Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Title Facts Issue/s
Association of Small GR No. 79777: PD 27, EOs 228
Landowners v. DAR Secretary & 229 – Nicolas Manaay and his
GR Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, wife own a 9-hectare riceland;
and 79777 while Agustin Hermano, Jr.
14 July 1989 owned 5. They both have four
Cruz, J. tenants each on their respective
landholdings, who were declared
full owners of the said lands by
EO 228 as qualified farmers
under PD 27.
The Manaays and Hermano
question the constitutionality of
PD 27 and EOs 228 and 229.
GR No. 79310: PP 131, EO 229
– Landowners and sugar planters
in the Victorias Mill District in
Negros, as well as Planters’
Committee, Inc. seek to prohibit
the implementation of PP 131
and EO 229 for being violative
of the constitutional provisions
on just compensation, due
process, and equal protection.
Subsequently, the National
Federation of Sugarcane Planters
(NASP), Manuel Barcelona, and
Prudencio Serrano filed their
own petitions, which also
assailed the constitutionality of
the abovementioned statutes.
GR No. 79744: EOs 228 & 229
– Inocentes Pabico
alleges that the then
DAR Secretary placed
his landholding under
the coverage of OLT,
in violation of due
Ruling Doctrine
W/N PD 27, PP 131, YES. The To the extent that the measures
and EOs 228 and 229 promulgation of PD under challenge merely prescribe
retention limits for landowners,
were validly enacted. 27 by Pres. Marcos in there is an exercise of police
the exercise of his power for the regulation of
powers under martial private property in accordance
law has already been with the Constitution. But where,
to carry out such regulation, it
sustained and there becomes necessary to deprive
is no reason to such owners of whatever lands
modify or reverse it they may own in excess of the
on that issue. As for maximum area allowed, there is
definitely a taking under the
the power of Pres. power of eminent domain for
Aquino to promulgate which payment of just
PP 131 and EOs 228 compensation is imperative.
& 229, the same was
authorized by Sec. 6 Title to all
expropriated
of the Transitory
Provisions of the properties shall be
1987 Constitution. transferred to the
Significantly, the State only upon full
payment of
Congress she is
alleged to have compensation to their
W/N the CARP fund undercut has not respective owners.
provision in PP131 rejected but in fact
Obiter: One of the basic
conforms to the substantially affirmed principles of the democratic
requirements of a the challenged system is that where the rights of
valid appropriation. measures and has the individual are concerned, the
specifically provided end does not justify the means.
There is no question that not
that they shall be even the strongest moral
suppletory to RA conviction or the most urgent
6657 whenever not public need, subject only to a few
notable exceptions, will excuse
inconsistent with its
the bypassing of an individual’s
provisions.
rights. It is no exaggeration to
say that a person invoking a right
NO. PP 131 is not an guaranteed under Art III of the
appropriation Constitution is a majority of one
1
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

process and the measure even if it even as against the rest of the
requirement for just W/N PP 131 and EO does provide for the nation who would deny him that
right.
compensation. 229 should be
creation of the said
Certificates of Land invalidated because fund, for that is not
Transfer were they do not provide its principal purpose.
subsequently issued for retention limits. An appropriation law
to tenants, who then is one the primary
refused to pay lease and specific purpose
rentals to him. He of which is to
then protested the authorize the release
erroneous inclusion of public funds from
of his small the treasury. The
landholding under creation of the fund
OLT and asked for the is only incidental to
recall and W/N the assailed the main objective of
cancellation of the statutes violate the the proclamation,
said CLTs, which was equal protection which is agrarian
denied without clause. reform.
hearing. Although he
filed an MR, EOs 228 NO. This argument is
and 229 were issued, no longer tenable
rendering his MR because RA 6657
moot and academic does provide for such
because the said EOs limits now in Section
directly effected the 6 of the law. As such,
transfer of his land to landowners who were
his farmers-tenants. unable to exercise
their rights of
GR No. 78742: PD retention under PD
316 – The Association 27 shall enjoy the
of Small Landowners retention rights
in the Philippines W/N the assailed granted by RA 6657
invokes the right of statutes are valid under the conditions
retention granted by exercises of police therein prescribed.
PD 27 to owners of power.
rice and corn lands NO. The petitioners
2
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

not exceeding 7 have not shown that

hectares as long as they belong to a
they are cultivating different class and
or intend to cultivate entitled to a different
the same. Their treatment. The
respective lands do argument that not
not exceed the only landowners but
statutory limit but are also owners of other
occupied by tenants properties must be
who are actually made to share the
cultivating such burden of
lands. implementing land
reform must be
Because PD 316 rejected. There is a
provides that no substantial
tenant-farmer in distinction between
agricultural lands these two classes of
primarily devoted to owners that is clearly
rice and corn shall be visible except to
ejected or removed those who will not
from his farmholding see.
until such time as the
respective rights of YES. The subject and
the tenant-farmers purpose of agrarian
and the landowner W/N the content and reform have been
shall have been manner of just laid down by the
determined, they compensation Constitution itself,
petitioned the Court provided for in the which satisfies the
for a writ of CARP Law is violative first requirement of a
mandamus to compel of the Constitution. lawful subject.
the DAR Secretary to However, objection is
issue the IRR, as they raised to the manner
could not eject their of fixing the just
tenants and so are compensation, which
unable to enjoy their it is claimed is
right of retention. entrusted to the
3
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

administrative
authorities in
violation of judicial
prerogatives.
However, there is no
arbitrariness in the
provision, as the
W/N the CARP and EO determination of just
228 contravene a compensation by the
well-accepted DAR is not by any
principle of eminent means final and
domain by divesting conclusive upon the
the landowner of his landowner or any
property even before other interested
actual payment to party, because the
him in full of just law provides that the
compensation. determination made
by the DAR is only
preliminary unless
accepted by all
parties concerned.
Otherwise, the courts
will still have the
right to review with
finality the said
determination.

NO. Although the

traditional medium
for payment of just
compensation is
money and no other,
what is being dealt
with here is not the
traditional exercise of
the power of eminent
4
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

domain. This is a
revolutionary kind of
expropriation, which
involves not mere
millions of pesos. The
initially intended
amount of P50B may
not be enough, and is
in fact not even fully
available at this time.
The invalidation of
the said section will
result in the
nullification of the
entire program.

NO. EO 228
categorically stated
that all qualified
farmer-beneficiaries
were deemed full
owners of the land
they acquired under
PD 27, after proof of
full-fledged
membership in the
farmers’ cooperatives
and full payment of
just compensation.
The CARP Law, for its
part, conditions the
transfer of
possession and
ownership of the land
to the government on
receipt by the
5
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Sigre v. CA Matias Yusay owned a parcel of
GR Nos. 109568 and 113454 irrigated rice land in Iloilo, in
8 August 2002 which Ernesto Sigre was a
Austria-Martinez, J. tenant. Sigre previously had been
paying Yusay a lease rental of 16
cavans per crop, but stopped
paying in 1991-92. Instead, he
remitted the payments to the
LBP pursuant to DAR’s
Memorandum Circular No. 6
(MC 6), which set the guidelines
in the payment of lease
rental/partial payment by farmer-
beneficiaries under the land
transfer program of PD 27.
Lilia Gonzales, co-administratrix
of Yusay’s estate, filed a petition
for prohibition and mandamus
with the CA, seeking to prohibit
the LBP from accepting Sigre’s
leasehold rentals. According to
Gonzales, she had no notice that
DAR had already fixed the value
of the land. Her petition also
assails the validity of MC 6 and
PD 27.
The CA then declared MC 6 null
and void, and directed the LBP to
return to Gonzales the lease
W/N PD 27 sanctions MC 6.
W/N an irreconcilable conflict
exists between PD 816 and MC
6, such that PD 816 must prevail
over MC 6.
landowner of the
corresponding
payment or the
deposit by the DAR of
the compensation in
cash or LBP bonds
with an accessible
bank. Until then, title
also remains with the
landowner.
YES. It was pursuant to PD 27 The power of subordinate
that MC 6 was issued by the legislation allows administrative
DAR. The Circular was meant to bodies to implement the broad
remedy the situation where the policies laid down in a statute by
tenant-farmer’s lease rentals to “filling in” the details. All that is
the landowner were not credited required is that the regulation
in his favor against the should be germane to the objects
determined purchase price of the and purposes of the law; that the
land, thus making him a regulation be not in contradiction
perpetual obligor for said to but in conformity with the
purchase price. Since the assailed standards prescribed by law.
Circular essentially sought to
accomplish the noble purpose of
PD 27, it is therefore valid.
NO. PD 816 provides that the
tenant-farmer shall pay lease
rentals to the landowner until the
value of the property has been
determined or agreed upon by
the landowner and the DAR. On
the other hand, MC 6 mandates
that the tenant-farmer shall pay
to the LBP the lease rental after
the value of the land has been
determined. Thus, there is no
incompatibility between these
two. On the contrary, the two
supplement each other as they set
the guidelines for the payments
of lease rentals on the
6
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
rentals paid by Sigre, and Sigre
to pay the rentals directly to
Gonzales.
Office of the President v. CA and Aurora Tinio-Reyes owned 24
Heirs of Jose Reyes hectares of land in Nueva Ecija,
GR No. 131216 which she bequeathed to her 9
19 July 2001 children upon her death, one of
Pardo, J. which was Jose.
When Jose tried to get a TCT
over his lot, he was told that he
first needed a clearance from the
DAR attesting to the non-
inclusion of his land in the OLT.
However, the PARO ruled that
his land was covered under the
OLT.
The DAR then issued 12 TCTs
in his favor after he appealed the
W/N PD 27 is unconstitutional
for setting limitations on the
judicial prerogative
determining just compensation.
W/N RA 6657 superseded or
repealed PD 27.
W/N Jose’s land should be
covered by the OLT under RA
6657 or PD 27.
agricultural property.
NO. Jurisprudence has upheld
the constitutionality of the said
of decree. Moreover, the
determination of just
compensation under PD 27 is not
final or conclusive, because
unless both the landowner and
the tenant-farmer accept the
valuation by DAR, the parties
may bring the dispute to court in
order to determine the
appropriate amount of
compensation.
NO. According to EO 229, PD
27 as amended shall continue to
operate with respect to rice and
corn lands, covered thereunder.
Whatever provisions of PD 27
that are not inconsistent with RA
6657 shall be suppletory to the
latter, and all rights acquired by
the tenant-farmer under PD 27
are retained even with the
passage of RA 6657.
NO. There is no doubt that the Seizure only takes effect on the
original landholding of Aurora, payment of just compensation.
consisting of 24 hectares of
Riceland tenanted by farmers
was covered by PD 27. However,
the expropriation of the
landholding did not take place on
the effectivity of PD 27, as the
seizure only takes effect on the
payment of just compensation;
and the DAR had not even
determined the just
compensation for the taking of
the landholding when it decreed
that the land was under the
coverage of RA 6657. Moreover,
when Aurora died and her
7

Raising of livestock, poultry, and
swine are excluded from the
coverage of the
CARL.«„Ì„.Õ&Ý}Äó==
âÔsÍnyÐå NZ5È ﾧ OE¤
wÞêîŠ< ﾵ 7+ž3+Ç›'¨s?
iä¹uCÆ¡Xü 4A!
ɾ}t‚Òù"?Ãhíñ“’Üdi3ßßy3¢"ãá|
à«&þ£'#>¥íð¬Ì[„²È‚g®ZÍUQÄÝ
ÝÄUWnÃTÁ¶ÊÚ„¼„A’
ﾧ 9ä$)fJ|
ö“4Nð„IŒáòëG4sqˆŒÝ»k ﾧ kŸ
±çi-±Ì”}j𵸽nŠì)À` Þ]”
ŠK9lid, to the e8tent
that the aforecited igro=in$ustrial
activities are made to "e cvereä
by the agrcrian reform program
of the State.PP
‰«ùÔÆŽ[LN4böï„¥ƒkil.–
ﾵ +,Oär¬ò-\¶2êk__x—ðM“8ýñ!
5èÇ€²Yxš¨UÊ
≸âUM9´µ5ÝŠ4ÐCeu'\
”Ѥ{ÿXò1)Š•Òµ: ﾵ »síÛXí9
ﾤ ÌÔÚƒÒC´X?~p
A ﾵ ÆU ÂáÉ*5Èmé ﾵ ð( fûdaÏ
MYZµfÓ#i®ñãÑœV5#Ï›š˜–
ÿjˆóq¢•ËÛQ:T3‰` ž§b=Í
ﾤ `R/_Dtš+yzÍÊ…
oFœ“ú7už=ÂNäF—Öõ[Corpuz
v. Grospe
YES. As there is no re!son to
include livestock anD poultry
Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
PARO Decision. However,
subsequently, the Secretary of
the Office of the President
affirmed the PARO as Aurora’s
will was not registered prior to
PD 27’s effectivity, and thus
could not bind third persons.
When Jose appealed, the CA
reversed the Secretary’s Order.
Gavino Corpuz was a farmer-
beneficiary under the OLT
Program of the DAR. Pursuant to
PD 27, he was issued a
certificate of land transfer over 2
parcels of agricultural land.
Corpuz then mortgaged the land
to the Grospes. In their mortgage
contract, Corpuz allowed the
spouses Grospe to use or
cultivate the land during the
duration of the mortgage.
Corpuz subsequently instituted a
complaint which alleged that the
Grospes had entered the disputed
land by force and destroyed the
palay that he had planted on it.
However, according to the
Grospes, Corpuz had already
executed a “Waiver of Rights”
over the landholding in favor of
the spouses in consideration of
P54k.
Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator Ernesto Tabara ruled
that Corpuz abandoned and
surrendered the landholding to
the Samahang Nayon of Nueva
Ecija. Said Samahang Nayon
even passed Resolution Nos. 16
and 27 recommending the
reallocation of said lots to the
W/N the waiver of rights is
contrary to agrarian law.
W/N Corpuz had abandoned his
landholding.
W/N Corpuz had voluntarily
surrendered his landholding.
children inherited the land, they
only acquired 2.5 hectares each,
which is decidedly within the
retention area of 7 hectares under
PD 27, or 5 hectares under RA
6657.
YES. The sale or transfer of Voluntary surrender, as a mode of
rights over a property covered by extinguishment of tenancy
a Certificate of Land Transfer is relations, does not require court
void except when the alienation approval as long as it is
is made in favor of the convincingly and sufficiently
government or through proved by competent
hereditary succession. This evYXdIut‡¯«“9aô©lùÀÚLPIõ
ruling is intended to prevent a 8§ÛBBï¯ÍÄë'¯¨ÈÒ†=Äo×` ﾵ ¯
reversion to the old feudal &ï‘`‚hy3ö¨JZ2ØQZµ‘Ÿ¤
system in which the landowners £ÉèÞÅu&>i‹4 Á‚± æs´ ÕØ:
reacquire vast tracts of land, thus
negating the government’s
program of freeing the tenant
from the bondage of the soil.
NO. Corpuz’ surrender of
possession did not amount to an
abandonment because there was
an obligation on the part of the
Grospes to return possession of
the landholding upon full
payment of the loan. There was
no clear, absolute, or irrevocable
intent to abandon.
YES. Corpuz’ intention to
surrender the landholding was
clear and unequivocal. He signed
his concurrence to the Samahang
Nayon Resolutions. His
voluntary surrender to the
Samahang Nayon qualifies as a
surrender or transfer to the
government because such action
forms part of the mechanism for
8
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

lands in the co~eraoe`of agraòian
ref/rm, there is no need to call
upon them to distribute from 3%
of their gross sales and 10% of
their net profits to their workers
as additional compensation.
Grospes, who were the “most the disposition and the
qualified farmers-beneficiaries.” reallocation of farmholdings of
The DARAB and the CA both tenant-farmers who refuse to
affirmed the Decision. become beneficiaries of PD 27.

NO. Substantial distinctions exist

between land directed purely to
cultivation and harvesting of
fruits or crops and land
exclusively used for livestock,
poultry and swine raising that
make real differences:
1. There are no tenants
nor landlords in
livestock and poultry
businesses;
2. Livestock and poultry
do not sprout from
land;
3. Land is not a primary
resource;
4. Livestock and poultry
production are
industrial activities;
5. Livestock and poultry
farmworkers are
covered by minimum
wage law rather than
by tenancy law.
K›u aÏ"E£hæ»äfˆùf&Ý-
2;Ú5çô¡qççbàº4…Z"<º+v(¬®áiî-
<áÓ6îàlº!%sí4Rß³3¡ ﾤ Cl/
Yµ¼ìb§¦=nQÿ ﾤ‹[È-¤ñgU=ÞsbF
/jœ ﾤ ± ﾵ ‡

pÜX5ÃRŽwŽEä‹ò\æî¾Ã~&¦åøó¸
áìf’þãil‘aÉ2h«X†T ﾵ ‚ ±ƒ# RÈöØ
ﾤ ¿<8;¦'!ÙµÜÊÑþÌ ﾧ “ ÁáAZ§
‰J"7måîbó’ÝNษô
¢¯No˜Á3ÙzÈüñLOÑžã•
9
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

gUxo_ké0
w¡‚e7ýà4¬
‰&½’ž-{ ﾧ [eZÍuA:
€¼çàDJZÌþâœÊÈJAYz
q¾åÂé†tzz)˜#g*fã÷.]
\®|o
%H]b€©”N[}ê@b9ñÔ
—![zÑ…u>çr‡a•Ž?w!
FÐÙVðõ™b7loIY–°-
Rùt3–ЛM:
¡wçÛ_ã(h„ДŽœã?
TuX'C=Yþˆ¬O¤3~)
‰l¼BöÉR ﾧ OéŠëÑ@
DëêËÍún¸
GR No. 135297
8 June 2000
Panganiban, J.
+G;ÄÅ´>~˜Ä¼#:£qúý†Ø((! PP 1637 set aside several ÓÍ FRòßæÌHIµêúÖë/û¬À•*Í +!+ôgõJê ¢P±Ê ﾧ ?]D]_HNÓ-AèÈ.;Ù*§;
ÞÓ:1¦7à³jéù/¿¨'w-¨òó½‰ hectares of land in Antipolo, San Âv–[²'1§½jÔy ﾤ -,ô´p9Ï JF3~w ñf‚úçâñªIò ¿Ì¦ìf"AHR÷`À&Ut\áãÖÙ-'ÁŸ†
Ú]Ǥ˛¹ Mateo, and Montalban as TBµŠŸ¤äÁÞõï_n~iž2! ´Ñ10Ù[{B’¼c>½þÇþ”“<¾r\=³ œÏ×ßiˆ×}µ10‘Õß
townsite areas to absorb the Áƒ·íp69ÓŠu–´´ŸIC=ÑL¹8‡Äó!: GÆ-–ÿﾵ ¹¬ò"9ÐU®ﾧ V ”aÀO! D:´"ÛM… -`râLgS~F-D7’TVáñ7
U„X\ŠÕÇ’@VuÚ1
population overspill in the ¢löýÞÆÎ%{tJÄ{(º3ò³|üû8ð» šùœ‡ÕæËöFù"t«Z …`\Ѓðeqß-ÂMõšÚHç ﾵ -˜i-½rÏ
0[ˆòšÔ¼ÈAŽV@1ù)}pN=ï“fY± metropolis which were 8#.¯»û½ÝÑ@„¥ÏŠ*¨ åWýƒå ﾵ näš»â\bX¥ ﾤ K¹oã¡æ/Ÿøp¸ ﾧ º;Î9î÷²à®åo¥õä
€_‘¡˜ž…*YG ﾵ sqˆÖ¹çT2l¸ – designated as the Lungsod PÀ ﾵ M–ÞÄ×BPsÉ- nw
íŠ"~{8ƒˆh4°"¢ô(L ﾧ ô@¸.®? Silangan Townsite, where „øÎÚѼ‡DÆFZ+þ`AzHfñ˜sâ˜X ÿ<m(¨±²ª,Œ¢À#òâ):%tçgJĤ-
DMCZ‡¾CŽO- Natalia X{ZsUɪ;10—ya1˜ )® æãú¸ 35$ü€ÝýLvŠ´áf- ¼SXg!L½ª£M¶¯?yDGý'ŒO¥º
©ÑL.;ðÅ“=KÑÖ*±g›íÚv ¥ƒw{cܵ i&-ÀvuU{{Ô%9ÿL…
%]×Û]°×3ß<s2øH”Ñ û gÄDï>žÒ™D—ZÜÄ-D¼- G9ùX3ÇT…7D9ê10Ž÷N…
%wéë<"ÞÁÔL•6ª:ðÐX¨zJÁ݈œP ¸¸¾]k Ú½œ³Ân&õáëó ¤ç ÂÜþzi‰ﾵ gÉ
à?n^b+ø¦,€||#Ùf¯ ‹Ï‡Eg½£Á1èTo ﾵ `Ì :¦ VƒºÀ#10§ã ﾤ §}$ ¨s%Ô¥
ÅÁoRçÎãÑYDð¤ÞÉ¿6¶¨Ë„oÕ …ëbAFÁÆž)åTãý-h‚8ùÑã<Žÿð öà¸Þ€ ﾧ – Âá10Y Í->=m-νRÛ
¡ì¦Ëw²¨fœ9F«yé ´éx©µ²®…
’gŒ[±<'à‘kÌu>cô¨LF:ÜÖµÓ'Ìë¡
ﾵ üuv΂EëÜ^}B³Ú} •i$˜ä&yÌýòLKÑ€ºÁ}U5g_{é:]j
s%i”ájÀ„½Í ﾧ’Æá ﾧ ªÏ- ,3.=G‹é~
NYsù¥Î¬/É86ÞÈFÉÜE-
ÿ”Íþ¶ ã0Ø)MRxZ*Ân:{ça³; ªŽbÞ&µñ{ª/µ×¾,uZs$Z”Æ<= ›à
´úËŽ!/Ýý#ÙkÆýÑHMÕ€ª€/Q6b ´CPQŸþè؃ÚAHPy.%…
Zˆ>>ﾧ ‰l0ú¥vï˜&¥ å÷Šv~{$Â'g¡vãæ2A ﾵ ±
„‰M+Xe`”Þ40G5Ó¸üûAQ] £4ëkbG‘µ’F[ÊíS'(ÿÅ
‰ù ËÆÜLƒÌ³ÿ/^O —}SÑÌn0¢tÏðÝŠxA

10
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

ŽqJ+cÕ%<E¨Natalia Realty v. f™ë]³õ‹l7xoWDÑĹ7-

DAR—Õ µ€)K&Þ€¤q8’Øï$- yÞeºÜÉA’0ïyíÛH¨zR‰Ñ”“éX?
µ8ëð†ÆÍ,mtÙÓt' "»õ| SA^EWMJ]Îí›$Ópâ1
1¤›¯lý`kÏ_8Â/ü5
þæ/í¾H#j6¬«ú¶Ã ﾤ Ä ﾤ ÊñÆÏfª
r_ñÙßÈR!/ÍΞ·ôlÌóy¡S‡ËÌ
MÍRZÔÓÕÁYW:Ø
ÚÍôßÛ”¶G˜Ê>ª!nf\gñ—
zãˆ\Šýø½Ìb;:;RÉšÕ®"

g‡·øbZY§ƒujpÛ£^´²QvÒ -
“ÇQØBÛ@¬F¤7脧P/,”ʘ_höÀ
4ïLi]mÇë‰[ZL„À“(-
Çf‘Ó¼{†>¬Ôù=“¾ùçæ
¢Ægí¦†ÔŠKšì ﾵ R¹f3ÝÇ+íÆC{H
֯}4
Hwí©ÙƬ}Ô1?ÞÈ[È—
Œg:ÑdJ7iF ﾧ :‹u;(D¡( !
h ﾧ )èeûJ¥GcA;-""ëjÆüþã÷³F°
´¼ÖTÝW
–¿e6¡ìÚô–Îu¢Èa]+çﾧ L-
•+ÒÅŒ«²§ö7>Ÿië\N) -ÏBöÖœ
—Ï…À¹S·"1¯‹
ﾤ J¶W÷ǤDb§«0·}fW÷µEªÅity
are outside the coverage of
CARL.

“Agricultural land” refers to

“land devoted to agricultural
activity, and not classified as
mineral, forest, residential,
commercial, or industrial land.”
R_጖ê
‰ŒïÃÍ<3'6%ÍÇû¨u7iÓž3“àO¿•

1ãUgÚSŽ9ÓÇ×jÈƺš¶É(g¹÷î¶ôá
þ#Œ¬ÿzf•
gÉ&hC€W
GR No. 103302
12 August 1993
Bellosillo, J.
,ËœÉÕ-*òu{vÇ©sœ†QLåJ-
cˊ̺”$ ﾤ O¥ém%Ñ@7—
L¼CˆKYÖžP ﾤ Rœ¾•Vÿ<éerö
11
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

ÄÅ‚¼Á–
ÀëP¡‰\3r9!‹Ídÿ•Á^ì¹³úʇ!
5Ðíg©eÀãEïYPÚ
‰°Ï/y,&Xqï2(z¼™kÈcçä}ù’)·×ƒ
{T3K†Þ:?ExÓ¸áá]\Ìëã؇Ý^D-X
O3köé–öÏap8š/"MÉ ﾤ ŠiaIìû|
ú#I0s‘¢A‰A ð
¢J$zßÅ€2HtÕË:
¢`12öØË(w/YÌÔ_±ó›-1ic*£¾t-
nú74ЕŠNÆnDã:ãÛOí;ÌZÒdžã
X?
ÝNHGUÝg$êýÁoÝvê12ü›¢)ê{|
ÍC_ZáiÝ;UT¶öÙÙWm/ÂÏš•Ä×ý
gÞÿo¦“Íž K~ç3”z Ÿ¶;
+0ÖQzTk^ 7Û7y~ÄÕzÉ
ﾧ Ï’õ+tŒnÙO¥ž“G÷JŠu·&†'L¨m
ûÃ'žï4+•+|œuÊ3úûåhëÿsáº4…
_2+î:m)Qº¸ñ§;Í®ÇsÏÑ)ï#01®4Q
Ðå"º-H1H\¾´µ|¡ê(rLÝKÈ¢-
ﾤ i&Ãb|B6jÒ49
¸Y)›\4úZ3ÇT9ÆEþ×`ÃÜÇ<.
»ñ¹ïºàí4ÂÞÍ?3ÖL9‹a)³WÉWÖ Ë
2I( ÿ§ÂóK-*½:+Ôá‚ŠÑÔÔT–
ÀåFåÝV+&m=νwü
‰Ú_ú¶®¾…’u Ìý3œ~
‰íI¿M\×€¢“jTxs_|ã0j»Å™jÂ-
ôé:¬hž×˜>Z~|»Š&4A!Ÿ¬®ý_
Morta v. Occidentall¦/’k ’ä! Jaime Morta and Purificacion W/N the cases are properly NO. Since there is a dispute as to For DARAB to have jurisdiction
d<ÕGaNkIRLeÕ65zÄÂwÆsYÈ Padilla filed a suit against Jaime cognizable by the DARAB. who is the rightful owner of the over a case, there must exist a
“æ$|ß:Â12÷ ˆÚBöZ Occidental, Atty. Mariano land, the issue is clearly outside tenancy relationship between the
˜|P¢g¥À‚ÅŠñ›RðAQô¡Q… Baranda, and Daniel Corral, for DARAB’s jurisdiction. Whatever parties. In order for a tenancy
ÏïK¾åo¤õÄH65ó:$7ƒ¦÷7º;Å Ó6- allegedly gathering pili nuts, findings made by the DARAB agreement to take hold over a
óf¯0wcæ4\Ïå"º-Lstõß•W>üê} anahaw leaves, and coconuts regarding the ownership of the dispute, it would be essential to
\Iá from their respective land and land are not conclusive to settle establish all its indispensable
destroying their banana and the matter. At any rate, whoever elements, to wit:
GR No. 123417
pineapple plants. Occidental is declared to be the rightful 1. That the parties are the
10 June 1999
claimed that he was a tenant of owner of the land, the case landowner and the
Pardo, J.
the actual owner of the land, cannot be considered tenancy- tenant or agricultural
Josefina Baraclan, and that related for it still fails to comply lessee;
Morta and Padilla were not with the other requirements. 2. The subject matter of
actually the owners of the land in Assuming arguendo that Josefina the relationship is an
question. is the owner, then the case is not agricultural land;
between the landowner and 3. That there is consent

12
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

The trial court ruled in favor of tenant. If, however, Morta is the between the parties to
Morta and Padilla. Occidental, et landowner, Occidental cannot the relationship;
al. appealed, contending that the claim that there is consent to a 4. That the purpose of the
case was cognizable by the DAR landowner-tenant relationship relationship is to bring
Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). between him and Morta. Thus, about agricultural
Thus, the RTC reversed the for failure to comply with the production;
lower court and ruled in favor of requisites, the issue involved is 5. That there is personal
Occidental, stating that the case not tenancy-related cognizable cultivation on the part
is a tenancy-related problem by the DARAB. of the tenant or
which falls under the exclusive agricultural lessee; and
jurisdiction of DARAB. The CA Dissent: Davide, CJ. 6. That the harvest is
affirmed the RTC. It is a tenancy-related issue shared between the
because whether it is Josefina or landowner and the
Morta who is the owner of the tenant or agricultural
land is no moment. It does not lessee.
affect Occidental’s tenancy.
Tenancy attaches to the land. The Limited jurisdiction of DAR:
cases filed by Morta and Padilla 1. Adjudication of all
were a clever way to defeat the matters involving
agrarian law. While the cases implementation of
were ostensibly for damages, agrarian reform;
they were, at bottom, a fight on 2. Resolution of agrarian
issues incident to or arising from conflicts and land-
an agrarian relationship. tenure related
problems; and
3. Approval and
disapproval of the
conversion,
restructuring, or
readjustment of
agricultural lands into
residential,
commercial, industrial,
and other non-
agricultural uses.
Monsanto v. Zerna Leonarda Monsanto owned a W/N an agrarian dispute existed YES. The resolution of an agrarian
GR No. 142591 parcel of land, wherein Jesus and between the parties. 1. The subject of the dispute is a matter beyond the
7 December 2001 Teresita Zerna were overseers. In dispute between them legal competence of regular
Panganiban, J. 1995, the Zernas harvested was the taking of courts. The DARAB exercises
coconuts from the plantation coconuts from the primary jurisdiction—both
without Monsanto’s consent, and property owned by original and appellate—to
processed them into copra for the Monsanto; determine and adjudicate all
purpose of confirming their 2. The Zernas were the agrarian disputes, cases,
claim that they are tenants of the overseers of the controversies, and matters or
13
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
land. It was alleged that the total
amount that they actually made
was P6,262.50; they deposited
P5,162.50 with the Barangay
Secretary of the locality, keeping
the balance of P1,100.00 for their
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. Monsanto filed
an MR for the return of the
P1,100.00.
The court then ruled that since
the harvesting of the coconuts
and processing of the same into
copra were not with the consent
of Monsanto, then they could not
be entitled to compensation for
their labor.
On appeal, the CA ruled that the
trial court had no jurisdiction to
order the Zernas to pay
Monsanto the P1,100.00.
Because the dispute involved an
agricultural tenancy relationship,
the matter fell within the primary
and exclusive jurisdiction of the
DARAB. It then annulled the
RTC order requiring the return of
the P1,100.00.
Sanchez v. Marin David Felix owned a fishpond.
GR No. 171346 Jaime Sanchez was instituted as
19 October 2007 a tenant on the said fishpond,
Chico-Nazario, J. with a 50/50 sharing agreement.
After a few years, Felix sold and
transferred ownership of the
subject fishpond to the Marins.
W/N the RTC was stripped of its
criminal jurisdiction when the
CA annulled the Order regarding
the remaining P1,100.00.
W/N a fishpond is an agricultural
land.
property at the time of incidents involving the
the taking of the implementation of agrarian laws
coconuts, as can be and their implementing rules and
gleaned from their regulations.
Kasabutan;
3. Monsanto allowed the An agrarian dispute refers to any
Zernas to plant controversy relating to tenurial
coconut, coffee, arrangements—whether
jackfruit, and cacao as leasehold, tenancy, stewardship
shown by the or otherwise—over lands
Kasabutan; devoted to agriculture, including
4. A tenurial arrangement (1) disputes concerning farm
exists among herein workers’ associations; or (2)
parties as regards the representation of persons in
harvesting of the negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
agricultural products, changing, or seeking to arrange
as shown by the terms or conditions of such
several remittances tenurial arrangement.
made by the Zernas to
Monsanto, A tenancy relationship may be
substantiated by established either verbally or in
receipts. writing, expressly or impliedly.
NO. There is no question that the
RTC had criminal jurisdiction to
try the Zernas for the crime of
qualified theft. However, the
resolution of the issue of who is
entitled to the P1,100.00 falls
squarely within the jurisdiction
of the DARAB, as it is an
agrarian dispute.
NO. By virtue of Sec. 2, RA Fishponds are no longer
7881, the operation of fishponds considered agricultural lands.
is no longer considered an
agricultural activity, and a parcel
of land devoted to fishpond
operation is no longer an
agricultural land.
14
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
As new owners of the fishpond,
they entered into a civil law
agreement with their mother,
Zemaida, which was renewable
yearly.
Zenaida then made an
arrangement with Sanchez
wherein Sanchez would receive a
regular salary and a 20% share in
the net profit of the fishpond.
When her lease agreement with
her children expired, Zenaida
ordered Sanchez to vacate the
premises. Sanchez refused,
asserting that he was a tenant of
the fishpond and not a mere
contractual worker; hence, he
had the right to its peaceful
possession and security of
tenure. He then asked the court
to declare him as a tenant of the
subject fishpond, which
subsequently did.
As Sanchez was already declared
as an agricultural tenant of the
fishpond, he filed a petition to
the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) for the
fixing of leasehold rentals for his
use of the fishpond. However,
Zenaida countered this
application by filing a case with
the PARAD to eject Sanchez for
failure to pay the rent and for
failure to render an accounting.
The PARAD consolidated the 2
cases and ruled in favor of
Sanchez.
Zenaida appealed to the
DARAB, which affirmed the
PARAD decision. The CA
W/N a tenurial arrangement YES. Although the fishpond is
exists between Sanchez and not covered by the CARL, it
Zenaida Marin. bears emphasis that Sanchez’
status as a tenant in the subject
fishpond and his right to security
of tenure were already
previously settled. Having been
declared as a tenant with the
right to security of tenure as
provided by the law enforced at
the time of the filing of the
complaint, Sanchez has acquired
a vested right over the subject
fishpond. Therefore, even if
fishponds were later
excluded/exempted from CARL
coverage, and despite the fact
that no CLOA has been issued to
Sanchez, the same cannot defeat
the aforesaid vested right already
granted and acquired by Sanchez
long before the passage of RA
7881.
W/N the DARAB has
jurisdiction over the case. YES. The present case was
instituted as early as 1991 when
the law applicable was still RA
6657, and fishponds and prawn
farms were not yet
exempted/excluded from the
CARL coverage. At that time,
there was an agrarian dispute
between the parties. Prior to the
enactment of RA 7881 in 1995,
the case was already pending
appeal before the DARAB.
Hence, the aforesaid
amendments cannot be made to
apply to divest the DARAB of its
jurisdiction of the case. Once
jurisdiction is acquired by the
court, it remains with it until the
full termination of the case.
15
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
reversed the ruling, stating that
the DARAB lacked jurisdiction
over the case. It stated that Sec. 2
of RA 7881, which amended Sec.
10 of RA 6657, excluded private
lands actually, directly, and
exclusively used for prawn farms
and fishponds from the coverage
of the CARL, so that the
operation of a fishpond is no
longer considered an agricultural
activity. Since the cases are not
agrarian disputes, then the
DARAB could not have validly
acquired jurisdiction over the
case.
Nuesa v. CA When Verdillo was issued an
GR No. 132048 “Order of Award” by the DAR
6 March 2002 Secretary over 2 parcels of land,
Quisumbing, J. it had a condition that Verdillo
should personally cultivate the
land, and pay at least the first
installment, within a period of 6
months.
21 years later, Verdillo filed an
application with the DAR for the
purchase of the said lots claiming
that he had complied with the
conditions set forth in the Order
of Award. Restituto Rivera
protested this application,
claiming that it was he who had
been in possession of the land
and had been cultivating the
same. He also filed his own
application for the said parcels in
opposition to that of Verdillo.
After the DAR’s investigation of
the conflicting claims, it found
that Verdillo violated the terms
of the Order of Award, and
cancelled the said Order. Hence,
W/N the DARAB has NO. Verdillo and Rivera had no
jurisdiction over the case. tenurial, leasehold, or any
agrarian relations whatsoever
that could have brought this
controversy between them within
the ambit of an “agrarian
dispute.” Consequently, the
DARAB had no jurisdiction over
the controversy and should not
have taken cognizance of
Verdillo’s petition in the first
place.
W/N the DARAB acted in grave YES. The revocation by the
abuse of discretion. Regional Director of DAR of the
earlier Order of Award by the
DAR Secretary falls under the
administrative functions of the
DAR. The DARAB and its
provincial adjudicator or board
of adjudicators acted erroneously
and with grave abuse of
discretion in taking cognizance
of the case, then overturning the
decision of the DAR Regional
Director and deciding the case on
the merits without giving Rivera
the opportunity to present his
While it bears emphasizing that
findings of administrative
agencies, which have acquired
expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters are accorded not
only respect but even finality by
the courts, care should be taken
that administrative actions are
not done without due regard to
the jurisdictional boundaries set
by the enabling law for each
agency.
The DAR is vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and shall have the
exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters involving the
implementation of the agrarian
reform program. The DARAN
has primary original and
appellate jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes, cases,
controversies, and matters or
incidents involving the
16
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Verdillo filed with the Provincial
Adjudication Board a petition for
the annulment of the said order.
Instead of filing an Answer to the
Petition, Rivera filed a Motion to
Dismiss. However, the DARAB
Provincial Adjudicator chose to
resolve the case on the merits,
and ruled in favor of Verdillo.
The DARAB and the CA
affirmed this decision.
Almuete v. Andres Since the National Resettlement
GR No. 122276 and Rehabilitation
20 November 2001 Administration (NARRA)
Ynares-Santiago, J. awarded a parcel of land to
Rodrigo Almuete in 1957, he and
his family exercised exclusive
possession over it, cultivating it
and planting narra, fruit trees,
rice, corn, and legumes thereon.
However, in 1979, an Agrarian
Reform Technologist represented
that Almuete could not be found
and that he had waived all his
rights as a NARRA settler. It was
also stated in the report that the
actual owner of the land was
W/N the case is an agrarian
dispute and, as such, falls under
the DARAB’s jurisdiction.
case.
NO. The action filed by Almuete
before the trial court was for
recovery of possession and
reconveyance of title. The issue
to be resolved was who between
Almuete and Andres has a better
right to the subject property
considering that both of them are
awardees of the same property. It
was thus a controversy relating
to ownership of the farmland,
which is beyond the ambit of the
phrase “agrarian dispute.” No
juridical tie of landowner and
tenant was alleged between the
parties, let alone that which
would so characterize the
implementation of the CARP and
other agrarian laws and their
IRRs.
An “agrarian dispute” is defined
to include “any controversy
relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship, or otherwise over
lands devoted to agriculture,
including disputes concerning
farmworkers’ associations or
representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such
tenurial arrangements. It includes
any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired
under RA 6657 and other terms
and conditions of transfer and
other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the
disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and
beneficiary, landowner and
tenant, or lessor and lessee.
The jurisdiction of the DARAB
is limited to cases involving a
tenancy relationship between the
parties.
Elements of 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;
17
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

Marcelo Andres, who was then relationship as an agrarian 4. The purpose of the
allowed to file his homestead dispute. Consequently, the RTC relationship is to bring
application. was competent to try and decide about agricultural
the case. Its decision was, thus, production;
After the issuance of an original valid and can no longer be 5. There is personal
certificate of title in favor of disturbed, after having attained cultivation on the part
Andres pursuant to his finality. Nothing more can be of the tenant or
homestead patent, he and 10 done with the decision except to agricultural lessee;
other armed persons entered the enforce it. 6. The harvest is shared
subject property and took between the landowner
possession of approximately half and the tenant or
of it. agricultural lessee.

Almuete quickly brought the

matter the DAR’s attention, and
learned of the cancellation of his
award and its subsequent titling
in favor of Andres. Almuete then
filed an action for reconveyance
and recovery of possession
against Andres, which was
granted by the court.

Andres then filed a petition for

certiorari with the CA, assailing
the trial court’s jurisdiction over
the nature as well as the subject
matter of the case. He argued
that since the subject property
was agricultural land covered by
a homestead patent, exclusive
jurisdiction was with the
DARAB, and not with the
regular courts. The CA ruled in
Andres’ favor, and declared the
ruling of the RTC as null and
void for lack of jurisdiction.
Chico v. CA Pedro Chico claims to be the W/N the dispute between the NO. The records of the case fail In order for a tenancy relation to
GR No. 122704 lawful owner of a parcel of land, parties is agrarian in nature. to show any juridical tie binding take serious hold over the
5 January 1998 which the Mananghayas were between the parties or their dispute, it would e essential to
Vitug, J. occupying. He averred that he predecessors-in-interest, let alone first establish all its indispensable
needed the lots for his personal that which would so characterize elements. It is not enough that
use but because the the relationship as an agrarian these requisites are alleged; these
Mananghayas refused to vacate, dispute. Worse, the land subject requisites must be shown in order
18
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

he was constrained to initiate the matter of the controversy was not to divest the regular court of its
case. shown to be an agricultural land; jurisdiction in proceedings
to the contrary, the land appears lawfully began before it.
The Mananghayas assert that the to be located within a residential
true owners of the property in area. Compounding the matter,
question, Don Rafael and Doña no receipt, or any other evidence,
Salud Chico, were succeeded was presented by the
upon their death by their son Mananghayas to prove their
Delfin Chico. They also claim claim that the harvest was shared
that they had long been in lawful between the parties.
possession of the subject parcel
of land as tenants of the deceased
spouses and their son to whom
rentals had been paid.

The RTC ruled in favor of Pedro

and ordered the Mananghayas to
surrender its possession. The
Mananghayas then initiated a
petition for certiorari with the
CA to annul the RTC decision for
being void. They contend that
their tenancy relationship with
the original owners was an
agrarian dispute cognizable
exclusively by the DARAB. The
CA set aside the RTC decision on
the ground that the dispute
between the parties was an
agrarian reform matter.
Isidro v. CA Natividad Gutierrez owns a W/N the parties have a tenurial NO. Based on the statutory Tenancy is not a purely factual
GR No. L-105586 parcel of land, over which her arrangement. definitions of a tenant or lessee, relationship dependent on what
15 December 1993 sister Aniceta was an overseer. it is clear that there is no tenancy the alleged tenant does upon the
Padilla, J. Aniceta allowed Remigio Isidro or agricultural/leasehold land. It is also a legal
to occupy the swampy portion of relationship existing between the relationship. The intent of the
the land, so that he would have parties. There was no contract or parties, the understanding when
enough income to meet his agreement entered into by the farmer is installed, and their
family’s needs, with the Remigio with Natividad nor with written agreements, provided
condition that he vacate the the overseer of the property, for these are complied with and are
property upon demand. Remigio Remigio to cultivate the land for not contrary to law, are even
occupied the land without paying a price certain or to share his more important.
any rental and converted the harvests. Remigio failed to
same into a fishpond. substantiate his claim that he was Unless a person establishes his
paying rent for the use of the status as a de jure tenant, he is
19
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
When Natividad demanded
Remigio to return the land, the
latter refused to vacate, claiming
that he had spent effort and
invested capital in converting the
same into a fishpond. Thus, a
complaint for unlawful detainer
was filed by Natividad.
However, it was dismissed by the
trial court, stating that the land is
agricultural and is thus an
agrarian dispute under the
original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of
agrarian relations. The RTC
affirmed the decision.
The CA then reversed the lower
courts, and ruled that there was
no tenurial arrangement between
the parties, and that Remigio
only possessed the property by
mere tolerance.
Sintos v. CA From 1963 to 1983, Teofilo
GR No. 96489 Magarin, Aguido Ebasco,
14 July 1995 Guillermo and Manuel Casinillo,
Quiason, J. Sergio Corpus, Severino
Magarin, Rufina Mendoza,
Victoria Orilan, and Fausta
Salidaga had been cultivating
portions of a parcel of land
owned by Nicolas Sintos. They
agreed to pay him one-fourth of
their harvest as their shares.
Subsequently, Nicolas amended
the sharing agreement by
requiring them to give him 10
sacks of 50 kilos per sack, per
hectare, per harvest. Thereafter,
the said tenants paid him on the
basis of the new sharing scheme.
When the subject parcel of land
was identified by the Ministry of
W/N the case falls under the
DARAB’s jurisdiction.
W/N the tenants have a right to
disturbance compensation.
land.
NO. A case involving an
agricultural land does not
automatically make such case an
agrarian dispute upon which the
DARAB has jurisdiction. The
law provides for conditions or
requisites before the possessor of
the land can qualify as an
agricultural lessee or tenant, and
the land being agricultural is
only one of them. The law states
that an agrarian dispute must be a
controversy relating to a tenurial
arrangement over lands devoted
to agriculture. In the absence of a
tenancy relationship, the
complaint for unlawful detainer
is properly within the jurisdiction
of the MTC.
YES. There existed a landlord
and tenant relationship between
the parties. He allowed them to
cultivate the land and, in return,
received a share of the harvest.
Being tenants, they are entitled to
disturbance compensation.
not entitled to security of tenure
nor is he covered by the Land
Reform Program of the
government under existing
tenancy laws.
An agricultural lessee is a person
who, by himself and with the aid
available from within his
immediate farm household,
cultivates the land belonging to,
or possessed by, another with the
latter’s consent for the purposes
of production, for a price certain
in money or in produce or both.
An agricultural lessor, on the
other hand, is a natural or
juridical person who, either as
owner, civil law lessee,
usufructuary, or legal possessor
lets or grants to another the
cultivation and use of his land for
a price certain.
Where persons cultivated the
land and did not receive salaries
but a share in the produce or the
cash equivalent thereof, the
relationship created between
them and the landowner is one of
tenancy and not employment.
20
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

Agrarian Reform as covered

under Operation Land Transfer,
Certificates of Land Transfer
were issued to the tenants.

Nicolas then asked for the

exclusion of his landholding
from the land reform program,
contending that the portions
occupied by his tenants were part
of his land development project,
the Sintos Subdivision. After
investigation, the MAR
recommended the cancellation of
the CLTs in favor of the tenants
and instead recommended the
award to them of disturbance
compensation.

Although no agreement was

reached by the parties with
respect to the amount of
disturbance compensation, the
tenants were ejected from their
landholding when Nicolas started
dumping sand and gravel on the
portions they were cultivating.
They then filed a case against
Nicolas for the payment of
disturbance compensation.

The trial court ruled in favor of

the tenants, and ordered Nicolas
to pay them disturbance
compensation. The CA affirmed
the trial court. Nicolas appealed,
contending that the respondents
do not have a right to the
compensation because they were
not his tenants.
Philbancor v. CA Vicente Hizon, Jr. is the owner of W/N the tenants could still NO. Section 12 of RA 3844 The right of tenancy attaches to
GR No. 129572 agricultural lands which were exercise their right of provides that the right of the landholding by operation of
26 June 2000 tenanted by Alfredo Pare, Pablo redemption, five years after the redemption may be exercised law. The leasehold relation is not
Pardo, J. Galang, and Amado Vie. Hizon registration of the certificate of within 2 years from the extinguished by the alienation or
21
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

mortgaged the subject property
to Philbancor without his
tenants’ knowledge, and when he
failed to pay his obligations,
Philbancor was able to acquire
the property at a public auction.
The tenants allegedly only found
out about the mortgage seven
years after the public auction,
when they were notified by
Philbancor to vacate the lots.
Thus, they filed a complaint for
maintenance of possession with
redemption and tenancy right of
pre-emption against Philbancor
and Hizon with the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (PARAB).
sale with the Register of Deeds.
registration of the sale. The transfer of the legal possession of
redemption period had already the landholding.
expired when the tenants filed
the complaint for redemption.
Nevertheless, the tenants may
continue in possession and
enjoyment of the land in question
as legitimate tenants because the
right of tenancy attaches to the
landholding by operation of law.
The leasehold relation is not
extinguished by the alienation or
transfer of the legal possession of
the landholding.

The PARAB ruled in favor of the

Heirs of Roman Soriano v. CA
GR No. 128177
15 August 2001
Ynares-Santiago, J.
tenants and ordered Philbancor to
execute the necessary Deed of
Redemption in favor of the
tenants.
The DARAB and the CA
affirmed the decision.
A parcel of land originally
owned by Adriano Soriano
passed on to his heirs who leased
the same to the spouses de Vera
for 15 years beginning 1967
(until 1982). Roman, one
Adriano’s children, was to act as
caretaker of the property during
the period of the lease. However,
in 1968, the de Vera spouses
ousted him from the property and
appointed Isidro and Vidal
Versoza as his substitutes.
Because of this, Roman filed a
case for reinstatement and
reliquidation against the de Vera
spouses. On appeal to the CA, he
W/N the ruling in the land
registration case in favor of the
spouses Abalos becomes res
judicata with respect to the
security of tenure rights of the
heirs of Roman Soriano.
NO. What is in issue in the land
registration case was ownership.
The security of tenure case
before the DARAB involved the
issue of possession. It is
important to note that although
the spouses Abalos have been
declared titled owners of the
subject land, the exercise of their
rights of ownership are subject to
limitations that may be imposed
by law. The Tenancy Act
provides one such limitation.
Agricultural lessees are entitled
to security of tenure and they
have the right to work on their
respective landholdings once the
Security of tenure is a legal
concession to agricultural lessees
which they value as life itself and
deprivation of their landholdings
is tantamount to deprivation of
their only means of livelihood.
The exercise of ownership yields
to the exercise of the rights of an
agricultural tenant (as provided
for in The Tenancy Act).
Obiter:
Possession and ownership are
distinct legal concepts. There is
ownership when a thing
pertaining to one person is
22
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

won. Prior to the execution of the
CA’s decision in 1972, the de
Vera spouses and Roman entered
into a post-decisional agreement
wherein the spouses allowed
Roman to sub-lease the property
as an agricultural tenant until the
termination of the lease in 1982.
The said agreement was
approved by the agrarian court.
After executing an extrajudicial
settlement among themselves,
Adriano’s heirs divided the
property into 2 lots. The first was
assigned to Lourdes, Candido,
and the heirs of Dionisia; the
other was assigned to Francisca,
Librada, Elocadio, and Roman.
In 1971, the first lot was sold by
its owners to the spouses Abalos,
while the ¾ of the second lot was
sold to the same spouses by
Elocadio, Francisca, and Librada.
W/N the winning party in a land
registration case can effectively
eject the possessor thereof,
whose security of tenure rights
are still pending determination
before the DARAB.
leasehold relationship is
established.
NO. Roman’s status as tenant is
yet to be declared by DARAB.
The prevailing party in a land
registration case cannot be
placed in possession of the area
while it is being occupied by
once claiming to be an
agricultural tenant, pending a
declaration that the latter’s
occupancy was unlawful. This is
because if Roman’s claim of
possession as a tenant of the said
property is proven, it will entitle
him and his heirs to protection
against dispossession.
completely subjected to his will
in a manner not prohibited by
law and consistent with the
rights of others. Ownership
confers certain rights to the
owner, among which are the
right to enjoy the thing owned
and the right to exclude other
persons from possession thereof.
On the other hand, possession is
defined as the holding of a thing
or the enjoyment of a right.
Literally, to possess means to
actually and physically occupy a
thing with or without right.
Possession may be had in two
ways: possession in the concept
of owner and possession of a
holder.
A judgment for ownership does
not necessarily include
possession as a necessary
incident.

In 1976, the spouses Abalos filed

with the RTC of Pangasinan an
application for registration of
title over the lots they bought
from the heirs of Adriano (the
first one and the ¾ pro-indiviso
share of the second lot sold to
them). The application was
granted by the RTC, and
affirmed both by the CA and SC.

In 1983, Roman, along with

Elocadio and Librada, filed a
case against the Abalos spouses
for annulment of document
and/or redemption, ownership,
and damages. It was denied by
the trial court.

23
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

In 1984, or 11 years after the

approval of the post-decisional
agreement between Roman and
the spouses de Vera, the Abalos
spouses filed with the agrarian
court a motion for execution of
the said post-decisional
agreement which allowed Roman
Soriano to sub-lease the property.
The motion prayed that the
spouses Abalos be placed in
possession of the subject
property, jointly with Roman
Soriano, and to levy so much of
Roman’s property to answer for
the use and occupation of Roman
of 6/7 share of the property.
When Roman died in 1985, he
was substituted by his heirs.
It appears that in 1988, the land
registration court’s decision was
partially executed by partitioning
the second lot into two—one part
in favor of Roman and the other
in favor of the spouses Abalos.
Roman’s heirs appealed to the
CA, which affirmed the partition
but reversed the order of the land
registration court directing the
issuance of a writ of possession
because of the pendency of the
case instituted by Roman against
the Abalos spouses.

In 1993, the SC ultimately

dismissed Roman’s case of
annulment of document and/or
redemption, ownership, and
damages against the Abalos
spouses; as well as the motion
for execution instituted by the
Abalos spouses. Roman’s heirs
then filed with the DARAB a
complaint against the Abalos
24
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

spouses for “Security of Tenure

with prayer for Status Quo Order
and Preliminary Injunction.” The
Abalos spouses, on the other
hand, in view of the SC’s
disposition of the case, moved
for the issuance of an alias writ
of execution and/or writ of
possession to place them in
possession of the first and ¾ of
the second lot. The trial court
held this case in abeyance until
after DARAB resolves the
complaint filed by Roman’s
heirs. The Abalos spouses’ MR
was denied by the trial court, and
on appeal, the CA reversed the
RTC, ordering the issuance of the
writ of possession in favor of the
Abalos spouses.
Hernandez v. IAC The spouses Tolentino owned a W/N the watchers could be YES. The watchers have been in Where a person cultivates the
GR No. 74323 parcel of coconut land. They had considered as agricultural continuous, uninterrupted land and does not receive salaries
21 September 1990 persons living on the said land, tenants. physical possession of their but a share in the produce or the
Medialdea, J. who cleaned and cleared certain respective areas in the cash equivalent of his share in
portions of the plantation for the landholding, which they have lump, the relationship is one of
purpose of improving the cleaned and cleared for the tenancy and not employment.
harvest, were identified as purpose of improving the
“bantay” or watchers over the harvests; they have lived in the An important criterion in
property and entitled to 1/6 share landholding and constructed their determining whether the
in the harvest. Their houses were houses thereon; they were paid in relationship is one of share
built in a cluster inside the an amount equivalent to 1/6 of tenancy is cultivation.
property. the harvest during the ownership
of the Tolentino spouses, and The definition of cultivation is
Subsequently, SALES, Inc. was then later, 1/7 during the period not limited merely to the tilling,
able to acquire the land. Its of Wenceslao’s lease. Their plowing or harrowing of the land.
possession was relinquished to status as tenants based on the It includes the promotion of
Wenceslao Hernandez under a foregoing cannot be gainsaid. growth and the care of the plants,
civil law lease. The watchers’ Where they cultivated the land or husbanding the ground to
pay was reduced to 1/7 of the and did not receive salaries but a forward the products of the earth
harvest. However, from 1980 to share in the produce or the cash by general industry.
1983, they were not paid their equivalent of his share in lump,
shares. the relationship is one of tenancy It may be said that the caretaker
and not employment. The fact of an agricultural land can also
SALES, Inc. averred that the that they have huts erected on the be considered the cultivator of
25
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
watchers had been ejected from
the land even before it acquired
the same; thus, they did not have
a right to a share of the harvests,
since they were not tenants. It
also claimed that under the lease
agreement, Hernandez was
forbidden to take any tenants,
and that these watchers were
only subsequently hired as wage
laborers to do the picking,
gathering, and hauling of
cocounuts. The court ruled in
favor of the watchers, and
declared them as tenants of
SALES, Inc. and Wenceslao
Hernandez. The latter were also
ordered to pay the former their
unpaid shares in the harvest. The
CA affirmed.
Essential requisites of When Victor Valencia acquired
two parcels of land, he entered
a tenancy into civil law leases with
relationship:Ò&1º Glicerio Henson and Fr. Andres
¡¼×ìl†¾œòKý¯ôÉUüø Flores. Henson instituted
Crescenciano and Marciano Frias
µäÝ<Ÿ“/ipKI‡9„•¼ð@ to work on the property; while
å\ Fr. Flores appointed the Friases,
plus some others, as farmhands.
€”Ô™µÆÕ‘,Mõô±·O¨ However, in Fr. Flores’ lease
ø'àC¿+o(.÷ôA contract, there was a stipulation
that he was prohibited from
¡M-;vB°/ì installing a leasehold tenant
/</ô…JÒê·‰m4A~Ê thereon. No such prohibition
%.¡»KÀàÑ®±ä.¶@Í:Þ existed in Henson’s contract.
—£‘261’sÝ€- When Fr. Flores’ lease period
²ñÇ>á°¥óÈpòz! expired, Valencia ordered his
farmhands to vacate the lot. The
Äš¡Ï2Ö±ÆéÆ,Rp¸¼rç farmhands refused to do so, and
O-=2 ﾤ kÒ1R3¡ìû26ÕÈ actually even secured CLTs over
CaN a contract of civil law ìease
psohibit a civil law lessee from
emploùing a tenant on the land
s5bjecô matTmr of th¥Û
ﾧ ìáÑÜßœ ﾤ :C=z`l>þ»›Á
VvÂyãªn›;x[O266ys,JM&
v«€Î¿™26d3Ž´-³
AŒ–°þ
%gF¶ñæ>Ú„ÏWz$
$¼ñÄú<à4ÂÒ¨Q&ë³nt/ÍáìxÖ{‰
 ‘-WÜ›ÚÆʇ ﾵ t\¦Ö•ëú?
$7êwU£î+íÉé ﾵ Ù—}‚2Qß(å'p
q0oRó¤²Ó~‚Y
¢)oÞƾ<asäeÁiÏ&zBÏöñW» ]
‰ß†óý
Ù0¡`ßQÔ9bENS©¼‘[‡h?mã
landholdings shows they are
tenants.
¸¸²ould be most unfair to the
hapless and unsuspecting
landowner who entered into a
civil law lease agreement in good
faith only to realize later on that
he can no longer regain
possession of his property due to
the installation of a tenant by the
civil law lessee. On the other
hand, under the express
provision of Art. 1649 of the
Civil Code, the lessee cannot
assign the lease without the
consent of the lessor, unless there
is a stipulation to the contrary. In
the case before us, not only is
there no stipulation to the
contrary; the lessee is expressly
prohibited from subleasing or
encumbering the land, which
includes installing a leasehold
the land.
RA 3844 abolished and outlawed
share tenancy and put in its stead
the agricultural leasehold system.
RA 6389 subsequently declared
that share tenancy was contrary
to public policy. Although share
tenancy was statutorily
abolished, leasehold tenancy for
coconut and sugar lands has not
yet been implemented. The
policy makers of government are
still studying the feasibility of its
application and the consequences
of its implementation.
Nonetheless, this did not end the
rights of share tenants in these
types of lands. The eventual goal
of legislation of having strong
and independent farmers working
on lands which they own
remains.
The right to hire a tenant is
basically a personal right of a
landowner, except as may be
provided by law. Inherent in the
right of landholders to install a
tenant is their authority to do so;
otherwise, without such
authority, civil law lessees as
landholders cannot install a
tenant on the landholding.
Tenancy relationship has been
held to be of a personal character.
Deforciants cannot install lawful
tenants who are entitled to
security of tenure.
A contract of civil law lease can
prohibit a civil law lessee from
employing a tenant on the land
26
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

ºM¡î€Z ﾤ Py,01SN^p9" the land in their names. Catalino tenant thereon since the right to subject matter of the lease
Mantac, one of the farmhands, do so is an attribute of agreement.
xŽC¶a ¢×ﾧ‡VBÇ^ûí subsequently entered into a ownership.
Æe¶0R‚À©<ßqb«ƒr.ä leasehold contract undertaking to Essential requisites of a tenancy
have a profit-sharing agreement relationship:
U(dý+Bx…ò†Ñ with Valencia. (14) The parties are the
‰¼Œ]â—„¤Aw… landowner and the
After 12 years, DAR investigated tenant;
ŸˆH3»Ò׆•- the matter and found that the (15) The subject is
•„A°g'`~:«>'ür!qÏv!2¦ right of the farmhands to the land agricultural land;
.ðøW¶Éi´;Ýþ4bí+ ceased upon the termination of (16) There is consent;
the lease contracts, except as (17) The purpose is
regards to Mantac, with whom agricultural production;
_³³¨Ñ¸»;•GíÓˆ³A~ Valencia entered into a tenancy (18) There is personal
agreement. As such, it was cultivation; and
ÈÞ›Uz¬ÕÚœ“9‘šA¬k:
recommended that the CLTs (19) There is sharing of
!t9àUÒJ5Uj€- given to the other farmhands be harvests between the
.*¬Œ@žláýJ¬ÙÑnà<› cancelled. However, the parties.
Regional Office disregarded the
Õâ2727`a investigation report and ruled An allegation that an agricultural
%§žàá6d>h÷iyþŸ¾Å that the farmhands had a right to tenant tilled the land in question
continue on the land until does not make the case an
ç6¢}ï1M¯¦æž– otherwise ordered by the court. agrarian dispute. Claims that one
†j1åiÏ’Ý#ô oZ| On appeal to the Office of the is a tenant do not automatically
®Š«~Fö·Ñê«î_7ìª>™ President, then Exec. Sec. give rise to security of tenure.
Teofisto Guingona upheld the The elements of tenancy must
kCðÊ?ﾤ\Îõtôê ruling of the DAR, with the first be proved in order to entitle
¢»rb¥ƒ‹BÅÞ4§(µõ(a{» modification that the area the claimant to security of tenure.
acquired by Valencia as
- homestead be excluded from the The principal factor in
Éœu¼(”žËñHòÙ¿a¼Å coverage of PD 27. determining whether a tenancy
relationship exists is intent.
ö Valencia then appealed to the CA Tenancy is not a purely factual
contending that the Exec. Sec. relationship dependent on what
ÓØã(mÞÖ’;U1ŸœÃŽ{ erred in recognizing the the alleged tenant does upon the
farmhands as tenants, and land. It is also a legal
p’.]²Üéb²ê´Ö— disallowing him and his 7 relationship.
eø9U©™> compulsory heirs
frmm$exercising their right of The security of tenure guaranteed
%ËîñˆN@}03k³îåtŒ retention under RA 6657. by our tenancy laws may be
·… However, the CA"dismissed thd invoked only by tenants de jure,
z©ä"cTš7(¯§õßä>Ä case. not by those who are not true and
lawful tenants.
¢”ýF®îæ‡E¶÷ôë×4
27
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

‰Æ/sBWž±ÀÁ ﾤ¸ê·I’ The act of subletting to third

persons extinguishes the
À™©ÎÅÐ7CÉó¡ã úµ agricultural leasehold relations,
%àE»+yo$¿ôt,ﾵ¡}z´! as this constitutes an
abandonment of the landholding
õ07:øÊW—êÅ due to absence of personal
ﾧ ä{>oÐ4wò²MÓ¥Èù cultivation.

§|þ@ Obiter:
‰xÞšï”:“SË‘^‡³Ò<ëþ Social justice is for the
deserving, whether he be a
è¡õuþ44ÚÓ£ÂaÐþÄú millionaire in his mansion or a
Á,Sm¨ypðDN'wI|”`R8¡ pauper in his hovel. It is never
ì÷OÒ›î@äêÓHNW6m* juÄ»CtÛ*~·¸¸>@V«XvºVEŸÕ/Ò
0Òqì8ôôl—ôcW°RÇŽ›xÚ1+
ysoj Dp*puËB±/‚¼- U¥DïD@-
Ä‚XŽcðøÁ~«0VˆÆÚ8 ïÝSîugñ"çB<§FoþZµ2¦Z=
%dk§räãe¬×b?÷5si ﾧ wÀÂ#p¦›
UÁ!s¯??ëF.t¸< † æ¢e¢Œí9î?œ¢2¨ ¢
·¯¥˜¦¿]â— ﾤ ¹RR Em‡Í5Š¾!¥€DkvÕ(·Kþ
‚±Ab2 6±hìdE –
_ÅË5åž•ÚÉ‚„ð½ÀCDmE«ö{C€
8ÀÞ_6¹ÓÒŽ,œäa,ug+ >H«)‰¼5Ùß„àÿLIÓO!
àWIÏL7UnŽM;-¦ ˆ^¹ÑmáѬ
ʸ$ô²u±Þ×s´!„Õä
%id½’éúz-
/<(WØha5ã”òÖö9¿kU
¦5^»ªäžÞ†i
üVmÇÆÌ9±spUh¨Œ y
¢¿Ð §¬[xíº}….
¤à;ßi0S?³ £OØߺ-
G¥ﾵ äÎÀÛß9p¼&B»™
æ` £¶Ìˆ Î2G¦Ö5iÁîôÍ
P;0k¨½±rŸ.‚kï¥d|
†?’0ê
µ¼Åë{†ﾵ›÷
ý¯à›Dóôûïœ&“Ò2'RLÀ

28
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

Ñ,’Ú¨à·M›ˆâ™´Üœ‡/
[ż¶ò ‹èç+ê®
ﾤ ng5ùôZ.Xà)YYwWè`
ù ﾤ*0.ö¨4àöÈ-ä-
`=îöòP®_ŒÂɲÉ6Ð-7
ûqÔ_—,RValencia v.
CA

(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.
(7)
(8) 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 laws.
(9)
(10) Tenancy status arises
only if an occupant of
a parcel of land has
been given its
possession for the
primary purpose of
agricultural
production.
(11)
29
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

(12) Obiter:
(13) If justice can be meted
out now, why wait for
it to drop gently from
heaven?
E3y%½û®5/y3SØjva±˜í—
ò"¡wN» ¶°X°³ßÆ` ﾵ 8ògÊ…Í!
½&l ﾵ {üˆ¼dNñ½Ë(î¬J*ê¦qƒ"æ¸3
ÍGƈ¬%—žâÿ~9Ïéƒ which
cannot by any stretch of
imagination be considered as an
economic family-sized farm.
Planting camote, bananas, and
corn on such a size of land
cannot produce an income
sufficient to provide a modest
standard of living to meet the
farm family’s basic needs. Thus,
the order sought to be reviewed
is patently contrary to the
declared policy of RA 3844.
Moreover, there exists no
tenancy relationship between the
parties because Abajon’s status is
more of a caretaker who was
allowed by the owner out of
benevolence or compassion to
live in the premises and to have a
garden of some sort. Agricultural
production as the primary
purpose being absent in the
arrangement, it is clear that
Abajon was never a tenant of
Millenes.
SÚ‹¬=Ä‹½ g+ß÷ƒPFŠ
Æ‘*è#1øut2Š»s=ÅÏq
½-”‘€‹¨ºåðIù\¿]ÝÔ¯#l
‰—
ÿuqÒ‡è™r*‚*J÷ˆà`óå³
ˇ,×|Gã—
>aåæËO@c<zr®ü±=‘±O~¼¡d{
Kx9~e^*^ICw ;lhŽI÷[¬û=Ð
30
 Agrarian Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

‡ÏåñÛ`²bIÇ׶6Ôsb¬Æ:7ö
oÌ%}r©MȤžô°ó|ú@Í:ÔÔ»˜t…
#Æ
£¢“öä³óÎ=úz$ˆãÂ
ÝõШöm^~ ðgæN'I
•]U¯ùž ﾤ Ï–s?
Úrÿåù{«¥¬ZÙ™WŠL€–
=ºk8ø3
1xp:ÈÒÌÃ0½<ˆ™ŠÀ¨òí¿c©Ãî
ÇÔá9h’—Ý>
GR No. 122363
29 April 2003
Bellosillo, J.
jÀ!ý-<ÛÜ6Òf»
ﾧ UÔW†B¯»"4b™o¤GÿyÎ ﾧ åÿÄ
‰ %S+7lld¡Æä©xí5¦TƒíÃn¸U-
a6yK6Oxf
HKªÃ\ZˆN·Ð(L}Ú¬uæ^VĪPøj
÷²8ÄÅÏV|
e*µû³$ñ(Åßò[`ªV¾shÏ&Ø÷¸}ÜfÔ
Bò8Z²ÛÓÕÈzÂ㢈Ü&kJ/-
Û(ä«?–”Y ﾵ Ò‰{‰2Fƺ- ¤9|
p3n¡À¼€
‰¼)}JöÊò=qb·'vÏql

31