29. Pineda vs.

De Guzman
G.R. No. L-23773-47
December 29, 1967
Topic: Rights of Agricultural Lesee
Facts:
The Landowner filed a petition in the SAC for mechanization of his land and
duly informed the tenants of this plan. The Tenants opposed the said petition
and filed a motion to dismiss. The SAC rendered a decision in favor of the
landowners. The Tenants did not appeal the said decision and it becomes
final and executory. The Landowner waited for month before filing in the
court for a writ of execution. The Tenants did not acknowledge the said
execution and assailing they cannot be ejected in land for a year from the
finality of judgment and that they still have crops that are to be harvested.
Issue:
Whether can the Tenants be ejected from the land?
Held:
No, The Landowners clearly acted in bad faith in waiting for months before
executing the said judgment. They have waited for the crops to before
asking the court for the execution of the said judgment. It must also be
considered that under Section 50(a), Republic Act 1199, the judgment
against them cannot be enforced against them for the lapse of one year
Cecilleville Realty and Services Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et
al.
G.R. No. 120363
September 5 1997
Facts:
Cecilleville Realty and Services Corporation (Petitioner) is an owner of
a parcel of land in Catmon, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Ana Pascual (Pascual) is a
tenent of the said land and thus lives within a parcel of land therein. Her son,
Herminigildo Pascual ( Private Respondent), assists her in her duties as a
tenant since she is already of old age and infirm. The respondent does not
live in the home of Pascual, but instead has his own home in the same
portion of land.
Despite the repeated demands of the petitioner for the private
respondent to vacate the land, the respondent refuses to do so since he
helps his mother to tend the land which she is entitled to.

Petitioner instituted an ejectment suit against the private respondent

before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The MTC
ordered private respondent to vacate the land and pay the some of P500
monthly from the filing of the complaint.
Private Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which
set aside the decision of the MTC and remanded the case to the Department
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but to no avail, hence petitioner
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition since it
was devoid of merit.
Dissatisfied petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari to this
court.
Issue:
Whether or not private respondent is a tenant of the said land which
entitles him to create an abode of his own.
Held:
Petition is GRANTED
According to Republic Act no. 1199, as amended by RA 2263,:
Sec. 5.
(a) A tenant shall mean a person who, himself and with the aid available
from within his
immediate farm household, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed
by, another, with the
latters consent for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the
landholder under the
share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or
ascertainable in produce or
in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.
(o) Immediate farm household includes the members of the family of the
tenant, and such
other persons, whether related to the tenant or not, who are dependent
upon him for support
and who usually help him operate the farm enterprise.

It cannot be argued that the private respondent is entitled to help his

mother in cultivating his land since he is an immediate member of of Ana
Pascual's family.
What is of concern is that only a tenant may construct and maintain
his/her house in the said portion of land. Said home must be no more than
3% of the total land area of his land holding and provided that it does not
exceed 1000 sqm.
The purpose of the act is to "afford adequate protection to the rights of
BOTH tenants and landholders". It would be unfair to the land owners if the
courts would sustain the arguments of the private respondent. The land
would no longer be for efficient agricultural production but instead will
become a residential area filled with colonies of houses.
31. Policarpio Nisnisan And Erlinda Nisnisan V Court Of Appeals, Et
Al.
August 12, 1998
G.R. No. 126425
GRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD; Voluntary Surrender as a Mode of
Extinguishing Agricultural Leasehold
Under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3844, voluntary surrender, as a mode of
extinguishing agricultural leasehold tenancy relations, must be convincingly
and sufficiently proved by competent evidence. The tenants' intention to
surrender the landholding cannot be presumed, much less determined by
mere implication.
Based on the foregoing disquisition, it is clear that petitioners-spouses are
agricultural lessees and are therefore entitled to security of tenure as
mandated by Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3844.
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; Essential requisites
Essential requisites set by law for the existence of a tenancy relationships,
thus:
1.

the parties are the landowner and the tenant;

2.

the subject is agricultural land;

3.

the purpose is agricultural production; and

4.

there is consideration. It is also understood that

5.

there is consent to the tenant to work on the land, that

6.
there is personal cultivation by him and that the consideration
consists of sharing the harvests.
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD; Voluntary Surrender as a Mode of
Extinguishing Agricultural Leasehold
Under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3844, voluntary surrender, as a mode of
extinguishing agricultural leasehold tenancy relations, must be convincingly
and sufficiently proved by competent evidence. The tenants' intention to
surrender the landholding cannot be presumed, much less determined by
mere implication.
Based on the foregoing disquisition, it is clear that petitioners-spouses are
agricultural lessees and are therefore entitled to security of tenure as
mandated by Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3844.