CASE NO.

TOPIC CASE

D. Other Important Definitions:

1) Agricultural Land
2) Agrarian Dispute Natalia Realty v. DAR
3) Farmer
4) Farmworker

1
 Constitutionality of RA 6657: Association of Small Landowners in the
1) Police Power Philippines vs. Secretary of Agrarian
2) Eminent Domain Reform

Constitutionality of RA 6657:
1) Police Power Luz Farms vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform
2) Eminent Domain

3
 Agricultural Tenancy - Elements Cayetano and Tiongson, et al. vs. Court
of Appeals, et al.

Stanfilco Employees Agrarian Reform

Agricultural Tenancy - Elements Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose
Cooperative vs. DOLE Philippines

5
 Agricultural Tenancy - Elements Mendoza vs. Germino

Agricultural Tenancy - Right of Security Talavera vs. Court of Appeals

of Tenure

7
 Agricultural Tenancy - Right of Security Milestone Realty and Co., Inc. vs. Court
of Tenure of Appeals

Agricultural Tenancy - Right of Security Villaviza, et al. vs. Panganiban, et al.

of Tenure

9
FACTS

Petitioner Natalia is the owner of three contiguous parcels of land located in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal. On 18 April 197
No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as to
population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The Natalia proper
areas proclaimed as town site reservation. EDIC, developer of Natalia, applied for and was granted preliminary appr
clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. Petitioners were likewise issued development permi
requirements. Thus the Natalia properties later became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.

On 15 June 1988, CARL was enacted. DAR, through MARO, issued a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions
Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares. Natalia and EDIC protested to this.

Members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA), filed a complaint against Natalia and ED
Adjudicator to restrain petitioners from developing areas under cultivation by SAMBA members.

DAR Regional ruled by temporarily restraining petitioners from further developing the subdivision. Petitioners eleva
the latter merely remanded the case to the Regional Adjudicator for further proceedings. Natalia wrote respondent
reiterating its request to set aside the Notice of Coverage. Neither respondent Secretary nor respondent Director to
letters.
Hence, this petition.
Natalia’s contention: Subject properties already ceased to be agricultural lands when they were included in the area
fiat for town site reservation.
OSG’s contention: The permits granted petitioners were not valid and binding because they did not comply with the
Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957, otherwise known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decre
conversion of the NATALIA lands from agricultural to residential was ever filed with the DAR. In other words, there w
The petitioners( Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc) in this case invoke the right of retention gra
owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares as long as they are cultivating or intend to cultivate the
do not exceed the statutory limit but are occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such lands. According to P
promulgated in implementation of P.D. No. 27:
No tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn shall be ejected or removed from his farmh
respective rights of the tenant- farmers and the landowner shall have been determined in accordance with the rules
implementing P.D. No. 27.

The petitioners claim they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right of retention because the
Reform has so far not issued the implementing rules required under the above-quoted decree.

On 10 June 1988, RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines, which includes, among others, the rais
swine in its coverage. Petitioner Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business, avers that i
by the enforcement of sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of the said law. Hence, it prayed that the said law be d
mentioned sections of the law provies, among others, the product-sharing plan, including those engaged in livestock

Luz Farms further argued that livestock or poultry raising is not similar with crop or tree farming. That the land is no
undertaking and represents no more than 5% of the total investments of commercial livestock and poultry raisers. T
not the principal factor or consideration in their industry. Hence, it argued that it should not be included in the cove
“agricultural lands.
1946, Severino Manotok donated and transferred to his 8 children and 2 grandchildren a 34 hectare land in Quezon
appointed judicial guardian of his minor children. There was no tenant occupying the property at the time of the do
Later, Teodoro Macaya accompanied Vicente Herrera, the overseer of the property, went to the Manotok and plead
in the property to prevent theft and to guard the property. Manotok allowed Macaya but imposed the condition tha
needed to take the property, Macaya and his family must vacate, and that he could raise animals and plant accordin
owners have no responsibility to Macaya and he will use only 3 hectares. These conditions were not put in writing.

In 1950, the property owners organized themselves as a corporation and transferred the 34 hectare land a capital co
stock of the corporation. Later, when the owners demanded for payment of taxes, Macaya agreed to help pay the ta
palay every year as his contribution. Later, owners requested Macaya to increase his contribution to 20 cavans, Mac
pleaded that he will contribute 10 cavans only, the owners said the "he might as well not deliver anymore". Macaya
then on.

1974, the owners executed a Unilateral Deed of Conveyance of the property to Patricia Tiongson, etc. Macaya was i
needed for house construction of the owners and was asked to vacate, Macaya pleaded that he may be allowed to h
However, after harvest, Macaya did not vacate and even expand his cultivation to 6 hectares without the consent of

On January 29, 1998, petitioner as seller, and respondent as buyer, entered into a Banana Production and Purchase
provided that SEARBEMCO shall sell exclusively to DOLE, and the latter shall buy from the former all Cavendish bana
specifications to be planted on the land owned by SEARBEMCO. On December 11, 2000, DOLE filed a complaint with
SEARBEMCO, the spouses Elly and Myrna Abujos (spouses Abujos), and Oribanex Services, Inc. ( Oribanex ) for speci
damages, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and of a temporary restraining order. DO
sold and delivered to Oribanex, through the spouses Abujos, the bananas rejected by DOLE, in violation of paragrap
which limited the sale of rejected bananas for "domestic non-export consumption." DOLE further alleged that Oriba
bananas and is its direct competitor
petitioner and Aurora C. Mendoza[5] (plaintiffs) filed a complaint with the MTC... against respondent Narciso Germi
plaintiffs claimed that they were the registered owners of a five-hectare parcel of land in Soledad, Sta. Rosa, Nueva
Sometime in 1988, respondent Narciso unlawfully entered the subject property by... means of strategy and stealth,
or consent. Despite the plaintiffs' repeated demands, respondent Narciso refused to vacate the subject property.[7
his answer, claiming, among others, that his brother, respondent Benigno Germino, was the plaintiffs' agricultural le
the latter in the cultivation as a member of the immediate farm household. the MTC issued an order on October 27,
the DARAB, Cabanatuan City for further proceedings. the plaintiffs[10] filed an amended complaint with the Provinc
Adjudicator (PARAD), impleading respondent Benigno as additional defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that Efren Bern
lessee of the subject property. Respondent Benigno unlawfully entered the subject property in 1982 or 1983 throug
without their knowledge or consent. In 1987, they discovered that respondent Benigno had transferred possession
respondent Narciso, who refused to return the possession of the subject property to the plaintiffs and appropriated
himself. PARAD... found that the respondents were mere usurpers of the subject property, noting that they failed to
Benigno was the plaintiffs' bona fide agricultural lessee. he respondents filed a notice of appeal with the DARAB. Th
on July 22, 1998. It held that it acquired jurisdiction because of the amended complaint that sufficiently alleged an a
MTC's referral of the case. Thus, it affirmed the PARAD decision. The CA... found that the MTC erred in transferring t
the material allegations of the complaint and the relief sought show a case for forcible entry, not an agrarian disput

action for recovery of possession was instituted by the private respondent against the petitioners over a parcel of ag
Laxamana had been a bonafide tenant of the aforesaid parcel of land since 1958 until the petitioners took possessio
petitioners, for unknown reasons and without the knowledge of respondent Laxamana, planted palay thereon in 19
intimidation after plowing and harrowing were done by respondent Laxamana... petitioners counter-alleged, among
relationship with respondent Laxamana was terminated pursuant to a document captioned "Casunduan... latter sold
the... agricultural landholding under litigation for a consideration of P1,000.00... respondent Laxamana was not actu
petitioners... whatever tenancy rights the former had exercised over the landholding in question were voluntarily su
execution of the aforesaid document... private respondent obtained a favorable judgment from which the petitione
respondent Court. the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's holding that the "Casunduan" even if assumed to
"voluntary surrender
Spouses Alfonso Olympia and Carolina Zacarias and Spouses Claro Zacarias and Cristina Lorenzo were the coowners
Carolina became the owner of the property by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement executed on October 17,
Olympia, one of whom is Francisco Olympia, on their respective shares after Alfonso's death and by an Affidavit of S
24, 1992 by the spouses Claro and Cristina Zacarias on their shares in the property. Anacleto Peña who was a tenant
of a Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold had a house constructed on the lot. He had several children on the first ma
houses constructed on the property. On February 4, 1986, Anacleto, married Delia Razon. Anacleto died intestate an
his children in his first marriage, including Emilio. Emilio and Delia, the latter with respondent Raymundo Eugenio, h
tilling and cultivating the property. Emilio signed a handwritten declaration that he was the tenant in the land and h
landholding to Carolina Zacarias in consideration of the sum of P1,500,000 as "disturbance compensation" After rec
executed a "Katibayang Paglilipat ng Pag-mamay-ari". Carolina Zacarias executed a deed of sale transfering the Lot N
Milestone Title was issued in the name of Milestone. TCT No. V-25431 was issued under the name of petitioner Will
sold the same to Milestone. Thus, Milestone became the owner of the adjoining lots. Private respondents Delia Razo
Eugenio filed a complaint praying inter alia to declare as null and void the sale by Carolina to Perez and by the latter
recognize and respect the tenancy of private respondents Delia and Raymundo. In her answer, Carolina Zacarias dec
Peña as her tenant-beneficiary on the said property within 30 days after the death of Anacleto. PARAD rendered a d
complaint. PARAD ruled that the order of preference cited in Section 9 of Republic Act 3844 is not absolute and may
cause.6 It also took note that Emilio's two siblings have openly recognized Emilio as the legitimate successor to Anac
Razon Peña and Raymundo Eugenio appealed from the PARAD's decision to the DARAB. DARAB reversed the decisio
that Carolina's affidavit did not show any categorical admission that she made her choice within the one (1) month p
"when Anacleto died, the right of the deceased was inherited by Emilio Peña. Court of Appeals, the latter affirmed t
convinced that petitioners Carolina Olympia and Francisco Olympia failed to choose, within the statutory period the
substitution of Anacleto Peña, the erstwhile deceased tenant on the landholding, and that, without prior or simultan
Respondent Delia Peña, the Petitioners made their choice of

Petitioner Emilio Peña as substitute tenant only in January, 1992, after they had agreed to sell the property to the P
Co., Inc. Subsequently, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA's decision. Said motion was denied.

Petitioner Villaviza et. al. were tenants in a riceland (Aliaga, Nueva Ecija) owned by Domingo Fajardo since 1944. By
to a Quirino Capalad, who cultivated the land through the use of machinery and also by hiring other tenants.  Whe
their specific landholdings to prepare them for planting, they found that the land was already cultivated. They dema
them as farmer-tenants.  However, Capalad failed to reinstate them despite making promises to do so. Petitioners
Court of Agrarian Reform against Capalad.  CAR Ruling: Petitioners should vacate the property and for Capalad to p
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE

Whether or not lands already classified for

residential, commercial or industrial use, as
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board and its precursor agencies prior to 15 June
1988, are covered by R.A. 6657, otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988.
Whether the P.D. No. 27 is unconstitutional.

Whether or not Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A.

No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of 1988), insofar as the said law includes the raising
of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as
well as the Implementing Rules and Guidelines
promulgated in accordance therewith are
constitutional.
Whether there is tenancy relationship between the
parties.

Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of the complaint of DOLE,
considering that the case involves an agrarian
dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
DARAB.
whether the MTC or the DARAB has jurisdiction
over the case.

whether or not by virtue of the "Casunduan" dated

March 30,... 1973, respondent Laxamana as tenant
is deemed to have surrendered voluntarily the
subject landholding to its owners the petitioners.
1. Whether or not Delia Razon Peña has a right of
first priority over Emilio Peña in succeeding to the
tenancy rights of Anacleto over the subject
landholding. 2. 2. Whether or not the sales of the
subject lots by Carolina Zacarias to William Perez
and then to Milestone are null and void.

Whether or not the CAR committed grave abuse of

discretion
RULING

NO. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity p
not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land." 16 The deliberations of the Constitution
and residential lands.Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivisi
inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas in question continued to be developed as a low
continuing with such development. The enormity of the resources needed for developing a subdivision may have de
agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural u
Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, 18 DAR itself defined "agricultural land" thus -- Republic Act no. 6657 states, Agricu
predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land
to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the undeveloped po
The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his powers under martial law has already be
228 and 229, the same was authorized under Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution, quoted

The said measures were issued by President Aquino before July 27, 1987, when the Congress of the Philippines was
July 17, 1987, and the other measures, i.e., Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229, were both issued on July 22, 1987. Neith
by subsequent law or declared invalid by the courts. A statute does not ipso facto become inoperative simply becau
enacted by her when and as long as she possessed it.

The Court holds as follows:

1. R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are SUSTAINED against all the constitutional

2. Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment of compensation to th

3. All rights previously acquired by the tenant- farmers under P.D. No. 27 are retained and recognized.

4. Landowners who were unable to exercise their rights of retention under P.D. No. 27 shall enjoy the retention righ

5. Subject to the above-mentioned rulings all the petitions are DISMISSED.

NO. The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word "agri
mandated agrarian reform program of the Government. The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land
CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 11).The intention of the Committee is to limit the application of the word "agric
residential properties because all of them fall under the general classification of the word "agricultural". This propos
include commercial, industrial and residential lands. It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A
that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. Th
Real estate taxes of the property declare the land as residential. The physical view of the property also shows that th
As to the sharing, the decision of the petitioners not to ask for anymore contributions from Macaya reveals that the
of the property. Moreover, from 1946 to 1956 at which time, Macaya was also planting rice, there was no payment
lessor has no responsibility whatsoever for the problems of production and enters into no agreement as to the shar
As to consent, the lot was taxed as residential land in a metropolitan area. There was clearly no intention on the par
purpose was also not present.

There was no agreement as to any system of sharing the produce of the land. The petitioners did not get anything fr

DOLE’s complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, not the DARAB. SEARBEMCO mainly relies on Sec
within the competence of the DARAB and not of the regular courts. The BPPA, SEARBEMCO claims, is a joint venture
exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. SEARBEMCO also asserts that the parties’ relationship in the present case is not
and technological expertise on the part of DOLE. Therefore, SEARBEMCO concludes that the BPPA is not an ordinary
declaration that the present case does not fall under DARAB’s jurisdiction. DARAB’s quas-ijudicial powers under Sec
for mediation and conciliation, without any success of settlement. Since the present dispute need not be referred to
that is necessary to invoke DARAB’s jurisdiction; hence, there will be no compliance with Section 53 of RA No. 6657.
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and th
by the acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard
over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The RRSP[26] governs the remedial... aspects of these suits. Und
determine and adjudicate all... agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Refo
forcible entry. In the present case, instead of conducting a preliminary conference, the MTC immediately referred th
Reform for the preliminary determination of the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship, has indeed been r

Extinguishment of agricultural leasehold relation. The agricultural leasehold relation established under this Code sha

(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 m

(3) Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to the lessee, in the event of death or permanent incapac

Voluntary surrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations, does not require any court authorization co

voluntary surrender, as contemplated by law, must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent evidence.
Laxamana continued to work on the farm from 1973 up to 1984 when the petitioners ejected him. As stated by the

We are more inclined to... believe that Laxamana was forced by circumstances to sign something he did no fully und

petition is hereby DISMISSED

The very essence of agricultural tenancy lies in the cardinal rule that an agricultural tenant enjoys security of tenuria
No dispute as to tenancy relationship between Carolina Zacarias and the late Anacleto Peña. The controversy center
Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties. - In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural less
agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the su
or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised
be in accordance with the order herein established. We agree with private respondents. As found by both the DARA
Such inaction to make a choice within the time frame required by law is equivalent to waiver on Carolina's part to ch
to petitioners Perez and Milestone. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3844 it provides that in case of death or permanen
personally. The leasehold shall bind the legal heirs of the agricultural lessor in case of death or permanent incapacit
incapacity of the agricultural lessee from among the following: (1) surviving spouse; (2) eldest direct descendant by

Since petitioner Rodolfo Manuel failed to exercise his right of choice within the statutory period, Edwardo's widow E
undeniable that respondent Delia Razon Peña, the surviving spouse of the original tenant, Anacleto Peña, is the first
period from the time of Anacleto's death.

Answer to 1st Issue Petitioners cannot find succor in the declarations of Emilio Peña and the affidavit of Carolina Zac
or almost two years after the death of Anacleto on February 17, 1990, way beyond the one month period provided f
choice within the one (1) month period. Instead, she narrated passively that "when Anacleto died, the right of the d
frame Petitioners further argue that Delia cannot qualify as tenant even on the assumption that she was the rightful
certain material facts which, however are not within the province of this Court to consider in a petition for review. D
questions of law may be reviewed. Answer to 2nd issue we are unable to agree with the ruling of respondent Court
and Delia Razon Peña only succeeded to the tenancy rights of Anacleto. Carolina has the right to dispose of the prop
right of the agricultural lessee or his successor in interest is the right of preemption and/or redemption. Finally, as t
certiorari as it requires evaluation and examination of pertinent facts. WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRAN

NO. RATIO:  The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Agrarian Court; and held that the decisio
A tenant’s right to be respected in his tenure under RA 1199, as amended, is an obligation of the landholder created
on 31 March 1960; thus, their filing of an action had not yet expired. However, the lower court found that petitione
only 2 harvests based on the landholder’s share for the crop year.
essential requisites of tenancy
relationship are: 1) the parties are the
landholder and the tenant; 2) the
subject is agricultural land; 3) there is
consent; 4) the purpose is agricultural
production; and 5) there is
consideration... key factor in
ascertaining whether or not there is a
land­owner-tenant relationship in this
case is the nature of the dis­puted
property.