Presidential Decree no.

410- “DECLARING ANCESTRAL LANDS OCCUPIED AND

CULTIVATED BY NATIONAL CULTURAL COMMUNITIES AS ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
Why it is enacted?
 To assist landless tenants, whether Christian or Muslim, in acquiring full ownership of
the lands occupied or cultivated by them.
 Under the New Society, the social justice programs are given top priority, and in
furtherance thereof a greater portion of the resources of the Government have been
channeled to them.
 In order to give greater substance to these social justice programs and the endeavors to
bring forth equality for all the citizens of this Republic.
 According to this law, it is required that landless Muslims and members of other
cultural minority groups shall be given the same opportunity to own the lands
occupied and cultivated by them, which lands were likewise occupied and
cultivated by their ancestors.
Why is this enacted?
 Tenants in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn production have been
granted the fullest opportunity to own the land tilled by them in the easiest possible way
and under terms less burdensome to them.
What is a tenant?
 A person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.
Kinds of Tenancy:

 Shared Tenancy -The land owner and the tenant contributes to the
expenses.
-The share depends on the harvest.

 Leasehold Tenancy - Only the leasee contributes to the expenses

-The share is fixed regardless of the harvest.

Essential Elements to have a Tenancy relationship:

1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
2) The subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
3) There is consent between the parties to the relationship;
4) The purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
5) There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
6) The harvest is shared between landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee.
What is an Ancestral Land?
 These are lands of the public domain that have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious occupation and cultivation by members of the National Cultural Communities
by themselves or through their ancestors, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership according to their customs and traditions for a period of at least thirty (30)
years before the date of approval of this Decree.

Presidential Decree No. 27

On October 21, 1972, exactly one month after the declaration of Martial Law, Ferdinand
Marcos signed Presidential Decree 27, which ostensibly aimed to “emancipate tenants from the
bondage of the soil.”
Who may benefit under this Decree?
 This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice
and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed
estate or not.
 The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not, shall be deemed
owner of a portion constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and
three (3) hectares if irrigated.

Republic Act No. 6657

On June 10, 1988. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657. AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE
AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

What is the difference between RA 6657 and PD 27?

PD 27 of 1972 and Republic Act 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of
1988. Both laws implemented a nationwide land reform program but PD 27 covers only rice
and corn farms while CARL expanded coverage to all agriculture lands and included
beneficiary development as another component of land program.

Who are qualified beneficiaries of CARP?

RA 6657 lists down qualified CARP beneficiaries in order of priority:
 1. agricultural lessees and share tenants;
2. regular farmworkers; -  is a natural person who is employed on a permanent basis by
an agricultural enterprise or farm.
3. seasonal farmworkers; - is a natural person who is employed on a recurrent, periodic
or intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or a
non-permanent laborer, such as "dumaan", "sacada", and the like.
4. other farmworkers; - is a farmworker who does not fall as a farmworker or a regular
farmworker
5. actual tillers/occupants of public lands; -
6. collectives/cooperatives of the above beneficiaries
7. others directly working on the land.

What are the lands covered by the CARP?

a. All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for
agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be
undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological,
developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific
limits of the public domain.
b. All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress
in the preceding paragraph;
c. All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and
d. All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural
products raised or that can be raised thereon.

Distinctive Features of Presidential Decree no. 27 and Republic Act no. 6657

PD 27 RA 6657
Emancipation of the tenant from the Bondage A more equitable distribution and ownership
of the soil of land

Implemented the Operation Land Transfer

Program—covers tenanted rice and corn To promote Social Justice and
lands industrialization.
The requisites for coverage under the o Beneficiaries are only natural persons
Operation Land Transfer  program are the
following— o The land is devoted to all kinds of crops
o The land must be devoted to rice or corn
crops
o There must be a system of share-crop or
lease-tenancy
obtaining therein
> If either is absent, the landowner may apply
for exemption
 PD27 grants each tenant of covered lands a
5 hectare lot, or in case the lot is irrigated, 3
hectares constituting the family size farm.
However, said law allows a covered
landowner to retain not more than 7 hectares
of his land if his aggregate landholding
doesn’t exceed 24 hectares
In no case shall retention by the landowner
exceed five (5) hectares.
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each
child of the landowner, subject to the
following qualifications:
(1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age;
and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or
directly managing the farm: provided, that
landowners whose lands have been covered
by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be
allowed to keep the areas originally retained
by them thereunder

> Consequently, a landowner may keep his whole covered land if its aggregate size doesn’t
exceed the retention limit of 7 hectares
> An application for exemption is different from that of retention. They are distinct remedies and
thus, judgment in one doesn’t preclude the subsequent institution of the other
> The right to retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right which is subject to the qualifications
by the legislature
> Landowners who haven’t exercised their retention rights under PD27 may exercise their
retention rights under RA 6657
> The right to retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite the issuance of the
certificate of land transfer to farmer beneficiaries. What must be protected, however, is the right
of the tenants to opt to stay on the land chosen to be retained by the landowner or be a
beneficiary in another agricultural land with similar or comparable features
> Land awards made pursuant to a government’s agrarian reform program are subject to the
exercise of the landowner who is qualified to the right of retention
> The issuance of emancipation patents or certificates of land transfers doesn’t absolutely bar
the landowner from retaining the area covered thereby.
J.V. LAGON REALTY CORP vs. HEIRS OF LEOCADIA VDA. DE TERRE

G.R. No. 219670, June 27, 2018

Facts:
It was alleged in the complaint that sometime in 1952, Antonio Pedral (Pedral) instituted Leocadia
and her spouse, Delfin Terre (the spouses Terre), to work as share tenants over his 5-hectare
agricultural landholding known as Lot 587 located at Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat. Three (3) years
later, Pedral sold the land to Jose Abis (Abis) who, in turn, sold the same to Augusto Gonzales
(Gonzales) in 1958.

During the said transfers of ownership, the spouses Terre were allegedly retained as tenants of the
entire 5-hectare landholding. In the 1960s, Gonzales reduced their tillage to 2.5 hectares, and the
other half of the land was given to Landislao Bedua and Antonillo Silla to till. On their 2.5 hectares,
the Spouses Terre constructed a house and that of their daughter's.

In 1988, the spouses Terre were surprised when they were informed that J.V. Lagon had
already bought the entire 5-hectare land from the heirs of Gonzales. Later on, J.V. Lagon
constructed a scale house within the 2.5 hectare land tilled by the spouses Terre. In 1989, J.V.
Lagon warned the spouses to stop cultivating the land because the whole lot was to be
developed for commercial or industrial use. In that same year, Delfin died, purportedly due to
mental anguish over the turn of events.
On 7 May 1991, Leocadia filed a complaint before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
(BARC). The following day, on 8 May 1991, a complaint was also lodged before the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO). No appropriate action, however, was taken on the said
complaints until the dispute was eventually brought before the PARAD on 19 June 1997.
Leocadia claimed that the works done by J.V. Lagon were tantamount to conversion of the land
for non-agricultural purposes. Also, Leocadia averred that she was not duly notified in writing
about the sale between Gonzales and J.V. Lagon. Thus, her 180-day right of redemption
pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, 7 did not
commence. Accordingly, it was prayed that she be allowed to exercise her right of redemption
over the land, the expenses thereof to be shouldered by the Land Bank of the Philippines.
In her bid to prove the existence of tenancy, Leocadia relied, inter alia, on the following
documents: (a) 23 April 1997 Certification issued by Geronimo P. Arzagon, Municipal Mayor of
Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, certifying that the spouses Terre were actual tenants of the land; 8 (b)
Pedral's affidavit dated 4 July 1987, confirming his consent for the spouses Terre to be his
agricultural tenants at a 70-30 sharing of harvest in their favor; 9 (c) affidavit dated 28 July 1997,
executed by MARO Perfecto Bergonia, Jr. stating that Terre, a tenant, filed a complaint on 7
July 1991, concerning her illegal ejectment.
The PARAD ruled in favor of J.V. Lagon. It opined that Leocadia's complaint was already barred
by prescription and laches, and held that Leocadia failed to establish her status as a de
jure tenant. It found scant evidentiary value on the documents she presented.
However, the DARAB reversed and set aside the PARAD's ruling. It held that Leocadia's action
was not barred by prescription because the filing of the complaint with the BARC on 7 May 1991
tolled the running of the prescriptive period. The DARAB found probative value on the
documents Leocadia presented. It concluded that tenancy existed, as evinced by the fact that
Leocadia's house was erected inside the subject landholding; and such fact was attested to by
the affidavits of the former MARO Perfecto Bergonia and of Mayor Geronimo P. Arzagon of
Tacurong City.
The DARAB further ruled that Leocadia was entitled to redeem the land from J.V. Lagon. It cited
Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389 which provides that the right of
redemption may be exercised within 180 days from notice in writing which shall be served by
the vendee on all lessees affected and on the DAR upon registration of the sale. In view of the
PARAD's finding that J.V. Lagon failed to give notice in writing of the sale, the DARAB declared
that Leocadia's right of redemption did not prescribe, a written notice of the sale being an
indispensable requirement of the law.
The CA affirmed in toto the DARAB's ruling.

Issue:
Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship between J.V. Lagon and Leocadia.

Ruling:
No.
There is a tenancy relationship if the following essential elements concur: 1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an
agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of
the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the
part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) the harvest is shared between landowner and
tenant or agricultural lessee.
All of the above requisites are indispensable in order to create or establish tenancy relationship
between the parties. The absence of at least one requisite does not make the alleged tenant
a de facto one, for the simple reason that unless an individual has established one's status as
a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure guaranteed by agricultural tenancy laws.
The evidence on record, however, is bereft of any affirmative and positive showing that tenancy
was maintained on the land throughout the three decades leading to J.V. Lagon's acquisition in
1988. Before Leocadia's claims against J.V. Lagon can prosper, it must first be established that
the latter acquired land which was tenanted. On this premise, the scope of judicial inquiry
inexorably backtracks to Gonzales' epoch. Were there agricultural tenants on the land during
Gonzales' ownership? The answer could have easily been supplied by none other than
Gonzales himself who was in the best position to attest on the status of the land acquired by
J.V. Lagon. A testimony or an affidavit from Gonzales would have served to substantiate
Leocadia's allegation that she had been a tenant on the land prior to J.V. Lagon's entry.
Being the party alleging the existence of tenancy relationship, Leocadia carried the burden of
proving her allegation. With only Pedral's affidavit as proof, the Court is unable to agree with the
DARAB and the CA that tenancy was established by substantial evidence. As explained above,
Pedral's affidavit leaves much to be desired, and it is inadequate basis to support a conclusion
that Leocadia remained as a tenant on the land throughout the three decades preceding J.V.
Lagon's ownership. Agricultural tenancy is not presumed. It is a matter of jurisprudence that
tenancy is not purely a factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the
land. More importantly, it is a legal relationship the existence of which must be proven by the
quantum of evidence required by law.
While tenancy presupposes physical presence of a tiller on the land, the MARO's affidavit and
the mayor's certification fall short in proving that Leocadia's presence served the purpose of
agricultural production and harvest sharing. Again, it cannot be overemphasized that in order for
a tenancy to arise, it is essential that all its indispensable elements must be present.
All told, the evidence on record is inadequate to arrive at a conclusion that Leocadia was a de
jure tenant entitled to security of tenure. The requisites for the existence of a tenancy
relationship are explicit in the law, and these elements cannot be done away with by
conjectures.

Bumagat vs Arribay
GR 194818               June 9, 2014

Facts:
Petitioners are the registered owners, successors-in-interest, or possessors of agricultural land,
consisting of about eight hectares, located in Bubog, Sto. Tomas, Isabela Province. The
certificates of title were issued in 1986 pursuant to emancipation patents. Petitioners add that
when certificates of title were issued in their favor, they ceased to be tenant-tillers of the land
but became owners thereof; that full ownership over the property was acquired when
emancipation patents were issued in their favor; that when their certificates of title were issued,
the application of the agrarian laws was consummated; and that as owners of the subject
property, they were thus in peaceful and adverse physical possession thereof when respondent
ousted them by force, threat and intimidation. Petitioners argue further that respondent is not
the former landowner, nor the representative thereof; he is merely an absolute stranger who
came into the picture only later.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that the subject properties are agricultural lands
– which thus renders the dispute an agrarian matter and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). However, in a January 30,
2006 Order, the MCTC denied the motion, finding that the pleadings failed to show the
existence of a tenancy or agrarian relationship between the parties that would bring their dispute
within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was similarly
rebuffed.
The MCTC held that based on the evidence, petitioners were in actual possession of the subject
parcels of land, since respondent himself admitted that he brought an action against petitioners
before the MARO to collect rentals which have remained unpaid since 1995 – thus implying that
petitioners, and not respondent, were in actual possession of the land, and belying respondent’s
claim that he took possession of the property in 1993 when petitioners supposedly abandoned
the same. The court added that petitioners’ claims were corroborated by the statements of other
witnesses – farmers of the adjoining lands – declaring that petitioners have been in unmolested
and peaceful possession of the subject property until May 9, 2005, when they were
dispossessed by respondent.
The MCTC added that it had jurisdiction over the case since there is no tenancy relationship
between the parties, and the pleadings do not allege such fact; that respondent’s own witnesses
declared that the subject property was never tenanted nor under lease to tenants.
The RTC affirmed the appealed judgement of the MCTC. However, the CA reversed the
decision of the RTC stating that the parties’ dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the DARAB
since petitioners’ titles were obtained pursuant to PD 27, and under the 1994 DARAB rules of
procedure, cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land
Registration Authority fall under DARAB jurisdiction.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners are the Absolute owners of the subject parcel of lands acquired
through the Emancipation patents.

Ruling:
Yes.
When petitioners obtained their emancipation patents and subsequently their certificates of title,
they acquired vested rights of absolute ownership over their respective landholdings. "It
presupposes that the grantee or beneficiary has, following the issuance of a certificate of land
transfer, already complied with all the preconditions required under P.D. No. 27, and that the
landowner has been fully compensated for his property. And upon the issuance of title, the
grantee becomes the owner of the landholding and he thereby ceases to be a mere tenant or
lessee. His right of ownership, once vested, becomes fixed and established and is no longer
open to doubt or controversy”. Petitioners "became the owner[s] of the subject property upon
the issuance of the emancipation patents and, as such, [enjoy] the right to possess the same—a
right that is an attribute of absolute ownership."
As correctly argued by petitioners, a case involving agricultural land does not immediately
qualify it as an agrarian dispute. The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ipso facto
make the possessor an agricultural lessee or tenant. There are conditions or requisites before
he can qualify as an agricultural lessee or tenant, and the subject being agricultural land
constitutes just one condition. For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case, there must
exist a tenancy relation between the parties. "In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over
a dispute, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: 1) that the parties are
the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship
is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the
purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal
cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared
between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee." In the present case, it is quite
evident that not all of these conditions are present. For one, there is no tenant, as both parties
claim ownership over the property.

Paris v Alfeche
G.R. No. 139083            August 30, 2001
Facts:
Petitioner is the registered owner of two parcels of land situated at Paitan, Quezon, Bukidnon.
The said parcels are fully tenanted by private respondents herein who are recipients of
emancipation Patents in their names pursuant to "Operation and Transfer under PD. 27.
Petitioner alleged that she owns one of the subject property as original homestead grantee who
still owned the same when Republic Act no. 6657 was approved, thus she is entitled to retain
the area to the exclusion of her tenants. The adjudicator a quo rendered a decision in favor of
the petitioner but that decision was reversed by DARAB. On appeal to the CA, the appellate
court rejected the claim of the petitioner.  It ruled that she could not retain her homesteads,
since she was not the actual cultivator thereof. It also held that she and her heirs had not been
deprived of their right to retain the area mandated by law, because the records showed that they
had other agricultural landholdings. Finally, it ruled that she had not been deprived of her
properties without just compensation, since "Section 2 of Executive Order 228 declared that
tenant-farmers of agricultural lands under P.D. 27 are deemed owners of the land they till and
the lease rentals paid by them shall be considered as amortization payments."
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the original homesteads issued under the public land act are exempted from the
operation of land reform.

Ruling:
No.
Petitioner's contention is without legal basis. Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, under which the
Emancipation Patents sought to be canceled here were issued to respondents, applies to all
tenanted private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-
crop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not." The law makes no
exceptions whatsoever in its coverage. Nowhere therein does it appear that lots obtained by
homestead patents are exempt from its operation.
The matter is made even clearer by Department Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1978,
which states: "Tenanted private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and/or corn which
have been acquired under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, shall also be
covered by Operation Land Transfer." Unquestionably, petitioner's parcels of land, though
obtained by homestead patents under Commonwealth Act 141, are covered by land reform
under PD 27.
Petitioner's claimed entitlement to retain seven (7) hectares is also untenable. PD 27, which
provides the retention limit, states:
"In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if
such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it."
Clearly, the right to retain an area of seven hectares is not absolute. It is premised on the
condition that the landowner is cultivating the area sought to be retained or will actually cultivate
it upon effectivity of the law.
In the case at bar, neither of the conditions for retention is present. As admitted by
petitioner herself, the subject parcels are fully tenanted; thus, she is clearly not
cultivating them, nor will she personally cultivate any part thereof. Undoubtedly,
therefore, she has no right to retain any portion of her landholdings.
Even under the current primary law on agrarian reform, Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, to which
the application of PD 27 is suppletory, petitioner's lands are subject to land reform. The said Act
lays down the rights of homestead grantees as follows:
"SECTION 6. Retention Limits.—Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own
or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary
according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5)
hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the
following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually
tilling the land or directly managing the farm; Provided, That landowners whose lands have
been covered by PD 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them
thereunder; Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory
heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall
retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead."
Indisputably, homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can own and retain the
original homesteads, only for "as long as they continue to cultivate" them. That parcels of land
are covered by homestead patents will not automatically exempt them from the operation of
land reform. It is the fact of continued cultivation by the original grantees or their direct
compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands from land reform coverage.
In the present case, as previously pointed out, neither petitioner nor her heirs are personally
cultivating the subject homesteads. The DAR and the CA found that respondents were the ones
who had been cultivating their respective portions of the disputed properties.
However, petitioner can retain five (5) hectares in accordance with Section 6 of RA 6657, which
requires no qualifying condition for the landowner to be entitled to retain such area.