Agra- 9/23/19
Isidre v CA: unlawful detainer; jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations in complaint; that land
involved is agri land does not automatically make
case an agrarian disputes
Bejasa v CA- confirmation of leasehold, etc; no
consent from landowner (self- serving statements ar
inadequate); no proof on sharing harvest (a receipt or
any other similar evidence must be presented)
Valencia v CA- lease with prohibition against
subleasing tenancy cannot be presumed; RA 3844
does not automatically authorize a civil law lessee to
employ a tenant
Almuete v Andres- recovery of possession and
reconveyance; controversy relating to ownership of
farmland is beyond ambit of agrarian dispute
BCDA v PARO- who has a valid title?
Pasong Bayabas v CA- complaint for damages; no
allegation on tenancy; no evidence
Escariz v Revilleza- Only self-serving statement on
alleged consent; no evidence on sharing of harvest
Heirs of Jugalbot v CA- no concrete evidence on
cultivation; land is residential due to zoning
ordinance
Nicorp Management v De Leon- letter referring to
“kasama” does not prove tenancy; “kasama” could be
taken in varying context (the court said that it is not
sufficient that the word “kasama” can be
interpreted as many meanings)
Adriano v Tanco- independent and concrete evidence
is needed to prove consent; independent evidence
such as receipts is needed to prove sharing of harvest;
burden of proof? No obligation to prove exception or
defense (any statement made by the farmers are
self-serving statements)
DAR v Paramount Holdings: nullity of sale filed by
PARO before DARAB for want of DAR clearance;
no allegation on tenurial relations
Heirs of Florentino Quilo- neighbours’s affidavit are
insufficient; receipts or any other evidence should
have been presented; deposited does not prove
agreement
Davao New Town- land is not agricultural land
Jopson v Mendez, Jr.- no concrete proof on consent;
land is commercial land
Reyes v Heirs of Floro- certification from MARO
(this certification is not binding)(“agricultural
lessee”) and alleged original owner (certification was
not notarized; the person who certified this one was
not presented in court); picture of a hut on land is not
enough installing respondent spouses as caretakers of
land”; “petitioner Cecilia nevertheless confirms
accepting checks as rental payments from respondent
spouses for convenience, considering that he often
went to Makati where petitioner Lim holds office and
Quezon City where Automat has its office”); sharing
exists (“Automat never denied receipt of these
rentals” ) (occupation does not prove tenancy)
Caluzor v Llanillo- absence of an element will not
make an alleged tenant a de jure tenant; a sketch of
the lot does not prove consent.
Malabanan v Restivera- petition to annul CLOA, etc.
invoking preferential right as benefeciaries; no
allegati
Quintos v DARAB- right to hire a tenant is personal
Automat Realty v Sps. Cruz- MARO certification
(“actual tillers of the land”); land is non-agricutural;
consent was found(“Automat never denied giving
consent to )
Estate of Pastor Samson; affidavits of neighbors are
insufficient (no details as to how crop-sharing was
implemented, how much was given, when and where
payments were made, whether they witnessed receipt
of share)) to prove sharing of harvest, a receipt or any
other credible evidence must be presented
Sutton v Lim- petition to nullity of CLOA of private
respondent on the following grounds: lands is
devoted to cattle raising; no notice was sent to her in
the application proceeding
Ladano v Neri- Ladano wanted to be declared
rightful occupant/tiller; one’s occupancy and
cultivation will not ipso fact make one a de jure
tenant.
(existence of agra dispute)
Suplico v CA- no reason to disturb findings; findings
(actual possession, cultivation and sharing of harvest)
*put issue in the pleading so that it could be available
on appeal*
Agra- 9/23/19

Monzanto(owner) v Zerna(farmer)- qualified theft;

amount is intertwined with resolution of agrarian
dispute; tenancy relationship may be established
verbally or in writing; receipts of remittance were
shown

Sps. Fajardo v Flores- conflict of claims in

Kasundauan; matter is the legality of termination of
relationship or if disputes originates from such
relationship (Problem: there was conflict as to what
portion is to be given)

Galope v Bugarin- admission in barangay that receipt

of harvest is insignificant

Landicho v Limqueco- invocation of rights by

beneficiaries as they were deceived in to signing
documents which turn out to be deeds of sale and
lease within the 10-year prohibited period; transfers
should be nullified.

DAR v Robles- annulment of titles and CLOAs for

lack of DAR clearance, clear violation of law; the
sale was made to avoid retention limits and coverage
under CARP

Coverage (Sec 4)

The Comprehensive agrarian reform law of 1988

shall cover; regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private
agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No.
131 and EO no. 229

Note:

Not Covered:

Landholdings of landowners with a total

area of 5 hectares and below shall not be covered for
acquisition and distribution to qualified benefeciaries

Schedule of implementation;

1. Within 10 yrs from effectivity of CARL

(RA 6657, sec 5)
2. Shall be completed by june 30, 2014(RA
9700, sec 21)