Presentation in Agrarian

Law
Group 4 - Mike’s Angels
 Tenancy Relationship
REQUISITES:
(1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant;
(2) the subject is agricultural land;
(3) the purpose is agricultural production;
(4) there is consideration which consist of sharing the harvest;
(5) there is consent to the tenant to work on the land and (6) there is
personal cultivation by him.
GREGORIO CASTILLO vs. COURT
OF APPEALS and ALBERTO
IGNACIO
205 SCRA 529
 FACTS
On July 18, 1985, a complaint for injunction was filed by private respondent Alberto Ignacio against
petitioner Gregorio Castillo with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan.
It is alleged in the complaint that the respondent is the agricultural tenant of the petitioner in the
latter's parcel of land consisting of 9,920 square meters with fruit-bearing trees situated in Cut-cut,
Pulilan, Bulacan; that sometime in April 1985, the petitioner requested the respondent to allow him to
construct a resthouse in said land, and as a token of goodwill, the respondent agreed, which agreement
is embodied in a "Kasunduan" (Exhibit "C") between them; that in violation of said agreement, the
petitioner started to cut fruit-bearing trees on the land in question and filled with adobe stones the area
devoted by the private respondent to the planting of vegetables.
The complaint asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the petitioner from
further cutting fruit-bearing trees and from committing further acts of dispossession against the private
respondent. The injunction was granted.
The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the private respondent is not his agricultural tenant;
that respondent Alberto Ignacio is merely a "magsisiga" (smudger) of the landholding in question; that
he did not ask permission from the private respondent to construct a rest house on subject land, since
as owner thereof, he had the right to do so; that he was merely exercising his right of ownership when
he cut certain trees in the subject premises; that when the barangay captain failed to settle the conflict
and the matter was referred to the MAR-BALA (Ministry of Agrarian Reform-Bureau of Agrarian Legal
Assistance) Office in Malolos, Bulacan, Atty. Benjamin Yambao of the MAR (Ministry of Agrarian Reform)
prepared the "Kasunduan" attached to the respondent's complaint, but when he (petitioner) said that
he had some misgivings about some words therein, Atty. Yambao assured him that he need not worry
because the respondent could not be a "kasamang magsasaka" of his mango land because there is
nothing to cultivate or till in said land, but he still corrected the last part of par. 4 of said "Kasunduan" by
making it read "sa kanilang matiwasay na kaugnayan" before signing the same.
On September 28, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment declaring that no tenancy relationship exists
between the petitioner and the private respondent.

From the above decision, the private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed and
set aside the decision of the trial court. The respondent appellate court declared that there exists a
tenancy relationship between Alberto Ignacio and Gregorio Castillo and permanently enjoined the latter
from disturbing the respondent's peaceful possession as tenant of said land.

Hence, the instant petition was filed.

ISSUE

Whether or not a tenancy relationship exists

between the parties.
 RULING
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE
and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that the award of attorney's
fees is DELETED.
As held in the case of Qua v. Court of Appeals, the essential requisites of tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties
are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) the purpose is agricultural production;
(4) there is consideration which consist of sharing the harvest; (5) there is consent to the tenant to work on the
land and (6) there is personal cultivation by him.
In Gagola v. Court of Agrarian Relations (18 SCRA 992 [1966]), the Court held that a tenant has possession of the
land only through personal cultivation. Thus, in the instant case, the key factor in ascertaining the existence of a
landowner-tenant relationship is whether or not there is personal cultivation of the land by the private
respondent.
Moreover, and as significantly held in Qua v. Court of Appeals (supra), the fact that the source of livelihood of
the private respondents is not derived from the lots they are allegedly tenanting is indicative of non-agricultural
tenancy relationship.
RAFAEL v. COURT of
APPEALS
G.R. No. 86186 May 8, 1992
 FACTS
The Private Respondent owned the subject land of 25,000 square meters in Laguna. The Landowner
then entered in to a contract with the petitioner and employed him to be laborer on the land with the
wage of 5.00 peso a day. The Petitioner first went the Court of Agrarian Relation and then went to
Ministry of Agrarian reform and asked the court to fix the agricultural lease rental of the land and his
request was granted. The private respondent then filed a complaint of illegal detainer against the
petitioner that was that was dismissed by the Ministry of Agrarian reform for the existence of Tenancy
relations between the parties. The Private respondents appealed to the office of the President alleging
that there was no tenancy relation between the parties. The RTC rendered dismissed the complaint and
assailed that there was a tenancy relation between the parties. The Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the RTC.
ISSUE

Whether or not there exists a tenancy

relationship between the parties.
RULING
No, it was clear that the petitioner were not intended to be tenant but a mere
employee of the private respondent as showed in the contract. The petitioner
was paid for specific kind of work. The court stressed many cases that: "tenancy
is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does
upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the
understanding when the farmer is installed, and as in this case, their written
agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are
even more important.
SPOUSES ENDAYA v.
COURT of APPEALS
215 SCRA 109
FACTS
The Spouses Natividad Trinidad and Cesar San Diego owned a piece of agricultural land at San
Pioquinto, Malvar, Batangas, devoted to rice and corn. Fideli has been cultivating this land since 1934
as a tenant of the Spouses under a fifty-fifty (50-50) sharing agreement.

In May 1974-May 1978, a lease contract for the same land was executed between the Spouses San
Diego and one Regino Cassanova for the period May 1974-May 1978. This was later renewed in May
1980. Fideli signed both contract as witness and continuously cultivated the land, sharing equally
with Cassanova the net produce of the harvests.
On January 6, 1980, the Spouses San Diego sold the land to Spouses Titus L. Endaya and Glenda
Trinidad; Spouses Rico L. Endaya and Nanette Aquino; and Spouses Josephine L. Endaya and Leandro
Bantug for the sum of P26,000.00. The sale was registered with the Register of Deeds of Batangas and a
Transfer Certificate of Title was duly issued on January 7, 1981. Fideli continued to farm the land
although petitioners claim that private respondent was told immediately after the sale to vacate the
land.

Due to petitioners’ persistent demand for Fideli to vacate the land, the latter filed in April 1985 a
complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas praying that he be declared the
agricultural tenant of petitioners.

Petitioners contend that when the original landowners, the Spouses San Diego, entered into a lease
contract with Regino Cassanova, the agricultural leasehold relationship between the Spouses San Diego
and Fideli was thereby terminated. They argue that a landowner cannot have a civil law lease contract
with one
RTC decided in favor of petitioners by holding that private respondent is not an agricultural lessee of the
land now owned by petitioners and ordered Pedro Fideli to vacate the landholding deliver possession
thereof to the defendants.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and declared private respondent to be the agricultural
lessee of the subject landholding.
ISSUE

Whether or not Fideli is an an agricultural

lessee of the land in question.
RULING
The Court ruled that private respondent is the agricultural lessee over the land owned by
petitioners. As such, private respondent's security of tenure must be respected by
petitioners.
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 is not among the
causes provided by law for the extinguishment of the agricultural leasehold relation. The
transactions involving the agricultural land over which an agricultural leasehold subsists
resulting in change of ownership, will not terminate the right 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.
R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as amended By R.A. No. 6839 (1971), abolished share tenancy
throughout the Philippines from 1971 and established the agricultural leasehold system by
operation of law.
Section 7: 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. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his
landholding and cannot be ejected there from unless authorized by the Court for causes
herein provided.

Sec. 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.
Tenants are guaranteed security of tenure, meaning, the continued enjoyment and possession of their
landholding except when their dispossession had been authorized by virtue of a final and executory
judgment, which is not so in the case at bar.(Catorce v. Court of Appeals)
In case of transfer or in case of lease, as in the instant case, the tenancy relationship between the
landowner and his tenant should be preserved in order to insure the well-being of the tenant or protect
him from being unjustly dispossessed by the transferee or purchaser of the land; in other words, the
purpose of the law in question is to maintain the tenants in the peaceful possession and cultivation of
the land or afford them protection against unjustified dismissal from their holdings. (Primero v. CAR, 101
Phil. 675)
ZACARIAS OARDE v. COURT
OF APPEALS
280 SCRA 235
 FACTS
Plaintiff Zacarias Oarde, testified that he began to till the land in question on April 29, 1964 when he got
married to the daughter of Francisco Molar, and to substantiate his claim, he presented as one of his witnesses
Gregorio Magnaye, an employee of the Bureau of Lands. He was the Chief of a Survey Team that conducted
the survey in Gotob.

He testified on cross-examination that in preparing the Summary Lists of the tenant-tillers in Gotob, Camalig,
Albay, they conducted a barrio assembly. They arrived at the conclusion that certain persons were tilling
certain properties owned by other persons because that was the listing of the DAR technicians. Before the
survey was conducted, they gathered the tenants together with the barangay officials and interviewed them if
they are the ones cultivating the property. Based on their survey, Zacarias Oarde was tilling two lots, Lots 17
and 18. These were the areas pointed to by Pedro Cervantes. Zacarias, however, when he testified claims that
he is tilling only one lot, Lot 17.
Another witness presented was Gregorio Medina. He was the President of the Samahang Nayon of Gotob in
1977. He alleged that he is not very particular about the land that the farmer-members till, but when they
register for membership, he is informed that they are leaseholders. He signed this Exhibit A, in 1977, when he
was called by the DAR personnel to their office. The document was already prepared. He did not read the
contents. He had no hand in the preparation of the lists and he was not present when the persons included
therein signed their names. He likewise did not verify whether the persons in the list were really farmers of the
landholdings as mentioned therein. He knows for a fact that the former farmer of these lands in question was
Francisco Molar.

On the claim of plaintiff Presentacion Molar in Civil Case 7960, she alleged that she is a tenant-lessee of the
land in question previously owned by Atty. Wilfredo Guerrero. She started tilling the land in 1965. Before, she
owned a carabao but sold it. She caused the land to be worked on 'Pakyaw' basis, hiring different persons for
different work. She actually does not till the land.
According to Zacarias Oarde who testified in behalf of Presentacion, the latter began tilling in 1968. She is not
married and she only hires laborers to till the land. It was Francisco Molar who distributed to his children the
land they are farming. Presentacion hires laborers to prepare and plant the land. She does not actually till the
land.

The trial court held that Petitioners Molar and Oarde were not lawful tenants of private respondents. As noted
above, public respondent affirmed the trial court's ruling in regard to Petitioner Molar, but reversed it with
respect to Petitioner Oarde. It ordered the reinstatement of Oarde as a tenant and awarded him damages in
the sum of P5,850.00.

Petitioner Molar prays that she be declared as a lawful tenant, and Petitioner Oarde asks that the damages
awarded to him be increased from P5,850.00 to P13,850.00. Private respondents do not question the Decision
of public respondent.
ISSUES

● Whether or not Molar is a valid tenant.

● Whether or not the award to Petitioner Oarde of
P5,850 as his lawful share in the harvests of his
tilled land from October 1987 to May 1991 correct.
RULING
● The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are the following: (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose
is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests. All
these must concur to establish the juridical relationship of tenancy.

Markedly absent in the case of Petitioner Molar is the element of personal cultivation. Both the
trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Molar herself did not actually cultivate the land,
nor did her immediate family or farm household. Instead, she hired other people to do all phases
of farm work. Even her co-petitioner testified that she did not actually till the land and that she
merely paid laborers to perform such task.
● Petitioner Oarde contends that Respondent Court erred in computing the award due him. He
claims it should be P13,850.00, not P5,800.00, representing "the loss of 70 cavans of palay for the
period October 1987 to May 1991 priced at P195.00 each or a total of P13,850.00, corresponding
to seven (7) harvest seasons for three and one-half years (3 1/2) counted from October 1987 to
May 1991."

A party is entitled to adequate compensation only for duly proved pecuniary loss actually suffered
by him or her. Such damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must
actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Damages cannot be presumed or
premised on conjecture or even logic. In making an award, courts must point out specific facts
which show a basis for the amount of compensatory or actual damages. 30 The claim of 70
cavans of palay is based on the unsubstantiated allegation that the subject riceland yielded two
harvests a year.
JAIME MORTA SR. v. JAIME
OCCIDENTAL

308 SCRA 167

 FACTS
Jaime Morta, Sr. and Purification Padilla (petitioners) filed two cases for damages with preliminary injunction
against Jaime Occidental, Atty. Mariano Baranda, Jr., and Daniel Coral (respondents).

In their complaint, petitioners alleged that respondents, through instigation of Atty. Baranda gathered pilinuts,
anahaw leaves and coconuts from their respective land. The products were delivered to Atty. Baranda. They also
alleged the respondents destroyed their banana and pineapple plants.

Respondents denied the accusation against them. They claimed that the petitioners were not owners of the land
in question. They alleged that the Torrens title is registered to the father of one Josefina Opiana-Baraclan. The
respondent contended that he was a bona fide tenant of Josefina.

MTC rendered decision in favor of the petitioner. Respondents appealed to the RTC questioning the MTC’s
jurisdiction that the case was cognizable by the DARAB and not of the MTC. RTC reversed MTC’s ruling and
remanded the case to DARAB for it falls within their exclusive original jurisdiction.

CA affirmed RTC’s ruling.

ISSUE

WON the civil action for damages are tenancy-

related and is cognizable by the DARAB and not
the trial court.
 RULING
No, the case is cognizable by the trial court.

For DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties.

The RTC in ruling that the case falls within DARAB, relied on the findings in DARAB that Josefina Opiana-
Baraclan appears to be the lawful owner of the land and Jaime Occidental was her recognized tenant.

However, petitioner Morta claimed that he is the owner of the land. Thus, there is even a dispute as to who is
the rightful owner of the land, Josefina Opiana-Baraclan or petitioner Morta.

The issue of ownership cannot be settled by the DARAB since it is definitely outside its jurisdiction. The issue
of ownership shall be resolved in a separate proceeding before the appropriate trial court between the
claimants thereof.

At any rate, whoever is declared to be the rightful owner of the land, the case cannot be considered as
tenancy-related for it still fails to comply with the other requirements. The case in not between a landowner and
tenant
 DAVAO NEW TOWN
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.
SALIGA ET AL.
457 PHIL 509
 FACTS
On February 5, 1998, respondents filed before the office of PARAD in Davao for injunction, cancellation of titles
and damages against petitioner.

PETITIONER

● The petitioner alleged in defense that it purchases the property in good faith from the previous owners
(Paz Flores and Elizabeth Nepumuceno) in 1995.
● At that time, the alleged tenancy relationship between the respondent and Eugenio had expired
following the expiration of their lease contract.
● Prior to the sale, the Davao City Office of the Zoning Administrator confirmed that the property was not
classified as agricultural.
● The property had already been classified to be within the urban xone in 1979-2000.
RESPONDENTS

● The respondents claimed that they and their parents, from whom they took over the cultivation of
the landholding, had been tenants of the property as early as 1965.
● On August 12, 1981, the respondent and Atty. Mendiola, originally registered owner of the 2
parcels of land, executed a 5 year lease contract.
● While they made stipulations regarding their respective rights and obligations over the
landholding, respondents claimed that the instrument was actually a device Eugenio used to
evade the land reform.
● Pursuant to the provisions of PD 27, they, as tenant, were deemed owners of the property
beginning October 21, 1972; thus the subsequent transfer to the petitioner was invalid.
● The petitioner could not have been a buyer in good faith as it did not verify the status of the
property prior to its purchase.
● Respondents submitted, among others, pertinent tax declarations showing the property was
agricultural sin 1985.
ISSUE

Whether or not a tenancy relationship

exists between DNTDC and the
respondents.
RULING

NO. In a tenancy relationship, the subject must be agricultural land. Here, it has already been reclassified as
non-agricultural. Accordingly, the respondents are not de jure tenants and are, therefore, not entitled to the
benefits granted to agricultural lessees.
LEONARDA L. MONSANTO, v. JESUS
AND TERESITA ZERNA AND COURT
OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 142501. December 7, 2001

FACTS
● Spouses Jesus and teresita Zerna were charged with qualified theft filed before the RTV
of Lanao del Norte.
● Leonarda Monsanto owned a parcel of land, wherein Teresita and Jesus were overseers.
In 1995, the Zernas harvested coconuts from the plantation without the consent of
Monsanto and processed them into copra for the purpose of confirming their claim that
they were tenants of the land. It was alleged that the total amount made was P6262.50
and P5162.50 was deposited to the barangay captain less P1000 for labor.
● Monsanto instituted a criminal case of qualified theft against the Zernas, but the Zernas
were acquitted for lack of criminal intent. The barangay captain of the locality was
ordered to return to Monsanto the money that the Zernas deposited.
● Petitioner file an MR to recover the sum of P1000, which the trial court granted.
● Respondents opposed the decision by averring that the amount was due to the
accused as compensation for their labor and equity demands that they be entitled to it
as the Court dismissed the criminal case against them.
● An issue was raised as to whether or not the accused were entitiled to the P1000 as
compensation for their labor in harvesting and processing the copra.
● The RTC found that equity was wanting in this case.
● CA ruled that RTC had no jurisdiction for this was an agrarian dispute which fell within
the jurisdiction of DARAB.
ISSUE

Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction of the

case due to tenancy relationship between the
parties.
 RULING
For DARAB to have jurisdiction of the case, the tenancy relationship between the parties must
first be established using the essential elements provided.

Petitioner claimed that the respondents were not his tenants and respondents raised the issue
of tenancy to escape prosecution for theft.

The SC held that an agrarian dispute existed between the parties. First, was the taking of the
coconuts from the property of the petitioner and second that the respondents were overseers
of the property.

The SC determined that there was a tenancy relationship between the parties evidenced by
the Agreement entered into by the parties on November 25, 1991.
SC ruled that a tenancy relationship may be established verbally or in writing and in this
case was evidenced by said agreement which contradicts the petitioner’s contention that the
respondents were mere overseers. As such, the resolution of the agrarian dispute is hereby
vested on the DARAB.
RODOLFO ARZAGA v.
SALVACION COPIAS

G.R. No. 152404. March 28, 2003

 FACTS
The case involves a complaint for recovery of possession and damages filed by the petitioners
as co-owners and purchasers of Lot No. 5198 in a tax delinquency sale and against the
respondents who assert that they are amortizing owners of the same, having been issued
Emancipation Patents as tenant beneficiaries of one Caridad Fuentebella who was purported
to be the previous owner of the land.

The case was filed in the RTC and dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the court
ruling that the case was cognizable by the DARAB because it involved possession and
ownership of agricultural lands as well as issuance of emancipation patents. On appeals, the
CA affirmed the said resolution.
ISSUE

Jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB) over a dispute involving
a parcel of land identified as Lot No. located at
Inabasan, San Jose, Antique.
RULING
In Monsanto vs. Zerna (G.R. No. 142501, 07 December 2001), it was held that for DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case,
there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a
dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) there is consent between
the parties to the relationship; (4) that 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 the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
In the case at bar, the element that the parties must be "the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee", on which
all other requisites of the tenancy agreement depend is absent. Tenancy relationship is inconsistent with the assertion of
ownership of both parties. Petitioners claim to be the owners of the entire Lot No. 5198 by virtue of a Certificate of Sale
of Delinquent Real Property, while private respondents assert ownership over Lot Nos. 5198-A, 5198-B and 5198-D on
the basis of an Emancipation Patent and Transfer Certificate of Title. Neither do the records show any judicial tie or
tenurial relationship between the parties'
predecessors-in-interest. The questioned lot is allegedly declared for taxation purposes in the name of
petitioners' father, Dalmacio Arzaga who does not appear to have any connection with the private
respondents nor with their alleged predecessor-in-interest, Caridad Fuentebella. xxx

The basic rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the
complaint. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer
or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the
whims of the defendant. From the averments of the complaint in the instant case, it is clear that the
petitioners' action does not involve an agrarian dispute but one for recovery of possession which is
perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.
GRACIANO BERNAS V. COURT
OF APPEALS and NATIVIDAD
BITOON
G.R. No. 85041 August 5, 1993
 FACTS
FACTS:Petitioner Graciano Bernas is before this Court assailing the decision the CA dated 19 August 1988 in CA G.R. SP
No. 14359 (CAR), which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 18, in Civil Case No. V-
5146 entitled "Natividad Bito-on Deita, et al. vs, Graciano Bernas."

Natividad Bito-on Deita is the owner of Lots Nos. 794, 801, 840 and 848 of the Cadastral Survey of Panay, Capiz, with a
total area of 5,831 square meters. Out of liberality, Natividad entrusted the lots by way of "dugo" to her brother, Benigno
Bito-on, so that he could use the fruits thereof to defray the cost of financing his children's schooling in Manila. Prior to
April 1978, these agricultural lots had been leased by one Anselmo Billones but following the latter's death and
consequent termination of the lease, petitioner Graciano Bernas took over and worked on the land. Benigno and Bernas
worked out a production-sharing arrangement whereby the first provided for all the expenses and the second worked
the land, and after harvest, the two (2) deducted said expenses and divided the balance of the harvest between the two
of them. The owner, Natividad, played no part in this arrangement as she was not privy to the same.
In 1985, the lots were returned by Benigno to his sister Natividad, as all his children had by then finished their schooling.
When Natividad, and her husband sought to take over possession of the lots, Bernas refused to relinquish, claiming that
he was an agricultural leasehold lessee instituted on the land, by Benigno and, as such, he is entitled to security of
tenure under the law.

Faced with this opposition from Bernas, Natividad filed an action with the Regional Trial Court for Recovery of
Possession, Ownership and Injunction with Damages. After trial, the court a quo held in favor of the defendant (Bernas)
and dismissed the complaint, ruling that from the record and the evidence presented, notably the testimony of the
plaintiff's own brother Benigno, Bernas was indeed a leasehold tenant under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1199 and
an agricultural leasehold lessee under Republic Act No. 3844, having been so instituted by the usufructuary of the land
(Benigno). As such, according to the trial court, his tenurial rights cannot be disturbed save for causes provided by law.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff (Natividad) appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the "dugo" arrangement
between her and her brother Benigno was not in the nature of a usufruct (as held by the court a quo), but
actually a contract of commodatum. This being the case, Benigno, the bailee in the commodatum, could neither
lend nor lease the properties loaned, to a third person, as such relationship (of bailor-bailee) is one of personal
character. This time, her contentions were sustained, with the respondent appellate court, reversing the trial
court's decision, ruling that having only derived his rights from the usufructuary/bailee, Bernas had no better
right to the property than the latter who admittedly was entrusted with the property only for a limited period.
Further, according to the appellate court, there being no privity of contract between Natividad and Bernas, the
former cannot be expected to be bound by or to honor the relationship or tie between Benigno and the latter
(Bernas).
ISSUE

Whether the agricultural leasehold established by Benigno

Bito-on in favor of Graciano Bernas is binding upon the
owner of the land, Natividad Bito-on, who disclaims any
knowledge of, or participation in the same.
 RULING
THE SC in its ruling quoted the respondent appellate court:

“Indeed, no evidence has been adduced to clarify the nature of the "dugo" transaction between plaintiff
and her brother Benigno Bito-on. What seems apparent is that Benigno Bito-on was gratuitously
allowed to utilize the land to help him in financing the schooling of his children. Whether the transaction
is one of usufruct, which right may be leased or alienated, or one of commodatum, which is purely
personal in character, the beneficiary has the obligation to return the property upon the expiration of
the period stipulated, or accomplishment of the purpose for, which it was constituted (Art. 612, Art.
1946, Civil Code).”

Accordingly, it is believed that one who derives his right from the usufructuary/bailee, cannot refuse to
return the property upon the expiration of the contract.
SC finds that the general law on property and contracts, embodied in the Civil Code of the Philippines, finds no
principal application on the present conflict. Generalibus specialia derogant. The environmental facts of the
case at bar indicate that this is not a mere case of recovery of ownership or possession of property. Had this
been so, then the Court would have peremptorily dismissed the present petition. The fact, however, that
cultivated agricultural land is involved suffices for the Court to pause and review the legislation directly relevant
and applicable at the time this controversy arose.

In this regard, it would appear that Republic Act No. 1199, invoked by the trial court, had already been
rendered inoperative by the passage of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, otherwise known as the
Agricultural Land Reform Code. The former, also known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines and
approved in August 1954 had sought to establish a system of agricultural tenancy relations between the tenant
and the landholder, defining two (2) systems of agricultural tenancy: the share and the leasehold tenancy.

There is no dispute, as it is admitted by the parties in this case, that Benigno Bito-on was granted possession
of the property in question by reason of the liberality of his sister, Natividad (the private respondent). In short,
he (Benigno) was the LEGAL POSSESSOR of the property and, as such, he had the authority and capacity to
enter into an agricultural leasehold relation with Bernas.
From the above discussions, SC opines that defendant was a share tenant on the parcels of land subject of
the complaint, and an agricultural leasehold lessee under the provisions of the Agricultural Land Reform Code
as amended by Presidential Decrees on the matter.

Additionally, it can be stated that the agricultural leasehold relationship in this case was created between
Benigno as agricultural lessor-legal possessor, on the one hand, and Bernas as agricultural leasehold lessee,
on the other. The agricultural leasehold relationship was not between Natividad and Bernas. As Sec. 6 of the
Code states:

Sec. 6. Parties to Agricultural Leasehold Relations. - The agricultural leasehold relations 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.

The petition was granted. The decision of the respondent appellate court, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
that of the Regional Trial Court. REINSTATED. Costs against the private respondent. Majority of the Justices
voted for it
 EPITACIO SIALANA v. MARY Y.
AVILA (deceased) substituted by her
heirs, JAMES AVILA, EDWARD AVILA,
JEORGE AVILA and MILAGROS
AVILA
G.R. No. 85041 August 5, 1993
 FACTS
On September 18, 1991, Epitacio Sialana (petitioner) and his spouse, now deceased, filed with the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Region VII, Cebu City (Regional DARAB), a complaint
against the respondents for the declaration of tenancy status.

Petitioner alleged that he and his spouse are tenants over a parcel of land owned by respondents located at
South Poblacion, San Fernando, Cebu; that they had occupied the property since 1958 and built a house
thereon; that they cultivated the land and harvested its produce; that they gave definite shares in the produce
to respondents and their predecessors-in-interest; and that, as tenants, they enjoy security of tenure.

Mary, James, Edward, Jeorge and Milagros, all surnamed Avila (respondents), the successors-in-interest of
Rafael Avila, then the naked owner of the landholding in question and who allegedly instituted petitioner and
his spouse as tenants on the landholding, averred that the latter are mere usurpers; that they never consented
to the alleged tenancy; that they never received any share in the produce; and petitioner and his spouse
should be ejected.
On October 13, 1993, the Regional DARAB rendered a decision in favor of respondents.
o Accordingly, petitioner and his spouse are directed to give the amounts of P6,094.29, P859.00 and the
undeposited amount of P238.60, and P360.65 to the respondents to whom it is rightfully due for the mere
use of the land in question.
o Regional DARAB found that although the petitioner and his spouse occupied the property in question,
they failed to prove by substantial evidence that the landowners had given their prior consent; that the self-
serving statements of petitioner cannot establish the tenancy relationship; and that the petitioner and his
spouse delivered the shares of the produce not to respondents but to Alfonso Canoy and her mother, a
certain Diosdada "Nang Daday" Canoy, the overseers appointed by respondents; that Alfonso Canoy
turned over the shares to his mother and no other.

Aggrieved, petitioner and his spouse appealed to the DARAB. On June 10, 1998, the DARAB promulgated its Decision
reversing the Regional DARAB.
o Declaring [petitioner and his spouse] as de jure tenants in the questioned landholding
o Ordering [respondents] to refrain from committing any act/acts that will disturb the peaceful possession of the
[petitioner and his spouse] over the landholding in controversy or dispossess them from the same.
ISSUES
● Whether the petitioner is an agricultural tenant in
the landholding owned by respondents
● Whether the tenancy was deemed to have been
impliedly instituted
 RULING
NO
o The Court in the case of Berenguer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, held that self-serving statements regarding
tenancy relations cannot establish the claimed relationship. There must be substantial evidence on the record
adequate enough to prove all the elements of tenancy
o The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent. Tenancy is not a purely
factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.
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 tenancy laws.
o The Court agreed with the findings of the CA and the Regional DARAB that aside from his testimony that he
was expressly instituted as tenant by Rafael Avila, petitioner was unable to buttress that claim with other
evidence which might obviate the apparent biased nature of the testimony
NO.
o For an implied tenancy to come about, the actuations of the parties taken in their entirety must be
demonstrative of an intent to continue a prior lease established by the landholder, and the conduct of the
overseer in permitting the lease, whose representative capacity to enter or continue the leasehold had not at
all been questioned or put squarely in issue in that case, must be taken into account.
§ No evidence was submitted to prove that Diosdada Canoy or her son and grandson, who took over the
overseeing the farmholding, were ever authorized by respondents or their predecessors-in-interest to
represent the respondents
§ Since the overseers were merely appointed to take care of the farmholding, the overseers cannot act in
behalf of the respondents. The acts of the overseers cannot be considered as the acts of respondents
§ overseers allowed [petitioner and his spouse] to occupy the land and when the overseers received the share
in the produce of the land from [petitioner and his spouse], the overseers acted on their own and not in
representation of the respondents
§ The authority given to the overseers to gather fruits for their livelihood does not include the authority to
create a real right over the immovable owned by the respondents
§ To do acts which are strictly acts of dominion, as in this case, in order that the tenancy over the farmholding
is created, the agent must possess a special power of attorney showing his authority to do such act.