by the agricultural lessee in addition to the fine or imprisonment prescribed in this Code for unauthorized dispossession. (4) To deal with millers or processors without written authorization of the lessee in cases where the crop has to be sold in processed form before payment of the rental. improvement of its fertility and increase of its productivity: Provided. directly or indirectly. Cost of Irrigation System . That if the irrigation system constructed does not work. it shall not be considered as an improvement within the meaning of this Section. the formation. Should the agricultural lessee be dispossessed of his landholding without authorization from the Court. Prohibitions to the Agricultural Lessor . In no case shall the agricultural lessor require the agricultural lessee to file a bond. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . "canon" or other consideration which the agricultural lessor is under obligation to pay to third persons for the use of the land.necessary to the conservation of the land . Time and Place of Rental Payment . including distributory canals. upon the termination of the relationship. any part of the rent. and (2) To keep intact such permanent useful improvements existing on the landholding at the start of the leasehold relation as irrigation and drainage system and marketing allotments.It shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessor: (1) To dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding except upon authorization by the Court under Section thirty-six. Manner. directly or indirectly. or within a reasonable time thereafter. Section 32. or to initiate. (3) To require the agricultural lessee to assume. which in the case of sugar quotas shall refer both to domestic and export quotas. in which case the former shall not be entitled to an increase in rental and shall. may be borne exclusively by the agricultural lessor who shall be entitled to an increase in rental proportionate to the resultant increase in production: Provided. Section 31. or both. dominate. Obligations of the Agricultural Lessor . That in case of disagreement as to what proven farm practice the lessee shall adopt. further.The cost of construction of a permanent irrigation system.

hospital or school site or other useful non-agricultural purposes: Provided. the rental shall be increased proportionately to the consequent increase in production due to said improvements. That if capital improvements are introduced on the farm not by the lessee to increase its productivity. threshing. the nonpayment shall not be a ground for dispossession. coffee. is not more than five hectares. (3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon. Section 35. shall be governed by the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine.Atty. saltbeds. That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his landholding in addition to his rights under Sections twenty-five and thirty-four. Exceptions Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender. the final consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest during these three preceding agricultural years: Provided. into residential. as amended. whichever are applicable: Provided. it shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have the right to demand possession of the land and recover damages for any loss incurred by him because of said dispossessions. further. although the obligation to pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished. In case of disagreement. (5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lessee. furthermore. and lands principally planted to citrus. (2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure. hauling and processing. finally. Section 36. loading. an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that: (1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the landholding. That in the absence of any agreement between the parties as to the rental. further. coconuts. the maximum allowed herein shall apply: Provided. and other similar permanent trees at the time of the approval of this Code. if that harvest is normal: Provided. That should the landholder not cultivate the land himself for three years or fail to substantially carry out such conversion within one year after the dispossession of the tenant. cacao. (6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due: Provided.seeds and the cost of harvesting. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. That after the lapse of the first three normal harvests. or on the harvest of the first year in the case of newly-cultivated lands. That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous event. or (7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of the terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . the consideration. except when the land owned and leased by the agricultural lessor. in the case of fishponds. of the land. as well as the tenancy system prevailing. the initial consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest during the preceding years when the land was actually cultivated. if suitably located. durian. Possession of Landholding. the Court shall determine the reasonable increase in rental. in which case instead of disturbance compensation the lessee may be entitled to an advanced notice of at least one agricultural year before ejectment proceedings are filed against him: Provided. (4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as determined under paragraph 3 of Section twentynine. factory. Exemption from Leasehold of Other Kinds of Lands Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Sections. That if the land has been cultivated for a period of less than three years.

Section 37. Statute of Limitations . 1950. Macaya brought the matter to the Department (now Ministry) of Agrarian Reforms. . so he could at the same time guard it from squatters and theft. but only for his personal needs. but he did not vacate as promised and instead expanded the area he was working on. RULING: NO. This increased to 20 cavans effective 1963. the owners found it very burdensome and requested help from Macaya. On January 31. ISSUE: Whether or not a tenancy relationship exists between the parties. Inc. he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws. and 5) there is consideration (Agustin.. Teodoro Macaya went to Manotok and pleaded to live on the Balara property. the property-owners organized themselves into a corporation. From 1946 to 1956. 1974. Manotok Realty. This is so because unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant. there were no tenants or other persons occupying the said property. The essential requisites of tenancy relationship are: 1) the parties are the landholder and the tenant. In 1976.An action to enforce any cause of action under this Code shall be barred if not commenced within three years after such cause of action accrued. J. p. Inc. Elements 1) Parties are owner/possessor and tenant 2) Subject is agricultural land 3) Consen 4) Purpose is agricultural production 5) Consideration 6) Personal cultivation Cases: o Cayetano and Tiongson vs CA (G. he contribute only 10 cavans. Inc. Macaya informed Manotoc.) Macaya was informed by the Manotoks that they needed the property to construct their houses. Section 38. Conditions were not put in writing. Latter ruled Macaya was never a share or leasehold tenant. Manotok Realty. Manotok allowed Macaya to stay as a guard (bantay) with the condition that (1) he would vacate anytime the owners wanted or needed to take over the property (2) he alone could raise animals and plants. 19). On December 5. All these requisites are necessary in order to create tenancy relationship between the parties and the absence of one or more requisites do not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant. 2) the subject is agricultural land. FACTS: In 1946. Macaya did not pay in cash or in kind for his occupancy or use of the property. Macaya agreed but pleaded he be allowed to harvest first the planted rice.. Macaya was allowed to use only 3 hectares. 4) the purpose is agricultural production. The owners transferred the 34-hectare lot to the corporation. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . Manotoks threatened to bulldoze Macaya's landholding thus prompting Macaya to file an action for peaceful possession. In 1967. Severino Manotok donated and transferred to his 8 children and two 2 grandchildren. He further requested that in the ensuring years. 1981. a thirty-four-hectare lot located in Payong. he could not afford to deliver anymore palay because they dried up.Atty. Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines. When realty taxes increased considerably. Thus. JR. At that time. No. from 1967 up to 1976.The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor. and that (3) the owners would have no responsibility or liability for said activities of Macaya.: NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA declaring the existence of a landholder-tenant relationship and ordering Macaya’s reinstatement.R. 3) there is consent. Burden of Proof . Old Balara. Quezon City covered by a certificate of title. On appeal. this was reversed. Macaya did not deliver any. and damages with preliminary injunction before the Court of Agrarian Relations. (Manotoks etc. the Manotoks again made demands for Macaya to vacate. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. L-62626) GUTIERREZ. as contra-distinguished from a de jure tenant. Corporation said he might as well not deliver. The latter agreed started remitting 10 cavans of palay every year as his contribution for realty taxes beginning 1957. executed a "Unilateral Deed of Conveyance" of the property in favor of Patricia Tiongson et al. injunction. Macaya had increased his area from three (3) hectares to six (6) hectares without knowledge or consent of the owners..

It bears re-emphasizing that from 1946 to 1956. he did not contribute to the real estate taxes even as he dealt with the land as if it were his own. The facts of the case show that even Mr. 78214) SARMIENTO. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 .: NATURE: Before us is a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of an Order issued by the public respondent Ministry of Agrarian Reform . the trial court observed that the property in question previous to 1946 had never been tenanted. The situation was rather strange had there been a tenancy agreement between Don Severino and Macaya. This landholding is part of Lot No. Macaya and his family. weeding and application of insecticides.Atty. with a total area of about 500 square meters. The fact that a caretaker plants rice or corn on a residential lot in the middle of a residential subdivision in the heart of a metropolitan area cannot by any strained interpretation of law convert it into agricultural land and subject it to the agrarian reform program. thus consolidating ownership over the entire (500-square meter) property in favor of the petitioner. Neither can such relationship be implied from the facts as there was no agreed system of sharing the produce of the property. fertilizers. He abused the generosity of the petitioners when he expanded the permitted area for cultivation from three hectares to six or eight hectares.R. etc. private respondent Bienvenido Abajon constructed his house on a portion of the said landholding.The key factor in ascertaining whether or not there is a landowner-tenant relationship in this case is the nature of the disputed property. Going over the third requisite which is consent. From 1967 to the present. not in farming. The lower court further considered the fact that the amount of ten (10) cavans of palay given by Macaya to the owners from 1957 to 1964 which was later increased to twenty (20) cavans of palay from 1964 to 1966 was grossly disproportionate to the amount of taxes paid by the owners. The petitioners did not get anything from the harvest and private respondent Macaya was using and cultivating the land free from any charge or expense.00 to the owner. May Macaya be considered as a tenant and Manotok as a landholder? Significant. 3109-C. The lot was taxed as residential land in a metropolitan area. The decision of the petitioners not to ask for anymore contributions from Macaya reveals that there was no tenancy relationship ever agreed upon by the parties. finding the existence of a tenancy relationship between petitioner and the private respondent and certifying the criminal case for malicious mischief filed by the petitioner against the private respondent as not proper for trial. Macaya did not deliver any cavans of palay to the petitioners as the latter felt that if Macaya could no longer deliver the twenty (20) cavans of palay. he might as well not deliver any. The last requisite is consideration. The Manotok family is engaged in the business of developing subdivisions in Metro Manila. the lower court concluded that no tenancy relationship was entered into between them as tenant and landholder. the tax declarations of real property and the annual receipts for real estate taxes paid have always classified the land as "residential". University of the Philippines and near some fast growing residential subdivisions. The remainder of the lot was subsequently sold to the spouses by Macario Alicaba and the other members of the Millenes family. raising animals and planting crops for personal use. From 1967 to the present. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. is that the parties have not agreed as to their contributions of the several items of productions such as expenses for transplanting. as the trial court noted. FACTS: The land. he lived on the property. Cebu. o Caballes vs DAR (G. However. the petitioners have been overly generous and understanding of Macaya's problems. For ten years from 1946 to 1956. Macaya has refused to vacate extremely valuable residential land contrary to the clear agreement when he was allowed to enter it. From the year 1948 up to the present. J. Mr. consisting in 60 square meters was acquired by the spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes through Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Andrea Alicaba Millenes. There was clearly no intention on the part of the owners to devote the property for agricultural production but only for residential purposes. Macaya did not consider himself as a true and lawful tenant and did not hold himself out as one until he was asked to vacate the property. We can understand the sympathy and compassion which courts of justice must feel for people in the same plight as Mr. In 1975. In the absence of an agreement as to the respective contributions of the parties or other terms and conditions of their tenancy agreement. Andrea Millenes. there was no agreement as to any system of sharing the produce of the land. with only his services as "bantay" compensating for the use of another's property. before the sale in favor of the Caballes spouses. paying a monthly rental of P2. No. in Lawaan Talisay.

saying that they needed it. testified that Bienvenido Abajon dutifully gave her 50% share of the produce of the land under his cultivation. so they persuaded him to transfer to the southern portion of the landholding.00. the landowner. alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding. Roger Millenes. During those four years. Sixty square meters of land planted to bananas. RA 3844. and corn cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered as an economic family-size farm. Regional Director of MAR Regional VII.00 rental for the lot occupied by his house. From 1975-1977. 4003 was not proper for hearing. and reasonable reserves to absorb yearly fluctuations in income. 4) The purpose is agricultural production." the MAR ruled that 'the new owners are legally bound to respect the tenancy. finding the existence of a tenancy relationship and that the case was designed to harass the accused. executed an Affidavit stating that that after she reprimanded Abajon for harvesting bananas and jackfruit from the property without her knowledge. (3) case arose in connection with agrarian relations. shelter.Atty. the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor. and that he took on carpentry jobs on the side. 4003 as proper for trial as "the land involved is a residential lot consisting of only 60 square meters whereon the house of the accused is constructed and within the industrial zone of the town as evinced from the Certification issued by the Zoning Administrator. now DAR. camote. The grandson of Andrea Millenes. defines an economic family-size farm as "an area of farm land that permits efficient use of labor and capital resources of the farm family and will produce an income sufficient to provide a modest standard of living to meet a farm family's needs for food. The private respondent himself admitted that he did not depend on the products of the land because it was too small. DARreversed the previous certificationdeclaring Criminal Case No. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . Former landowner. A criminal case for malicious mischief was filed against Abajon. Abajon filed a motion for reconsideration. and 6) There is sharing of harvests. The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: 1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant. In 1978. Roger Millenes further testified that the present owners received in his presence a bunch of bananas from the accused gathered after Caballes had acquired the property. and that "(I)n case the agricultural lessor sells. The parties had a confrontation before the Barangay but failed to reach an agreement. and education with possible allowance for payment of yearly installments on the land. the spouses asked Abajon to vacate the premises." 8 The private respondent only occupied a miniscule portion (60 square meters) of the 500-square meter lot. Yolanda Caballes. invoking Sec. clothing. but they refused. 10 of RA 3844. consisting merely of three (3) meters wide and twenty (20) meters long. thus. as amended which provides that "[T]he agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale. 4 DAR concluded that Abajon was a tenant of Andrea Millenes. Andrea Millenes. The trial court referred the case to MAR for preliminary determination of the relationship between the parties. and delivered 50% of the produce to Andrea Millenes. Petitioner appealed to the then MAR. (2) case is filed patently to harass and/or eject the tenant from his farmholding. RULING: NO. Abajon offered to pay the new owners rental on the land occupied by his house. 10 of RA 3844. notwithstanding their claim that the portion tilled by Abajon was small. the latter cut down the banana plants worth about P50. after the property was sold. he stopped planting corn but continued to plant bananas and camote. Abajon planted corn and bananas on the landholding. All the efforts to oust Abajon from the landholding were in vain as the latter simply refused. Abajon refused. 2) The subject is agricultural land. on the basis that: (1) accused is a bona-fide tenant of the land which is devoted to bananas. and DAR set aside the previous Order. 1982. as amended. alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding". issued a certification stating that said Criminal Case No. Sometime in March 1979. On April 1. 3) There is consent. Later. or a total of sixty (60) square meters. corroborated the testimony. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. he paid the P2. 5) There is personal cultivation. the spouses told Abajon that they intend to build a poultry close to his house.The landowner likewise allowed Abajon to plant on a portion of the land." ISSUE: W/N Abajon holds tenant status and can therefore benefit from Sec. agreeing that the produce thereof would be shared by both on a fitfy-fifty basis.

On November 27. 1981. a native way of expressing gratitude for favor received. the CAR admitted additional evidence. Tenancy status arises only if an occupant of a parcel of land has been given its possession for the primary purpose of agricultural production. Corazon Pengzon testified that she owned only two lots. 1980 that he came to know that a portion of the 2 hectares is already owned by the Hilarios. or even 500.740 square meters. Corazon Pengson further explained that she did not receive any share from the produce of the land from 1964 up to the filing of the case and she would not have accepted any share from the produce of the land because she Hilario vs. the fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land. The other 2 lots were owned by Ruben Ocampo and Juan Mendoza. it is clear that the private respondent was never a tenant of the former owner. 1982. Vda." hence. Salvador Baltazar appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).spouses Hilario began to threaten him to desist from entering and cultivating a portion of the aforesaid land and committed acts in violation of his security of tenure Hilarios plan to put up of a fence around the land and that unless restrained by the court. Consequently.: NATURE: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision declaring Salvador Baltazar a leasehold tenant entitled to security of tenure. This is a typical and laudable provinciano trait of sharing or patikim. CAR ruled that the land in question is not an agricultural landholding but plain "bakuran. On January 30. or a planter thereon. ISSUE: W/N Baltazar is a tenant. and planted. de Balagtas. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . The evidence presented by the petitioners is more than sufficient to justify the conclusion that private respondent Salvador Baltazar is not a tenant of the landholding in question. it is not unusual for a landowner to accept some of the produce of his land from someone who plants certain crops thereon. the heart of an industrial or commercial zone at that. he allegedly gave the share pertaining to the landowner to her daughter Corazon Pengzon. or a cultivator thereof. Agricultural production as the primary purpose being absent in the arrangement. No. J. remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings on the ground that the findings of CAR were not substantial. as amended. they would continue to do so to his great irreparable injury. with a total area of 1. CAR found that there was no tenancy relationship existing between Baltazar and the former owner. December 27. Bulacan previously owned Socorro Vda. 70736) GUTIERREZ. He built his house. Baltazar is not a tenant on the land.Atty. 1955 he had been in continuous possession as a share tenant of a 2 hectare land in San Miguel.All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. the private respondent is not a tenant of the herein petitioner. In compliance with the order of the Court of Appeals. a de jure tenant. Therefore. the Court of Appeals. RULING: NO. produce of which was divided at 70-30 and 50-50 (sic) in his favor. Simply stated. does not automatically make the tiller-sharer a tenant thereof specially when the area tilled is only 60. Baltazar claims that he became a tenant of Socorro P. who aver they acquired the landholding from PNB after it had been foreclosed by virtue of a deed of sale. she declared the property for classification purposes as "bakuran" located in the Poblacion and had no knowledge that there were other things planted in it except bananas and pomelos. 1980 . Certainly. JR. does not apply. which reversed the decision.We find no valid reason to deviate from the findings of the CAR. 1979 DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. Andrea Millenes. Sec. de Balagtas by virtue of a "Kasunduan" executed on January 8. This. IAC (G.. Corazon Pengzon.R. In December. After Socorro died. She further testified that in 1964 at the time of the partition of the property. square meters and located in an urban area and in. FACTS: Salvador Baltazar filed a verified complaint with the CAR in Bulacan alleging that since January. however. 10 of RA of 3844.

and.000 square meters. their written agreements. surviving spouse of the late Salvador Carillo (and [respectively the] mother and mother-in-law of the other [private] respondents). that as tenants.. more or less. petitioner Lourdes Peña Qua filed a complaint for ejectment with damages against private respondents claiming that she is the owner of a parcel of residential land in Albay." The respondent court ruled that the fact that the land in question is located in the poblacion does not necessarily make it residential. Such being the case. Baltazar made a vague allegation that he Qua vs CA (G. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -." The respondent court also failed to note that the alleged tenant pays no rental or share to the landowners. alleged that the lot in question is a farm lot [home lot] because she and her late husband were tenants of the same including the two other lots adjoining the lot which also belong to petitioner.. 25. We note that the evidence presented by the petitioners sufficiently establishes that the land in question is residential and not agricultural.knew pretty well that she was no longer the owner of the lot since 1974 when it was foreclosed by the bank and later on purchased by the spouses Hilarios.. this Court had the occasion to explain: xxx xxx xxx shared 70-30 and 50-50 of the produce in his favor. as in this case. o .. This is so because unless a person has established his status as a dejure tenant. The twohectare land subject of plaintiff's alleged contract with Socorro Balagtas having been parcelled into seven (7) and possession thereof relinquished/surrendered in 1965 results in the termination of plaintiff's tenancy relationship with the previous owner/landholder. cited above that: All these requisites are necessary in order to create tenancy relationship between the parties and the absence of one or more requisites do not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant as contra-distinguished from a de jure tenant. Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. the house of Carmen Carillo and the other two houses. No. The owner thereof Corazon Pengson has no tenancy relationship with him (plaintiff). they could not just be ejected without cause. MC ruled against Carillo and ordered them to vacate and remove house and repairshop. Court of Appeals. Rollo) From the foregoing. 95318) – Personal Cultivation FACTS: [O]n July 17.R. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws . And in the case of Tuazon v. Court of Appeals (supra) "the key factor in ascertaining whether or not there is a landowner-tenant relationship in this case is the nature of the disputed property. have not been met by the private respondent. We held in Tiongson v. all owned by private respondents. and that said respondents' stay in the land was by mere tolerance and they are in fact nothing but squatters who settled on the land without any agreement. nor realty taxes to the government. it is clear that Coraz• n Pengson did not give her consent to Baltazar to work on her land consisting of only 1. with an area of 346 square meters. The conclusion is purely speculative and conjectural. to wit: (1) The parties are the landholder and tenant. and pay petitioner’s attorney’s fees and monthly rental of P200. Inside the land in question is an auto repair shop and three houses. he cannot now claim that the landholding in question consisting of 4. The intent of the parties.Atty.740 square meters. (emphasis supplied). provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law. (3) The purpose is agricultural production. and (4) There is consideration. (p. is being cultivated by him under the old contract. Private respondent Carmen Carillo. The former owner flatly denied that she ever received anything from him. paying no rent to her. that it was not petitioner who instituted them as tenants in the land in question but the former owner. We note the CAR's finding: Tenancy relationship is indivisible. (2) The subject is agricultural land. It is also a legal relationship. As we stated in Tiongson v. The requirements set by law for the existence of a tenancy relationship. registered in her name. 1986. are even more important. Leovigildo Peña who permitted the construction of the auto repair shop. Court of Appeals (118 SCRA 484). the understanding when the farmer is installed.

private respondent Carmen Carillo is not entitled to be considered an agricultural tenant. o Guerrero vs. thus: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant. believing that they are all tenants of the [petitioner]. 3844. In the 346 square meters lot stand (sic) four (4) structures. or else they should have immediately replanted coconut trees in place of those that did not survive. During harvest time. 1199. He had to husk and split the nuts and then process its meat into copra. as amended. the use and possession of a home lot. It is also intimated by the Regional Trial Court that there is no direct evidence to confirm that the parties herein observed the sharing scheme allegedly setup between private respondents and petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. private respondents FACTS: In 1969. the case was dismissed. For attending to the cows he was paid P500 a year. crazing within their 21-hectare coconut plantation in Aurora.R. [to wit]: an auto repair shop.057) square meters. He felt aggrieved and he brought the matter to the attention of the Office of Special Unit in the Office of the President. In addition to attending to the cows. he also cleaned the fruitbearing coconut trees. But found standing in the area in question or in the entire three (3) lots are only seven (7) coconut trees. having earned. the location of their auto repair shop being near the poblacion and along the highway. Such an evidence (sic) is very untruthful. CA (G. to let plaintiff work on the 16-hectare portion of the plantation as tenant guided by the provisions of republic Act No. 16 only to persons satisfying the qualifications of agricultural tenants of coconut lands.) chose to neglect the cultivation and propagation of coconuts. Sometime in 1973. For his work related to the coconuts. a house of [private respondent] Carmen Carillo and two (2) other houses owned or occupied by the rest of the [private respondents] . in other words. more or less. No. plaintiff Apolinario Benitez was taken by defendantsspouses Manuel and Maria Guerrero to care for their 60 cows. (3) the purpose is agricultural production. Indeed. 1199. L-44570) – Cultivation It is clear from the foregoing that the source of livelihood of private respondents is not derived from the lots they are allegedly tenanting.Atty. through the automobile repair shop. could not even suffice [to pay] the amount of taxes of the land (sic) paid 7 religiously by the [petitioner] yearly. now marked as Exh. This led to an execution of an agreement.. unless it is a seed bed for coconut trees as the area is so limited. Quezon. . finding Carillo to be an agricultural tenant. more than enough not only for their livelihood but also for the construction of two other dwelling houses thereon. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . 13 Under the foregoing. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. Regional Trial Court 6 made the following observations: The land in question is a measly three hundred forty six (346) square meters and adjoining another two (2) lots which are separately titled having two thousand four hundred thirteen (2. whereby defendants agreed. among others. (2) the subject is agricultural land. or over a hectare of land owned by the plaintiff or by her predecessorsin-interest. he shared 1/3 of the proceeds from the copra he processed and sold in the market.On appeal. and (4) there is consideration. she may be not allowed the use of a home lot.298) square meters –– the three (3) lots having a total area of eleven thousand fifty seven (11. . burn dried leaves and grass and to do such other similar chores. that (6) there is personal cultivation by him and that the consideration consists of sharing the harvest. he picked coconuts and gather the fallen ones from a 16-hectare portion of the 21hectare plantation. D. RULING: NO. The essential requisites set by law for the existence of a tenancy relationship. The share. This conclusion is further supported by private respondent Carmen Carillo's assertion that the auto repair shop was constructed with the consent of petitioner's predecessor-in-interest for whom her husband served as a drivermechanic. Claimed. Therefore. the [private respondents] almost converted the entire area as their home lot for their personal aggrandizement. ISSUE: whether or not private respondents possess the status of agricultural tenants entitled to. it is also apparent that making the same agriculturally viable was not the main purpose of their occupancy. (Emphasis supplied. 12 It is also understood that (5) there is consent to the tenant to work on the land. plaintiff was refrained from gathering nuts from the 10hectare portion where he used to gather nuts. if ever there was/were. Benitez was allowed to put up a hut where he and his family stayed.413) square meters and eight thousand two hundred ninety eight (8. the defendants planted five hundred (500) coconut trees and only fifty (50) coconut trees survived in the land in question and/or in the entire area of the three lots. as amended. in relation to Section 22 (3) of Republic Act No. a privilege granted by Section 35 of Republic Act No. 8 From private respondents' manner of caring for the lots. the harvest of which is [allegedly] 2/3 share for the [petitioner] and the 1/3 share for the [private respondents].

although at times with the aid of hired laborers. Respondent Benitez has physically possessed the landholding continuously from 1969 until he was ejected from it. He built his house as an annex to the petitioner's copra kiln. Guerreros also caused to be demolished a part of the cottage where plaintiff and his family lived. Philippine Law Dictionary. Holes are merely dug on the ground of sufficient depth and distance. The mere fact that it was not respondent Benitez who had actually seeded the land does not mean that he is not a tenant of the land. The petitioners' arguments which would use the enactment of the Agrarian Reform Code as the basis for setting back or eliminating the tenurial rights of the tenant have no merit. Laxamana suffered damages in the amount of P500. the tenant has the right to continue working until such relationship is extinguished according to law. applying fertilizer.The Guerreros. wherever it may be implemented. 1972 Edition). Respondent Laxamana alleged he had been a bonafide tenant of the land since 1958 until the petitioners took possession sometime in 1984. It is true that leasehold tenancy for coconut lands and sugar lands has not yet been implemented. Hence. has the temporary use and occupation of land or tenements belonging to another (Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Then it is cultivated by smudging or smoking the plantation. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . No. an action for recovery of possession was instituted by the Laxamana against the petitioners over a parcel of agricultural land in Capas. Espinelli. A hired laborer would not build his own house at his expense at the risk of losing the same upon his dismissal or termination any time. de Leon. Cultivation is another important factor in determining the existence of tenancy relationships. thereby increasing the produce. he is a tenant. Legislation still has to be enacted. a tenant being one who. or husbanding the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry. the planting of coconut seedlings does not need harrowing and plowing. Records establish the private respondents' status as agricultural tenants under the legal definitions. II. the seedlings placed in the holes and the surface thereof covered by soil. Respondent Benitez lives on the landholding. making plaintiffs feel that they (defendants) meant business. The definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling. Such conduct is more consistent with that of an agricultural tenant who enjoys security of tenure under the law. Tarlac.Atty. weeding and watering. 105 Phil. for unknown reasons and without the knowledge of respondent Laxamana. thus. Further indicating the existence of a tenancy relationship between petitioners and respondent is their agreement to share the produce or harvest on a "tercio basis" that is. Right of security of tenure Cases: o Talavera vs CA (G. Vol. Though not a positive indication of the existence of tenancy relations perse the sharing of harvest taken together with other factors characteristic of tenancy shown to be present in the case at bar. supra Marcelo vs. Due to their actions.R. p. Proof needed FACTS: On July 10. The policy makers of government are still studying the feasibility of its application and the consequences of its implementation. taking care of the coconut trees. ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff is the tenant on the coconut landholding in question RULING: YES. Unlike rice. Some coconut trees are planted only every thirty to a hundred years. The raising of coconuts is a unique agricultural enterprise. 1958 but the petitioners. He had been in continuous possession and cultivation of the said landholding. 3254) for the purpose of production (Sec. not a mere farm laborer. delos Reyes vs. Such possession of longstanding is an essential distinction between a mere agricultural laborer and a real tenant within the meaning of the tenancy law (Moreno. It includes the promotion of growth and the care of the plants. 3. shows that he is a tenant. 1973. plowing or harrowing of the land. Espinelli. (delos Reyes vs. this case for reinstatement with damages. then assigned defendants Rogelio and Paulino Latigay to do the gathering of the nuts and the processing thereof into copra. Once a tenancy relationship is established. Nonetheless.00 and the price equivalent to sixty-five (65) cavans of palay per agricultural year from the time of his DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. The fact that respondent Benitez. 1984. the eventual goal of having strong and independent farmers working on lands which they own remains. 30 SCRA 574). The major work in raising coconuts begins when the coconut trees are already fruitbearing. 77830) VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. he was again refrained from gathering nuts from the 10hectare portion of the plantation with threats of bodily harm if he persists. Republic Act 1199. together with his family. handles all phases of farmwork from clearing the landholding to the processing of copra. thereby cultivating the land. 1175). planted palay thereon in 1984 through force and intimidation after plowing and harrowing were done by respondent Laxamana. a 1/3 to 2/3 sharing in favor of the petitioner-landowners.In July. strengthens the claim of respondent that indeed.

the private respondent obtained a favorable judgment from which the petitioners appealed to the respondent Court. After trial.Atty. No. respondent Laxamana ought to be reinstated as tenant of the petitioners' landholding. as amended) specifically enumerates the grounds for the extinguishment of agricultural leasehold relations. To protect the tenant's right to security of tenure. 87 SCRA 263 [1978]). hence.00. Private respondent signed this lease contract as one of two 5 witnesses. therefore. RULING: YES. and that respondent Laxamana was no longer entitled to the amount equivalent to 65 cavans of palay per agricultural year as claimed since he was no longer a tenant of the petitioners. The petitioners invoke voluntary surrender under Paragraph 2 of Section 8 as the reason for the end of the tenancy relationship. NO.The lease contract obliged Cassanova to pay P400. On May 2. a factual conclusion made by the trial court on the basis of evidence directly available to it. 88113) ROMERO. W/N tenancy relations were extinguished by voluntary surrender.00 per hectare per annum and gave him the authority to oversee the planting of crops 4 on the land. The Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 2 [2]. 1973 whereby the latter sold his rights and interests over the agricultural landholding under litigation for a consideration of P1.R. Voluntary surrender. We. Tenancy relations cannot be bargained away except for the strong reasons provided by law which must be convincingly shown by evidence in line with the State's policy of achieving a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional restraints and practices (Sec. that respondent Laxamana had only himself to blame for the litigation expenses resulting from his baseless and patently frivolous complaint. Co v.R. 1974.200 square meters in Batangas. Court of Appeals. as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations. 3844. must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent evidence. Otherwise. private respondent Fideli has been cultivating this land as a tenant under a fifty-fifty (50-50) sharing agreement. 162 SCRA 390 [1988]). Court of Appeals. The very essence of agricultural tenancy lies in the cardinal rule that an agricultural tenant enjoys security of tenurial status. will not be reversed on appeal and will be binding on us. The tenant's intention to surrender the landholding cannot be presumed. CA affirmed the lower court's holding that the Casunduan even if assumed to be valid did not constitute "voluntary surrender" as contemplated by law. As far back as 1934. No. 1989. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. Intermediate Appellate Court. Petitioners counter-alleged. CA (G. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . among others.000. does not require any court authorization considering that it involves the tenant's own volition. much less determined by mere implication. (see Macaraeg v. the right of a tenant to security of tenure becomes an illusory one. (see Jacinto v. that their tenancy relationship with respondent Laxamana was terminated pursuant to a document captioned "Casunduan" executed on March 30. rule that except for compelling reasons clearly proved the determination that a person is a tenant-farmer. voluntary surrender. They claim Laxamana was not actually a tenant and whatever tenancy rights the former had exercised over the landholding in question were voluntarily surrendered by him upon the execution of the aforesaid document. o Endaya vs. devoted to rice and corn. Code of Agrarian Reforms). J p: FACTS: The Spouses Natividad Trinidad and Cesar San Diego owned a piece of agricultural land of 20. January 20. G. a lease contract was executed between the Spouses San Diego and one Regino Cassanova for a period of four years . ISSUE: W/N Laxamana is entitled to reinstatement. as contemplated by law. 48008.dispossession until his reinstatement as tenant over the landholding in question. through security of tenure. The evidence on record and the petitioners' arguments are not enough to overcome the rights of the private respondent provided in the Constitution and agrarian statutes which have been upheld by this Court.

000.000. private respondent has been cultivating the subject farm landholding with a fifty-fifty (50-50) sharing arrangement with the Spouses San Diego. RULING: YES. the Spouses San Diego sold the land to petitioners for P26.A. abolished share tenancy throughout the Philippines from 1971 and established the 11 agricultural leasehold system by operation of law. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected 12 therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided. On the contrary. During the entire duration of the lease between the Spouses San Diego and Cassanova. he had to deal with a new person instead of with the owners directly as he used to. RTC ruled in favor of the spouses.The lease contract was subsequently renewed to last until May 1980 but the rental was raised to P600. private respondent 6 signed the contract as witness.Atty. In the instant case.. No. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Expiration of Period. 3844 (1963). Section 7 of the said law gave agricultural lessees security of tenure by providing the following: "The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. registered with the Register of Deeds of Batangas and a TCT was duly issued. amending R. No provision may be found in the lease contract and the renewal contract even intimating that private respondent has waived his rights as an agricultural lessee." The fact that the landowner entered into a civil lease contract over the subject landholding and gave the lessee the authority to oversee the farming of the land. Due to petitioners' persistent demand for Fideli to vacate he filed in April 1985 a complaint with the RTC praying that he be declared the agricultural tenant of petitioners. It is true that the Court has ruled that agricultural tenancy is not 20 created where the consent of the true and lawful owners is absent. as a result of the agreement. The execution of a lease agreement between the Spouses San Diego and Regino Cassanova in 1974 did not terminate private respondent's status as an agricultural lessee. Private respondent deposited with the Luzon Development Bank an amount of about P8. Fideli continuously cultivated the land.A. On January 6. The fact that private respondent knew of. or transfer of legal possession.A. transactions involving the agricultural land over which an agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change of ownership. will not terminate the rights of the agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by making such rights enforceable against the transferee or the landowner's successor in interest. which is the relevant law governing the events at hand. No. e. alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. the said lease contract by signing as witness to the agreement may not be construed as a waiver of his rights as an agricultural lessee. as amended by R. as was done in this case. Again. ISSUE: W/N Fideli is an agricultural lessee. etc. 6839 in 1971. and consented to. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . On the contrary. sale. 3844 (1963). such as lease. alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding. 6839 (1971). R. Private respondent Fideli continued to farm though petitioners claim he was told immediately after the sale to vacate. there was no intention to constitute the worker as the agricultural lessee of the farm DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. is not among the causes provided by law for the extinguishment of the agricultural leasehold 13 relation. the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor." Hence. In case the agricultural lessor sells. Section 10 of the law provides: "SECTION 10. But this doctrine contemplates a situation where an untenanted farm land is cultivated without the landowner's knowledge or against her will or although permission to work on the farm was given. — The agricultural leasehold relation under this code shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale. it was his right to know about the lease contract since. CA reversed the decision. secured to private respondent all the rights pertaining to an agricultural lessee. The passage of R.00.A. petitioners' predecessors-in-interest. sharing equally with Cassanova the net produce of the harvests.g. 1980.00.00 as partial payment of the landowner's share in the harvests for the years 1980 until 1985.

he executed a "Katibayang Paglilipat ng Pag-mamay-ari".000 square meter homelot but later changed his mind. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -.500. as successors-in-interest of the Spouses San Diego. Carolina had failed to exercise her right to choose a substitute for the deceased tenant. 616 to petitioner Milestone. conformably with Section 9 of Republic Act No. 1995. Carolina Zacarias and her brother Francisco Olympia. continued tilling and cultivating the property. Development of the property then commenced. On the same date. PARAD dismissed the complaint. Carolina became the owner of the property by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement executed by the heirs of Alfonso Olympia. from among those qualified. On October 13. 1992.Atty. the DARAB reversed the decision. 1992. then only 29 years old. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . 1992. 1986. praying inter alia to declare as null and void the sale by Carolina to Perez and by the latter to Milestone. The rule finds no application in the case at bar where the petitioners are successors-in-interest to a tenanted land over which an agricultural leasehold has long been established. ruling that the order of preference cited in Section 9 of Republic Act 3844 is not absolute and may be disregarded 6 for valid cause.000 as "disturbance compensation". step into the latter's 22 shoes. and William Perez with the PARAD. petitioner William Perez. On January 22. 3844. On September 5. Thus. on their respective shares after Alfonso's death and by an Affidavit of Settlement executed by the spouses Claro and Cristina Zacarias on their shares in the property. and CA affirmed. Eventually. On July 30. 617 of the Malinta Estate. Meanwhile. Carolina Zacarias executed a deed of sale transferring the Lot No. in Valenzuela City. the latter with the help of respondent Raymundo Eugenio. He initially opted for a 1. 1993 to implead Milestone as respondent. and Jaime Lim established Milestone as incorporators. 617 was issued under the name of petitioner William Perez who subsequently sold the same to Milestone. had a house constructed on the lot. Winston Lim. o Milestone Realty vs CA (G. Lot No. her son-in-law. On February 4. On February 17. Anacleto. It also took note that Emilio's two siblings have openly recognized Emilio as the legitimate successor to Anacleto's tenancy 7 rights. Edgar Lim. ISSUE: W/N Delia Razon Peña has a right of first priority over Emilio Peña in succeeding to the tenancy rights of Anacleto over the subject landholding. who also had their houses constructed on the property.R. 1990. Anacleto Peña who was a tenant of the property and a holder of a Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold issued on February 23. 135999) – succession QUISUMBING. No.land. Emilio signed a handwritten declaration that he was the tenant in the land and he was returning the landholding to Carolina Zacarias in consideration of the sum of P1. private respondents Delia Razon Peña and Raymundo Eugenio filed a complaint against Emilio Peña. Carolina Zacarias declared that she chose Emilio Peña as her tenant-beneficiary on the said property within 30 days after the death of Anacleto. 616 and 617 of the Malinta Estate with a total area of three (3) hectares. the adjoining Lot No. Delia Razon Peña and Raymundo Eugenio appealed from the PARAD's decision to the DARAB. He had several children on the first marriage. in order to acquire and develop the aforesaid property and the adjacent parcel. 21 In the meantime. married Delia Razon. one of whom is Francisco Olympia. The consent given by the original owners to constitute private respondent as the agricultural lessee of the subject landholding binds private respondents who. RULING: YES. including Emilio. Emilio and Delia. who was already 78 years old and a widower. within the statutory period. and to recognize and respect the tenancy of private respondents Delia and Raymundo. Joseph Lim. Lot Nos. Willy Lim. acquiring not only their rights but also their obligations. After receipt of the money. Anacleto died intestate and was survived by Delia and his children in his first marriage. which was amended on January 6. J p: FACTS: Spouses Alfonso Olympia and Carolina Zacarias and Spouses Claro Zacarias and Cristina Lorenzo were the co-owners of an agricultural land identified as Lot 616 of the Malinta Estate. among whom are Emilio Peña and Celia Segovia. 1982. Milestone became the owner of the adjoining lots. As found by both the DARAB and the Court of Appeals.

In the case at bar. Delia Razon Peña. Anacleto Peña. as DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. however are not within the province of this Court to consider in a petition for review. Fajardo gave out the land for lease (civil lease) to the petitioner.R.Atty. the leasehold shall bind the legal heirs of the agricultural lessor in case of death or permanent incapacity of the latter. It is to achieve this continuity of relationship that the agricultural lessor is mandated by law to choose a successor-tenant within one month from the death or incapacity of the agricultural lessee from among the following: (1) surviving spouse. In the same vein. an illegally ejected tenant's earnings elsewhere may not be deducted from but is to be added to the damages granted him upon reinstatement. Should the lessor fail to exercise his choice within one month from the death of the tenant. Determination of personal cultivation and rental payments are factual issues beyond the reach of this petition..L. a scrutiny of Carolina's declaration will show that she never categorically averred that she made her choice within the one (1) month period. To this end. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . Instead. starting with the crop year 1955-56. No. the surviving spouse of the original tenant. it provides that in case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding. we held that the tenancy relationship is not affected or severed by the change of ownership. in the light of prevailing jurisprudence. because she did not personally cultivate the land and did not pay rent. L-19760) – Prescription of action A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under Republic Act 1199. The new owner is under the obligation to respect and maintain the tenant's landholding. o Villaviza vs Panganiban (G. as amended.Section 9 of Republic Act No. In the first place. Secondly. Petitioners cannot find succor in the declarations of Emilio Peña and the affidavit of Carolina Zacarias. as amended. has the legal right of redemption. she narrated passively that "when Anacleto died. Well established is the rule that in an appeal via certiorari. as found by the DARAB. or (3) the next eldest direct descendant or descendants in the order of their age. (2) eldest direct descendant by consanguinity. the priority shall be in accordance with the aforementioned order. 3844 is clear and unequivocal in providing for the rules on succession to tenancy rights. In turn. J. the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally. or almost two years after the death of Anacleto on February 17. the right of the deceased was inherited by Emilio Peña. petitioners urge this Court to ascertain and evaluate certain material facts which. is an obligation of the landholder created by law. In Manuel. and an action for violation thereof prescribes in ten years under No. J. is the first in the order of preference to succeed to the tenancy rights of her husband because the lessor. A close examination of the provision leaves no doubt as to its rationale of providing for continuity in agricultural leasehold relation in case of death or incapacity of a party. Applying Section 9 of Republic Act 3844. 2 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code. it is undeniable that respondent Delia Razon Peña. way beyond the one month period provided for in Section 9 of Republic Act 3844. REYES. As the owner. Quirino Capalad. The said lessee. 1955. In essence. Carolina Zacarias." Petitioners further argue that Delia cannot qualify as tenant even on the assumption that she was the rightful successor to Anacleto's tenancy rights. 1990. plowed the land by machinery. Under section 27 (1) of Republic Act 1199. stating that Emilio succeeded to the tenancy rights of Anacleto. as the successor tenant.: FACTS: The lower court found that the respondents (petitioners below) were tenants since 1944 in a Riceland in Nueva Ecija owned by Domingo Fajardo. it is undisputed that Carolina became the absolute owner of the subject landholding by virtue of Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Affidavit of Settlement executed by the other heirs of Alfonso Olympia and Spouses Claro and Cristina Zacarias. failed to exercise her right of choice within the one month period from the time of Anacleto's death.B. 23 only questions of law may be reviewed. without prejudice however to the tenancy rights and the right of redemption of 26 Delia Razon Peña. in June. and installed. This right of redemption is statutory in character. Carolina's affidavit and her Answer filed before the PARAD were both executed in 1992." prompting the DARAB to conclude it merely "connotes that she recognized Emilio Peña by force of circumstance 22 under a nebulous time frame. It attaches 27 to a particular landholding by operation of law. it is within her right to execute a deed of sale of said landholding.

The premises for the award are erroneous. as we have ruled. March 21. a copy of the deed of absolute sale of his share. 1949 to the Raffiñan spouses for P13. and an action for violation thereof prescribes in ten years under No. et al. The tenancy court found that the ejected tenants-respondents have engaged in gainful occupations since their illegal ejectment and had delayed the filing of the case. the buyer of the coowner's share can not be compelled.. to accept payment in installments.L.000. The respondents-tenants demanded their reinstatement. in October 1952.B. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . limited in its duration and subject to strict compliance with the legal requirements. when Enrique showed his brother-in-law. J. Conejero went to the Raffinans and offered to redeem the share. so that when the respondents went back to their respective landholdings to prepare them for planting they found the land already cultivated. and her spouse did not know about this. CA reversed on appeal. to reinstate them for the agricultural year following said demands. CFI found the deed of sale to be an equitable mortgage and declared Conejero entitled to redemption for P34. is an obligation of the landholder created by law. 1951 (6 months after expiration of the right to repurchase). but everytime they did. One of theses is that the redemptioner should tender payment of the redemption money within 30 days from written notice of the sale by the co-owner. that they inherited from their parents. Raffiñans claim absolute title to the property pleading that plaintiffs lost their right of redemption as they failed to exercise it within the statutory period. If a partial payment can bind the purchaser.00 and afterwards to P34. 30 Nov. Otherwise. A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under Republic Act 1199. with right to repurchase within 1 year. 18 April 1958. 1955. the period of limitation had not expired. J. Amicable settlement was not attained. Dy. so Conejeros filed. they filed the present action on 31 March 1960.000. which they did yearly until the present suit was filed. Subsequent advances by the vendees a retro increased their claims against Enrique Torres. as amended.000. a complaint in the CFI of Cebu seeking entitlement to redeem the half interest. vs. L-16654. or be indefinitely evaded. vs.000. the 30-day limitation fixed by law for the exercise of the right to redeem would be nullified. Enrique sold his half interest in Sept. Under section 27(1) of Republic Act 1199.R. et al. Paz Torres de Conejero (sister). and should be reinstated. RULING: YES. and. ISSUE: W/N plaintiffs Cornejo are entitled to redeem said half interest. de la Cruz. Enrique 1 Conejero . No.Atty. until August 1952. Right of pre-emption and redemption Case: Basbas vs Entena (G. therefore. by what rule can the payment of the balance be determined? DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. The respondents were ousted from their landholdings in June. it is exceptional in nature. CAR. 1961). L-19654. Kuizon.000. be disturbed because the respondents' non-appeal from the decision indicates their satisfaction therewith and a waiver of any amounts other than those indicated in the decision (David V. for P29. RULING: NO. and finally. a tenant's earnings may not be deducted from the damages because the said section positively provides that the tenant's freedom to earn elsewhere is to be added ("in addition") to his right to damages in case of illegal ejectment (Lustre.. L-21812) REYES. 2 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code. The amount of the award to each respondent should not. et al.. on April 3. however. ISSUE: W/N the respondent tenants have security of tenure.his tenants his co-petitioners. et al. L-11656. Nor can it be said that the respondentstenants are guilty of laches for having unnecessarily delayed to Capalad's promises to reinstate them. as amended. Quirino Capalad promised but never fulfilled. nor is he obligated.: Paz Torres and Enrique Torres were co-owners pro indiviso of a lot and building in Cebu City. While the co-owner's right of legal redemption (retracto legal de comuneras) is a substantial right. said Enrique executed a deed of absolute sale of the same half interest in favor of the Raffiñans for P28. 1964). and for these reasons the court made an award for damages against Quirino Capalad equivalent to only two harvests based on the landholder's share for the crop year 1954-1955.

which found her guilty of estafa and sentenced her to 5 months of arresto mayor max. The Tan Heirs appealed. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 .70. Section 7 of RA 3844 as amended provides that once there is a leasehold relationship. Redemption by the co-owners of the vendor within 30 days is not a matter of intent.656. J. Tan did not accede. On harvest dates. Reynalda appealed to the DARAB. for Reynalda’s continued failure to deliver their share. but is effectuated only by payment. In this case. Subsequently. which reversed the decision. Aggrieved. which was ruled in the favor of the Tan Heirs. Reynalda failed to deliver to the Tan Heirs 2/3 of the DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. 11 and 19 of June. Esteban’s surviving second spouse. being granted by law. therefore. but was ignored. 9 September. Lawful Consideration Case: Tan vs Pollescas (G. Thus. If the amount of lease rental claimed exceeds the limit allowed by law.780 sq. the Tan Heirs filed with the DARAB-Misamis Occidental an ejectment case. Diliman.Atty. 145568) November 17. of the price within said period. to 2 years of prision correccional minimum and ordered her to pay the Tan Heirs P3. and the only way to exercise it is by a valid payment or tender within the 30 days prefixed by the Civil Code. Esteban (Esteban) Pollescas was the original tenant of the Land. the landowner cannot eject the agricultural tenant from the land unless authorized by the court for causes provided by law. Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended mandates that “not x x x more than” 25% of the average normal harvest shall constitute the just and fair rental for leasehold.Whether or not the petitioners exercised diligence in asserting their willingness to pay is irrelevant. is the timely of the right. Upon his death in 1991. QC. but CA affirmed the decision of the DARAB ordering the Tan Heirs to respect Reynalda’s possession and cultivation of the Land. the amount of the lease rental must first of all be lawful. RULING: NO. is binding on the purchaser of the undivided share by operation of law. 6 and 13 of December 1993. Quieting of Tenancy Relationship and damages. the Tan Heirs demanded Reynalda to deliver 2/3 of the harvest as lease rental. and the latter's consent or acceptance is not required for the existence of the right of redemption. Note that the co-owner's right to redeem. or valid tender. Tan Heirs. In the instant case. the Tan Heirs filed a for estafa against Reynalda with the MTC of Ozamis.: FACTS: Petitioners. The only matter to be investigated by the courts. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that for non-payment of the lease rental to be a valid ground to dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding.R. which clearly [29] CARPIO.70. 2005 harvests amounting toP3. are co-owners of a coconut farmland in Ozamis City with an area of 25. Consequently. Reynalda filed with the “DARAB-Ozamis” a complaint for Annulment of Compromise Agreement. non-payment of lease rental cannot be a ground to dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding. demanded that Tan recognize her as Esteban’s successor. m. his son Enrique (Enrique) succeeded him and was appointed as tenant by the landowner Enrique Tan (TAN). The Tan Heirs demanded Reynalda to pay such amount. The DARAB-Ozamis apportioned the harvests between the Tan Heirs and Reynalda based on the customary sharing system which is 2/3 to the landowner and 1/3 to the tenant. respondent Reynalda. DARAB-Ozamis declared Reynalda as the lawful tenant of the Land. the Tan Heirs seek Reynalda’s ejectment from the Land on the ground of non-payment of lease rental. RA 3844 as amended expressly recognizes and protects an agricultural leasehold tenant’s right to [28] security of tenure. No.656. ISSUE: W/N Reynalda’s failure to pay the Tan Heirs 2/3 share of harvests is a ground for ejectment. How the redemptioners raise the money is immaterial. The offer of the redemption price is not bona fide where it is shown that the offerer could not have made payment in due time if the offer had been accepted. as in the present case. timeliness and completeness of payment or tender are the things that matter. However.

No 90-day notice of intention to sell the lands for Share tenancy. seek to redeem the same for P750. and seek to redeem the land for the same amount of P1.500. L-25326) May 29. or in both. either personally or with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household.exceeded the 25% maximum amount prescribed by law. Leasehold tenancy exists when a person who. That Reynalda is not yet in default in the payment of the lease rental is a basic reason why she cannot be lawfully ejected from the Land for non-payment of rental. with either or both contributing any one or several of the items of production. 1970 TEEHANKEE. Therefore. San Jose. Petitioners-spouses Igmidio Hidalgo and Martina Resales. No.000.500. In Case L-25326. There is no legal basis to demand payment of such unlawful lease rental. Accordingly.638-square meter parcel of land for P750. Until the DAR has fixed the provisional lease rental. and the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant in proportion to their respective contributions.876-square meter and 7. undertakes to cultivate a piece of agricultural land susceptible of cultivation by a single person together with members of his immediate farm household.00 by respondents-vendees in their favor. Reynalda cannot be in default in the payment of lease rental since such amount is not yet determined. In Case L-25327. No ground for extinguishment of leasehold relation The Court also holds that there is no ground for the extinguishment of leasehold relation in this case. - Cases: o Hidalgo vs Hidalgo (G. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . another in consideration of a price certain or ascertainable to be paid by the person cultivating the land either in percentage of the production or in a fixed amount in money.00/ Petitioners-tenants have for several years been working on the lands as share tenants. J. with two other parcels of land for P4. The courts will not enforce payment of a lease rental that violates the law. alleged that the parcel worked by them is fairly worth P1. Thus. abolition RA 1199. tenants. Sec 4 AN ACT TO GOVERN THE RELATIONS - BETWEEN LANDHOLDERS AND TENANTS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS (LEASEHOLDS AND SHARE TENANCY) Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines Section 4. and petitioners-spouses Hilario Aguila and Adela Hidalgo as tenants. Reynalda and the Tan Heirs failed to agree on a lawful lease rental.638-square meter agricultural parcels of land situated in Lumil.00.00.Atty. Batangas. described in the decisions under review. the tenant cultivating the land personally with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household. Agricultural tenancy is classified into leasehold tenancy and share tenancy. respondent-vendor sold the 7.00. Share tenancy exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural production wherein one party furnishes the land and the other his labor. There can be no delay in the payment of an undetermined lease rental because it is impossible to pay an undetermined amount. the Tan Heirs cannot validly dispossess Reynalda of the landholding for nonpayment of rental precisely because the lease rental claimed by the Tan Heirs is unlawful. Their Definitions. Reynalda was never in default. belonging to or legally possessed by.R. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. Even assuming Reynalda agreed to deliver 2/3 of the harvest as lease rental. There was no validly fixed lease rental demandable at the time of the harvests. the DAR must first fix the provisional lease rental payable by Reynalda to the Tan Heirs pursuant to the second paragraph [30] of Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended. Reynalda is not obliged to pay such lease rental for being unlawful.: FACTS: Respondent-vendor Policarpio Hidalgo was the owner of the 22. Policarpio sold the 22.876-square meter land. Systems of Agricultural Tenancy.

There. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . the Court held that no part of the Code "indicates or even hints that the 2-year redemption period will not commence to run (indefinitely) until the tenant obtains financing from the Land Bank.the exercise of the right of pre-emption prescribed by section 11 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA. The agrarian court therefore facilely let itself fall into the error of concluding that the right of redemption (as well as necessarily the right of pre-emption) imposed by the Code is available to leasehold tenants only and excludesshare tenants for the literal reason that the Code grants said rights only to the "agricultural lessee and to nobody else. Chapter I of the Code. comprising sections 4 to 38. The agrarian court's dismissal of the cases at bar should therefore be reversed and petitioners-tenants' right to redeem the landholdings recognized section 12 of the Code. 3844. Thus. Deeds of Sale were registered by respondents register of deeds and provincial assessor of Batangas. Herein lies the distinction between the present case and Basbas vs. but the whole total is not to exceed the stated price of P4. Then. extensively deals with the establishment of "agricultural leasehold relation." For one.00 as claimed by petitioners or a little bit more. considering the proportionate values of the two other parcels. the case having been submitted and decided on the sole legal issue of the right of redemption being available to them as share tenants. the fact that the locality has not been proclaimed a land reform area and that such government machineries and agencies are not operating therein is of no relevance and cannot prejudice the tenant's rights under the Code to redeem the landholding. 1963) was given by respondent-vendor to petitioners-tenants. DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. the petitioners-tenants' possession of funds and compliance with the requirements of redemption are not questioned. since the vendor is bound thereby — and likewise. There is a studied omission in the Code of the use of the term tenant in deference to the "abolition of tenancy" as proclaimed in the very title of the Code. it immediately comes to mind that the Code did not mention tenants." ISSUE: W/N the right of redemption granted by Sec.Atty. the tenant-redemptioner was shown by the evidence to have no funds and had merely applied for them to the Land Authority which was not yet operating in the locality and hence. enacted on August 8. 3844 applicable to share tenants? RULING: YES. Actions for redemption were timely filled on March 26.000.500. The agrarian court's literal construction would wreak havoc on and defeat the proclaimed and announced legislative intent and policy of the State of establishing owner-cultivatorship for the farmers." In the present case. The clear and logical implication of Basbas is where the tenant has his own resources or secures redemption funds from sources other than the Land Bank or government agencies under the Code. Agrarian court dismissed both petitions for redemption.00. 1965 by petitioners-tenants within the two-year prescriptive period from registration of the sale. or stops the tenant from securing redemption funds from some other source." defines the parties thereto and the rights and obligations of the "agricultural lessor" and of the "agricultural lessee" (without the slightest mention of leasehold tenants) and the statutory consideration or rental for the leasehold to be paid by the lessee. prescribed by section 12. who invariably were all share tenants before the enactment of the Code and whom the Code would now uplift to the status of lessees. Since the agrarian court did not rule upon conflicting claims of the parties as to what was the proportionate worth of the parcel of land in the stated price of P4. the terms "agricultural lessor" and "agricultural lessee" are consistently used throughout the Chapter and carried over the particular sections (11 and 12) on pre-emption and redemption. notwithstanding the non-execution by Policarpio of the affidavit required by section 13 of the Land Reform Code. because it outlaws share tenancy and envisions the agricultural leasehold system as its replacement. 6.00 — whether P1. 12 of Republic Act No. whether leasehold or sharetenants.000. Entena 11 where the Court upheld the agrarian court's dismissal of the therein tenant's action to redeem the landholding sold to a third party by virtue of the tenant's failure to tender payment or consign the purchase price of the property. and the elevation of the tenant's status to that of lessee.

He had to husk and split the nuts and then process its meat into copra. J. with the respondent coming to work in the landholding only after the same were already fruit bearing. Sometime in 1973. Hence. and the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant in proportion to their respective contributions (Sec. The mere fact that it was not respondent Benitez who had actually seeded the land does not mean that he is not a tenant of the land. plowing or harrowing of the land. now marked as Exh. he was again refrained from gathering nuts from the 10hectare portion of the plantation with threats of bodily harm if he persists. 1973. The raising of coconuts is a unique GUTIERREZ. The repeal of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code mark the movement not only towards the leasehold system but towards eventual ownership of land by its tillers.The Guerreros. whereby defendants agreed. he shared 1/3 of the proceeds from the copra he processed and sold in the market. ACCORDINGLY. CA (G. In Case L-25327. the tenant cultivating the land with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household. and the petitions to redeem the subject landholdings are granted. He felt aggrieved and he brought the matter to the attention of the Office of Special Unit in the Office of the President. this case for reinstatement with damages. Hence. he also cleaned the fruitbearing coconut trees. the decisions appealed from are hereby reversed. RA 1199. In addition to attending to the cows. 166(25) RA 3844. Quezon. who had originally cleared the land in question and planted the coconut trees. He built his house as an annex to the petitioner's copra kiln. Sec. he picked coconuts and gather the fallen ones from a 16-hectare portion of the 21hectare plantation. supra. No.R. 1199.. unlike in Case L-25326. assumed by the vendees. The definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling. there is no question as to the price of P750. In July. For attending to the cows he was paid P500 a year. D. 1986 gathering of the nuts and the processing thereof into copra. During harvest time.00 paid by the vendees and no additional consideration or expenses. RULING: YES. plaintiff was refrained from gathering nuts from the 10hectare portion where he used to gather nuts. Respondent Benitez has physically possessed the landholding continuously from 1969 until he was ejected from it. JR. with others. The phasing out of share tenancy was never intended to mean a reversion of tenants into mere farmhands or hired laborers with no tenurial rights whatsoever. Cultivation is another important factor in determining the existence of tenancy relationships. It is admitted that it had been one Conrado Caruruan. the case should be remanded to the agrarian court solely for the purpose of determining the reasonable price. ISSUE: W/N there was a share tenancy between Guerrero and Benitez. then assigned defendants Rogelio and Paulino Latigay to do the DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. crazing within their 21-hectare coconut plantation in Aurora. For his work related to the coconuts. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . or husbanding the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry. Guerrero vs. "Share tenancy" exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural production wherein one party furnishes the land and the other his labor. Benitez was allowed to put up a hut where he and his family stayed. petitioners therein are entitled to redeem the landholding for the same stated price.what was the additional proportionate worth of the expenses assumed by the vendees. Agricultural Land Reform Code). L-44570) May 30. burn dried leaves and grass and to do such other similar chores. This led to an execution of an agreement. If so. thus. making plaintiffs feel that they (defendants) meant business.: FACTS: In 1969. It includes the promotion of growth and the care of the plants. assuming that petitioners are not willing to assume the same obligation. to let plaintiff work on the 16-hectare portion of the plantation as tenant guided by the provisions of republic Act No. plaintiff Apolinario Benitez was taken by defendantsspouses Manuel and Maria Guerrero to care for their 60 cows.Atty. was it abolished by the passage of RA 3844. with either or both contributing any one or several of the items of production. Guerreros also caused to be demolished a part of the cottage where plaintiff and his family lived. 4. NO.

handles all phases of farmwork from clearing the landholding to the processing of copra. although at times with the aid of hired laborers. Unlike rice. Latest A. Paras and Cruz. Feria.. Before we close this case. wherever it may be implemented. It is true that leasehold tenancy for coconut lands and sugar lands has not yet been implemented.agricultural enterprise. together with his family. thereby increasing the produce.. No costs. The major work in raising coconuts begins when the coconut trees are already fruitbearing. In most cases. Alampay..O. strengthens the claim of respondent that indeed. concur. ignorance and stagnation to make them dignified. we have considered the system of sharing produce as convincing evidence of tenancy relations. thereby cultivating the land. the eventual goal of having strong and independent farmers working on lands which they own remains. shows that he is a tenant. As the law seeks to "uplift the farmers from poverty. it is pertinent to reiterate that the respondent's right as share tenant do not end with the abolition of share tenancy. Then it is cultivated by smudging or smoking the plantation. the planting of coconut seedlings does not need harrowing and plowing. The policy makers of government are still studying the feasibility of its application and the consequences of its implementation.. Further indicating the existence of a tenancy relationship between petitioners and respondent is their agreement to share the produce or harvest on a "tercio basis" that is. active participants in nation-building". a goal sought to be achieved by the government program of land reform. Legislation still has to be enacted. agricultural share tenants are given the right to leasehold tenancy as a first step towards the ultimate status of owner-cultivator. strong and responsible citizens . took no part. SO ORDERED. self-reliant. Aison Garcia JPBA 17June2013 . Though not a positive indication of the existence of tenancy relations perse the sharing of harvest taken together with other factors characteristic of tenancy shown to be present in the case at bar. he is a tenant. * JJ. weeding and watering.Atty. taking care of the coconut trees. the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. on Leasehold DLSU Agrarian Law and Social Legislation -. applying fertilizer. Nonetheless. The decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED. J. The fact that respondent Benitez. not a mere farm laborer. The petitioners' arguments which would use the enactment of the Agrarian Reform Code as the basis for setting back or eliminating the tenurial rights of the tenant have no merit. Fernan. WHEREFORE. a 1/3 to 2/3 sharing in favor of the petitioner-landowners.