People v Adillo

G.R. No. L-2735

November 27, 1975
Martin, J.

Doctrine: The new Agricultural Land Reform Code has abolished agricultural share
tenancy. Therefore the penal liability imposed upon reaping or threshing of crops
without mutual consent or on earlier dates not agreed upon in share tenancy
agreements is obliterated

Facts:
 Defendant, Adillo, was a share-tenant of one Rebong on a parcel of riceland
situated at Victoria, Laguna
 In 1962, Adillo was charged before the CFI for violation of Sec. 39 of the
Agricultural Tenancy Act
o It was alleged that Adillo unlawfully reap and thresh a portion of palay
planted on the riceland without the knowledge and consent of Rebong and
even before a date has been ficed for reaping and threshing of palay
 Defendant’s counsel moved to quash the information on the ground that the
Agricultural Tenancy Act was repealed by the new Agricultural Land Reform
Code resulting in the extinction of defendant’s criminal liability
 The court ruled in favor of the motion and dismissed the case. Hence the instant
petition interposed by the State

Issue: Whether Adillo’s criminal liability is extinguished by the repeal of the

Agricultural Tenancy Act by the new Agricultural Land Reform Code

Held
 Sec 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act:
o Sec. 39. Prohibition on Pre-Threshing—It shall be unlawful for either the
tenant or landholder, without mutual consent, to reap or thresh a portion of
the crop at anytime previous to the date set for its threshing; x x x any
violation of this section by either party shall be treated and penalized in
accordance with this Act and/or under the general provisions of law
applicable to the act committed
o Notes:
 Beltran: Court expressed that although a tenant is given the right
under the Act to determine when to reap the harvest; it is like wise
provided that the reaping shall be “after due notice to the
landholder”
 Pre-reaping or pre-threshing is considered a violation, subject to
the sanction of dispossession and penalty of fine
 Purpose: to enable the landholder to witness, personally or by
representative, the reaping and threshing operations
 Pre-reaping in the absence of one party inevitably generates ill-will
and strains the relations between the landholder and the tenant;
 such would poison the tenancy relationship and is inimical to
agricultural peace and progress
 Therefore, strict compliance with the legal and contractual
prescriptions as to the date of reaping and threshing are of the
essence of the statutory policy
 This applies particularly to rice share tenancy and may NOT be
extended to embrace the agricultural leasehold
 In sharehold = tenant may choose to shoulder, in addition
to labor, any one or more of the items of contributions; the
tenant and the landholder are co-managers; the tenant and
the landholder divide the harvest in proportion to their
contributions
 In leasehold = the tenant or lessee always shoulders all the
items of production except the land; tenant is the sole
manager of the farmholding; the tenant or lessee gets the
whole produce with mere obligation to pay a fixed rental
 Therefore, the notice of reaping or threshing is NOT required
by the Act in leasehold system, because the lessee’s principal
obligation is to pay the rental which is to deliver a generic
thing in the absence of any specific agreement to the contrary,
and that the rental is supposed to be a specific amount as fixed
by the Act
 The Agricultural Land Reform Code amended the Tenancy Act of 1954
o It declared agricultural share tenancy to be contrary to public policy and
shall be abolished
o Based on transitory provisions however, existing share tenancy contracts
were allowed to continue temporarily in force and effect until whichever
of the following events occurs earlier:
 The end of the agricultural year when the National Land Reform
Council makes the proclamation declaring the region or locality a
land reform area
 The shorter period provided in the share tenancy contracts express
so
 The share tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the leasehold
system
 Code of Agrarian Reforms (RA 6389): declared that agricultural share tenancy
throughout the country was declared contrary to public policy and was
automatically converted to agricultural leasehold upon the effectivity of Sec. 4
thereof although existing share tenancy contracts were again allowed to continue
temporarily in force and effect in any region or locality until the end of the
agricultural year when the President of the Philippines shall have organized by
executive order the Department of Agrarian Reform
 After the declaration of Martial Law, the President issued PD 2 proclaiming the
entire country as a “land reform area”
 o The proclamation of the entire country as a land area in accordance with
the Agricultural Land Reform Code unqualifiedly abolished the
shareholding system in the Philippine agricultural life
o President also issued PD 27 emancipating the tenant from the bondage of
the soil
o To safeguard this new right of tenancy, PD 316 was enacted interdicting
the ejectment or removal of the tenant-farmer from his farmholding
until the promotion of the rules and regulations implement the said
PD 27
 It is also worth noting that Sec. 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954
which prohibited the threshing or reaping without mutual consent is no
longer found in the Agricultural Land Reform Code for the obvious reason
that agricultural share tenancy has already been abolished by the new Code
o The abolition of the said section is an implied repeal
 Therefore, the penal liability of a share tenancy for pre-reaping or pre-threshing
under the Agricultural Tenancy Act has been obliterated by the Agricultural
Reform Code.


Dismissal of the information against the defendant is AFFIRMED