QUIJANO DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM HOW TO ESTABLISH TENANCY The fact that defendants did not at all question the plaintiff's tenancy over their respective land in question for several years, there is an implied admission or consent to the establishment of tenancy relationship between the parties. The relationship may be considered established where the landowner knew of the cultivation of the land by the farmer and he tolerated the same(PACHECO VS. DESIDERIO, CA G.R. NOS. SP-06078-CAR, FEBRUARY 25, 1977). For establishment of tenancy relationship, it is not essential that the landowner has personal knowledge of the cultivation by another, in the concept of tenant of his landholding. It is sufficient that he is chargeable with knowledge, through his overseer or agent of such cultivation and he tolerates the same (LONTOC VS. VDA. DE ASIS, CA-G.R. NO. 39331-12, JULY 13, 1968). We emphasize that, it is not necessary that consent be given wholeheartedly, as consent given out of pity is sufficient(POLIDARIO SR., VS. BROGONIO, ET AL., CA-G.R. NO. 46702-R, MARCH 9, 1972). Nor lack of written contract is an obstacle to the establishment of the relation of landlord and tenant under the Tenancy Law. It is enough that there be mutual consent for the tenant to cultivate for a consideration, in writing, expressly or impliedly(JAMORA VS. DIAMCAY, CA-G.R. NO. 47379-R, APRIL 13, 1972). As long as the legal possession of the land constitutes a person as a tenantfarmer by virtue of an express or implied lease, such an act is binding on the owner of the property even if he himself may not have given his consent to such arrangement. (CO VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, 162 SCRA 392). The fact that complainant has a hut erected on the landholding shows he is a tenant since only tenants are entitled to a homelot where he can built his house thereon as an incident to his right as a tenant (CRUZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 129 SCRA 222). AGRARIAN DISPUTE Any controversy relating to terms, tenure or condition of employment, or concerning an association or representation of persons in negotiating, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms on conditions to employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm employers and

. If there should be a waiver of a right. who do not actually work the land cannot be considered tenants. 26). ceases to hold and is considered as having abandoned the land as tenant. The intention to abandon is considered the first and permanent inquiry (MONTEMAYOR. The above findings notwithstanding and assuming that petitioner really waived his tenancy rights in favor of private respondent. P. and who hires others whom he pays for doing the cultivation of the land. CLOA/CLT/EP It being so. and ceases to enjoy the status. P. There is no such thing as presumptive voluntary surrender of abandonment by implication. CA. ET AL. GR NO. 1977). NO.R. 126425). not from vague and doubtful evidence.R.. We rule that the EPs' previously issued to defendant-appellee partakes the nature of a "public document which is entitled to full and credit in the . NO. 05658. VS. FEBRUARY 28. ESTATE SIBUGON. Persons therefore. VENTURA G. 232). CA-G. and most certainly. 58 SCRA 590).employees (LAW OF AGRARIAN REFORM.. July 2. 1991 EDITION. POLICARPIO NISNISAN. The gauge in the determination of whether petitioner-appellant has abandoned or surrendered the subject landholding. TENANCY EMANCIPATION PATENT Anyone who wishes to contest the rights of the farmer to land given to him by the government in accordance with our agrarian laws has the burden of proving that the farmer does not deserve the government grant. 86044. The primary elements of abandonment are the intention to abandon and the external act by which intention is carried into effect. NO. Abandonment has been invariably construed to include two essential elements: (1) the intention to abandon. BARTE. 27 (TORRES VS. OCA.. right and privileges of one (GABRIEL VS. 1ST EDITION 1964. PANGILINAN. is the simultaneous and subsequent acts indicative of her intention to do so. 1990). 07164-SP. public policy demand that the same be clearly and convincingly established by competent and sufficient evidence (BARRAMEDA VS.R. CAG. ET AL. BY RECAREDO P. ET AL. ABANDONMENT/MORTGAGE/VOLUNTARY SURRENDER Herein respondent-appellant had voluntarily abandoned her landholdings in litigation after she has sublet it without the consent and knowledge of the landowner (COSCOS VS. this case should still be void for being made in violation of Presidential Decree No. ET AL. and (2) the physical act or acts of abandonment.

4. It must be emphasized that once a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) has been issued to a tenant covering a property under the supervision of and in compliance with the implementing rules and regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform. TORRENS . E. 183 SCRA 252). CA. TAMAYO. UMALI. COURT OF APPEALS. BUTALID. An Emancipation Patent holder acquires the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding — a right which has becomes fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy (PAGTALUNAN VS. should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the condition laid down by the law are satisfied (REPUBLIC VS. 189 SCRA 106). TAMAYO. GR NO. 2.absence of competent evidence that its due execution was tainted with defects and irregularities that could warrant declaration of its nullity (ANCHUELO VS. When EP is issued then he acquires a vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding (PAGTALUNAN VS. There is no more landlord and tenant relationship and all that remains is for the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the valuation of the land in accordance with existing rules and regulations for purpose of compensation to the landowner (QUIBAN VS. 1986). Certificate of Title cannot be altered. 181 SCRA 9). 171 SCRA 647). Torrens Title is generally a conclusive evidence of ownership of the land (CHING VS. FEBRUARY 11. 147 SCRA 434). VS. Nullification of a CLT maybe had only in a case directly attacking its validity but never collaterally (MIRANDA VS. IAC. 183 SCRA 252). L-59730. amended or cancelled except in a DIRECT PROCEEDING in accordance with law (WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ASSOCIATION ET AL. The government recognizing the worthy purpose of the TORRENS SYSTEM. TAMAYO. It is only after compliance with the conditions set forth in PD No. 3.. 183 SCRA 253). The mere issuance of the Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein. 210 SCRA 165). he is thereby deemed to be the owner of the agricultural land in question. 27 which entitled him to an Emancipation Patent (EP) that he acquires a vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding (PAGTALUNAN VS.P. — TORRENS TITLE 1. CA.

SP-05891.A. 1977).A.R.R.A. C. 1975) a BUS CONDUCTOR (BALANAY VS. he must NECESSARILY WORK THE LAND HIMSELF although he may avail of the labor of his immediate farmhousehold (SABIDORIO. There is CONSENT. NO. There is PERSONAL CULTIVATION. Rosario vs. CA-G. CA-G. NO. April 14. CRUZ VS. July 25. C. ET AL.R.R. The SUBJECT is AGRICULTURAL LAND.A. SP-01495. The parties are the LANDOWNER and the TENANT. C. NO. No. YAP. BRAGADO. The PURPOSE is AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. L-1187. 3. GRAZA VS. 1976) a FULL TIME MACHINE OPERATOR (MAGALANG VS. 1978). CA — 163 SCRA 39 .-G. C. Act No. C. 42019-20-R. 39.-G. TENANCY — PERSONAL CULTIVATION For one to be considered a tenant.. August 2. NO. 1973). ET AL. CA-G. 07644-CAR. 2. SP06963. NO. CABALLES VS. Failure to comply with one's obligation as a tenant is tantamount to abandonment (LIMBO VS. MARCELO.R. RUIZ. VS. SP-03163.. 196. 1977). TENANCY The six (6) essential requisites for the establishment of tenancy relationship are: 1.-G. 6. the COURT of APPEALS found it hard to believe that these people could still have the time to work the land personally. January 7. May 31. SP-05933. March 30. In the following cases involving a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE (DIMANAWA VS. CA — 198 SCRA 236. NO. March 28.R. NO. RAFAEL. January 12. Auditor General.168 SCRA 247 QUA VS. 5. PLANA.R. May 30. DAR . 1977).R. GERODIAS. SP-01746-CAR. 1978. 1958).. and a JEEPNEY DRIVER (ESCUETA VS. DCN 0808 = When he went to Saudi Arabia and left farmwork to his wife.R. NO. April 30. SP-02004. 1972. he was clearly no longer taking advantage of the assistance of his farm household (ESTABILLO VS.A. BASCO. There is SHARING OF HARVEST. CA-G.-G. ET AL.-G. IF THE LAW ABHORS ABSENTEE OWNERS. 4.Lands under Torrens Title cannot be acquired by prescription (Sec. MORE SO WITH ABSENTEE TENANTS (BUENO VS. UGAY.

142 SCRA 136. 181 SCRA 159). 16 SCRA 88). However. CA.A. The cultivator is necessarily tasked with duties that amount to cultivation (COCOMA VS. a tenant (LATAG VS. (CASTILLO VS. one cannot be a tenant. DAR 168 SCRA 247) Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder through lawful means and not by imposition or usurpation (HILARIO VS. plowing or harvesting of the land. The definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling. (CABALLES VS. . COURT OF APPEALS 164 SCRA 432). the mere cultivation of the land by a usurper cannot confer upon him any legal right to work the land as tenant and enjoy the protection of security of tenure of the law (HILARIO VS. IAC. 164 SCRA 568). is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. 6. 164 SCRA 568). . PANGILINAN. BERENGUER VS. COURT OF APPEAL. Tenant is defined as the "person who personally cultivates the same (landholding) (Sec. The caretaker of the land may be considered as the cultivator of the land and. ESPINELI. HON. . 148 SCRA 573). 30 SCRA 574) At most he can be considered a CIVIL LAW LESSEE because the civil law lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing leased (GABRIEL VS. COCOMA VS. May 30. 3844)" Absent the element of personal cultivation. COURT OF APPEALS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT. CA) (REYES VS. BANOG. It includes the promotion of growth and the case of the plants or husbanding the ground to forward the products of earth by general industry (GUERRERO VS. The fact of sharing alone.Unless a person has established his status as a DE JURE tenant. he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the government under existing laws (PRUDENTIAL BANK VS. 1986. Consequently.. FILEMON GAPULTOS. Unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant. 205 SCRA 529). SUPRA). INTRUDER It is a settled rule that tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful owner and not by the imposition or usurpation by any intruder or usurper (GRAZA VS. he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the government under existing tenancy laws (CASTILLO VS. COURT OF APPEALS 163 SCRA 41. CA. ET AL. hence. Cultivation is an important factor in determining the existence of tenancy relationship. R. . 58 SCRA 590). the mere fact that it was not the plaintiff who had actually seeded the land does not mean that they are not tenants of the land.

ALVAREZ. VICENTE ECHAVES. February 7. by way of evading the provisions of tenancy laws to have their tenants sign contracts of agreements intended to camouflage the real import of their relationship (CRUZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS. HON.R. Tenancy is not purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. Indeed. and. VDA DE DONATO). L-14631. . G. 1990). are even more important (TUAZON VS. these are complied with and are not contrary to law. 129 SCRA 224. NATIVIDAD. squatters are only found in URBAN COMMUNITIES. SPOUSES TIONGSON VS. There are no SQUATTERS in agricultural lands. the understanding when the farmer is installed. their written agreements. provided. 77401. March 30. 118 SCRA 484). tenancy IS NOT A UNILATERAL RELATIONSHIP deriving substance only from what an alleged tenant does upon the land.R. It is also a legal relationship the intent of the parties. NO. not in rural areas (onPD 772) (PEOPLE VS. The court is aware of the practice of landowners. COURT OF APPEALS. COURT OF APPEALS.Mere cultivation by a usurper cannot confer upon him any legal right to work on the land as a tenant and thereby involve the protective mantle of security of tenure under the law (GONZALES VS. It is basically a legal relationship of mutual accord by and between him and the owner of the land (TUAZON VS. mere cultivation of the land by a usurper cannot confer upon him any legal right to work on the land as tenant and enjoy the protection of security of tenure of the land (ANTONIO VS. 1962. 118 SCRA 484). NO. Parenthetically. in this case. COURT OF APPEALS. 95 SCRA 663). 130 SCRA 482 (1984) ). G.. ET AL.