SOCLEG

Espiridion v. IAC
Issue:
May a tenanted parcel of land be donated by the landowner so that it can be the site of
a public high school without securing the consent of the tenant-lessee? Who bears the
responsibility of paying disturbance compensation? These are the issues raised in this
case.
Rulling:
If the party sued upon is not the proper party, any decision that may be rendered
against him would be futile, for it cannot be enforced or executed.

The private respondent bolsters his claim that he is not the real party-in-interest on
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines) which
provides that:
In the 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 obligation of the agricultural lessor.

Under Article 428 of the New Civil Code, the owner has the right to dispose of a thing
without other limitations than those established by law. As an incident of ownership
therefore, there is nothing to prevent a landowner from donating his naked title to the
land. However, the new owner must respect the rights of the tenant. Section 7 of R.A.
No. 3844, as amended (Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines) gives the
agricultural lessee the right to work on the landholding once the leasehold relationship
is established. It also entitles him to security of tenure on his landholding. He can only
be ejected by the court for cause. Time and again, this Court has guaranteed the
continuity and security of tenure of a tenant even in cases of a mere transfer of legal
possession. 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 law provides that the leasehold relation is not
extinguished by the alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding.
The only instances when the agricultural leasehold relationship is extinguished are
found in Section 8, 28 and 36 of the Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines. The
donation of the land did not terminate the tenancy relationship. However, the donation
itself is valid.
Considering that the tenant in the case at bar is willing to accept payment of
disturbance compensation in exchange for his right to cultivate the landholding in
question, the real issue is who should pay the compensation. We rule that the Ministry
of Education, Culture and Sports as the new owner cannot oust the petitioner from the
subject riceland and build a public high school thereon until after there is payment of
the disturbance compensation RA 3844, as amended.
Rovillos v. CA (G.R. No. 113605 November 27, 1998)
Issue:
Tenants (petitioners) entered into a contract stating that they are “workers”. Then the
tenants exercised dominion over the land. Respondent was dismayed.
Ruling:
Whether the petitioner was indeed a tenant or laborer is a question of fact. In this
regard, jurisprudence has provided the following requisites for tenancy relationship: (1)
the parties are the landowners 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 harvest.

First, petitioner was in actual possession of the land and resided in a farmhouse thereon
as a farm tenant would normally do.

Second, the land was devoted to the production of palay and other related products.

Third, there was the element of consent, for as early as 1971, private respondent had
not instituted an action against the petitioner or his predecessor. In fact, he even
allowed them and a certain Conrado Vergara to manage and till the land.

Fourth, the management of the land was for the sole purpose of producing rice or palay.

Fifth, cultivation and farm work were personally done by the petitioner and his
predecessor.

Sixth, petitioner shared the harvest of the land under a "share-crop" system. In
Hernandez v. IAC, we ruled that when an individual cultivates the land and did not
receive salaries but a share of the produce, the relationship is one of tenancy and not
employment. Moreover, if private respondent's land was indeed non-tenanted, he
should have obtained a certification of non-tenancy from the then Ministry of Agrarian
Reform.

Salmorin v. zaldivar
Issue:
Pedro Zaldivar entered into an agreement (Kasugtanan) with Salmorin designating him
as administrator of the lot with a monthly salary. Salmorin allegedly did not comply with
the terms of the Kasugtanan when he failed to till the vacant areas.

Salmorin alleged the existence of a tenancy relationship between him and Zaldivar.
Thus, he claimed that the case was an agrarian matter over which the MCTC had no
jurisdiction.

Ruling:
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has primary and exclusive
jurisdiction over agrarian related cases, i.e., rights and obligations of persons, whether
natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural
lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and other related agrarian
laws, or those cases involving the ejectment and dispossession of tenants and/or
leaseholders. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act 7691, provides that
exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer is lodged
with the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts and MCTCs.

In his complaint, Zaldivar alleged the following:

(1) he possessed the subject lot;

(2) he instituted Salmorin as administrator thereof;
(3) Salmorin failed to administer the subject lot by not having the vacant areas thereof
planted;
(4) for Salmorin’s failure to administer the subject lot, Salmorin’s service as
administrator was terminated;
(5) he adviced Salmorin through registered mail to leave or vacate the subject lot and
(6) Salmorin refused to vacate the subject lot without justification.

Thus, Zaldivar’s complaint concerned the unlawful detainer by Salmorin of the subject
lot. This matter is properly within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The allegation of
tenancy in Salmorin’s answer did not automatically deprive the MCTC of its jurisdiction.

There was no tenancy relationship

Tenancy is a legal relationship established by the existence of particular facts as

required by law. In this case, the RTC and CA correctly found that the third and sixth
elements, namely, consent of the landowner and sharing of the harvests, respectively,
were absent.

It is well-settled that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is
determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law, irrespective of
whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought
therein.

Salmorin’s attempt to persuade us by way of a certification coming from the Barangay

Agrarian Reform Committee attesting that he was a bona fide tenant of Zaldivara
deserves scant consideration. Certifications issued by municipal agrarian reform officers
are not binding on the courts.
Isidro v. CA
Issue:
Natividad Gutierrez (respondent) is the owner of a parcel of land. Aniceta Garcia, the
overseer of the latter, allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to occupy the swampy portion
of the abovementioned land, in order to augment his (petitioner's) income to meet his
family's needs. The occupancy of a portion of said land was subject top the condition
that petitioner would vacate the land upon demand. Petitioner occupied the land
without paying any rental and converted the same into a fishpond.

Respondent demanded from petitioner the return of the land, but the latter refused to
vacate and return possession of said land, claiming that he had spent effort and invested
capital in converting the same into a fishpond.

A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by private respondent against petitioner.
Petitioner set up the following defenses: (a) that the complaint was triggered by his
refusal to increase his lease rental; (b) the subject land is a fishpond and therefore is
agricultural land; and (c) that lack of formal demand to vacate exposes the complaint to
dismissal for insufficiency of cause of action.

Ruling:
We hold for the private respondent.

It is basic whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is
determined from the allegations of the complaint. The court does not lose its
jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case by the simple expedient of a party raising as
a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties.
The court continues to have the authority to hear the evidence for the purpose precisely
of determining whether or not it has jurisdiction. And upon such hearing, if tenancy is
shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

An agrarian dispute refers to 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 and
conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired under Republic Act No. 6657 and other terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other
agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor or lessee.

It is irrefutable in the case at bar that the subject land which used to be an idle, swampy
land was converted by the petitioner into a fishpond. And it is settled that a fishpond is
an agricultural land. An agricultural land refers to the land devoted to agricultural
activity as defined in Republic Act No. 6657.
But a case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an
agrarian dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction. The mere fact that the land is
agricultural does not ipso facto make the possessor an agricultural lessee of tenant. The
law provides for conditions or requisites before he can qualify as one 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. And as
previously mentioned, such arrangement may be leasehold, tenancy or stewardship.

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 their written agreements, provided these are complied
with and are not contrary to law, are even more important.

The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner
and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the
purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6)
there is a sharing of harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur in
order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not
make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de
jure tenant. Unless a person establishes 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.

Furthermore, an agricultural lessee as defined in Sec. 116(2) of Republic Act No. 3844, 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 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 judicial 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.

Based on the statutory definitions of a tenant or a lessee, it is clear that there is no

tenancy or agricultural/leasehold relationship existing between the petitioner and the
private respondent. There was no contract or agreement entered into by the petitioner
with the private respondent nor with the overseer of the private respondent, for
petitioner to cultivate the land for a price certain or to share his harvests. Petitioner has
failed to substantiate his claim that he was paying rent for the use of the land.

Whether or not private respondent knew of the conversion by petitioner of the idle,
swampy land into a fishpond is immaterial in this case. The fact remains that the
existence of all the requisites of a tenancy relationship was not proven by the petitioner.
And in the absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for unlawful detainer is
properly within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
Having established that the occupancy and possession by petitioner of the land in
question is by mere tolerance, private respondent had the legal right to demand upon
petitioner to vacate the land.

Hernandez v. IAC
Issue:
The property subject matter of this case is landed estate consisting of 53 hectares of
coconut land formerly owned by the spouses Salvador and Escolastica Tolentino.
Possession was relinquished to Wenceslao Hernandez in 1957 under a civil law lease.
The houses of the plaintiff are built in the cluster inside the property where they and
their respective family reside.

Plaintiffs have shown through their evidence that they have been in possession of their
respective areas in the plantation which they clean and clear for the purpose of
improving the harvest and they are paid at the rate of 1/6 of the harvest under the late
Mrs. Escolastica M. Tolentino and reduced to only 1/7 under the tenure of defendant
Wenceslao Hernandez.

It is immaterial if the plaintiffs had been ejected as tenants in 1952 or 1953. They are
anchoring this suit on the fact that they remained as agricultural tenants on the
plantation even during the tenure of Wenceslao Hernandez beginning the year 1957.
The plaintiffs have been in continuous, uninterrupted possession of the plantation as
evidenced by their houses built thereon which Hernandez himself admitted.

Hence, the instant petition is filed (by Hernandez) assigning the following errors:

l. The respondent-appellate court committed a grave error and misapprehension of

facts when it upheld the conclusion of the trial court that the private respondents are
agricultural tenants of the petitioner in the land in question;

2. The respondent appellate court committed a grave error and mistaken application of
law when it finds that an agricultural leasehold system exists between the private
respondents and the petitioner.

Ruling:
Share tenancy is defined as the physical possession by a person of land devoted to
agriculture, belonging to or legally possessed by another for the purpose of production
through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household
in consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter or to
pay a price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money or in both. Share
tenancy exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural
production wherein one party furnishes the land and the other, his labor, with either or
both contributing any one or several items of production, the tenant cultivating the land
with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household, and the
produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant in proportion to
their respective contributions

A farmhand or agricultural worker is any agricultural wage, salary or piece worker but is
not limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless this Code explicitly
states otherwise, and any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in
connection with, a current agrarian dispute or an unfair labor practice and who has not
obtained a substantially equivalent and regular employment.

An important criteria in determining whether the relationship is one of share tenancy is

cultivation. The meaning of cultivation concerning coconut lands has already been
spelled out by this Court as follows:

...The definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling, plowing or harrowing of
the land. It includes the promotion of growth and the care of the plants, or husbanding
the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry. The raising of
coconuts is a unique agricultural enterprise. Unlike rice, the planting of coconut
seedlings does not need harrowing and plowing. Holes are merely dug on the ground of
sufficient depth and distance, the seedlings placed in the holes and the surface thereof
covered by soil. Some coconut trees are planted only every thirty to a hundred years.
The major work in raising coconuts begins when the coconut trees are already fruit-
bearing. Then it is cultivated by smudging or smoking the plantation, taking care of the
coconut trees, applying fertilizer, weeding and watering, thereby increasing the
produce. The fact that respondent Benitez, together with his family, handles all phases
of farmwork from clearing the landholding to the processing of copra, although at times
with the aid of hired laborers, thereby cultivating the land, shows that he is a tenant,
not a mere farm laborer.

The trial court and respondent appellate court arrived at the same findings and
conclusions that private respondents have been in continuous, uninterrupted physical
possession of their respective areas in the landholding, which they have cleaned and
cleared for the purpose of improving the harvests.

The status of respondents as tenants based on the foregoing cannot be gainsaid. Where
private respondents cultivated the land and did not receive salaries but a share in the
produce or the cash equivalent of his share in lump, the relationship is one of tenancy
and not employment. The fact that respondents have huts erected on the landholdings
shows they are tenants.

This Court has consistently ruled that in agrarian cases, all that is required is mere
substantial evidence. Hence, the agrarian court's findings of fact which attained the
minimum evidentiary support demanded by law, that is, supported by substantial
evidence, are final and conclusive and cannot be reversed by the appellate tribunals.

Fuentes vs Caguimbal, GR 150305, Nov 22, 2007

Facts: Honofre Fuentes is the owner of the property being claimed in this case. Said
property is located in Calatagan, Batangas. On January 18, 2000, petitioner filed an
action for unlawful detainer against Felomino Caguimbal with the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of Batangas, alleging that in 1991, he allowed respondent to occupy the property
rent-free, subject to the condition that the latter will vacate the property when
petitioner returns from abroad. However, upon his return, respondent refused to vacate
the property, forcing petitioner to file the case. Respondent denied petitioner's
allegations, claiming that his father started occupying the property in 1928 as
agricultural tenant until his disability in 1976, after which he (respondent) took over.

Issue: Can tenancy be presumed?

Held: No. Section 3 of R.A. No. 1199 or The Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines
defines agricultural tenancy as "the physical possession by a person of land devoted to
agriculture belonging to, or legally possessed by another, for the purpose of production
through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household,
in consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter, or to
pay a price certain, either in produce or in money, or in both." The essential requisites of
tenancy are: (1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2)
The subject of the relationship is agricultural land; (3) There is mutual consent to the
tenancy between the parties; (4) The purpose of the relationship is agricultural
production; (5) There is personal cultivation by the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6)
There is a sharing of harvests between the parties.

Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. Claims that one is a tenant do not

automatically give rise to security of tenure. The elements of tenancy must first be
proved in order to entitle the claimant to security of tenure. There must be evidence to
prove the allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question. The fact alone
of working on another's landholding does not raise a presumption of the existence of
agricultural tenancy. Other factors must be taken into consideration like compensation
in the form of lease rentals or a share in the produce of the landholding involved.
Without the essential elements of consent and sharing, no tenancy relationship can
exist between the petitioner and the private respondents.

What was established by the evidence in the present case was that respondent and his
predecessor had been planting on the property since 1928. What is wanting, however, is
proof showing the sharing of harvests or that petitioner, as landowner of the subject
property ever gave his consent to establish or maintain a tenancy relationship.