table of cases in agrarian

8/13/2019 Table of Cases in AGRARIAN

1/8

CASES: AGRARIAN

Morta sr. Vs. Occidental

FACTS:

Jaime Morta and Purificacion Padilla filed a suit against Jaime Occidental, Atty. Mariano Baranda, and Daniel Corral,

for allegedly gathering pili nuts, anahaw leaves, and coconuts from their respective land and destroying their banana

and pineapple plants. Occidental claimed that he was a tenant of the actual owner of the land, Josefina Baraclan, and

that Morta and Padilla were not actually the owners of the land in question. The trial court ruled in favor of Morta

and Padilla. Occidental, et al. appealed, contending that the case was cognizable by the DAR Adjudicatory Board

(DARAB). Thus, the RTC reversed the lower court and ruled in favor of Occidental, stating that the case is a tenancy-

related problem which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of DARAB. The CA affirmed the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the cases are properly cognizable by the DARAB.

HELD:

NO. Since there is a dispute as to who is the rightful owner of the land, the issue is clearly outside DARABs

jurisdiction. Whatever findings made by the DARAB regarding the ownership of the land are not conclusive to settle

the matter. At any rate, whoever is declared to be the rightful owner of the land, the case cannot be considered

tenancy-related for it still fails to comply with the other requirements. Assuming arguendo that Josefina is the owner,

then the case is not between the landowner and tenant. If, however, Morta is the landowner, Occidental cannot

claim that there is consent to a landowner-tenant relationship between him and Morta. Thus, for failure to comply

with the requisites, the issue involved is not tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB.

For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a

tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to

wit:

1. That the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;

2. The subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;

3. That there is consent between the parties to the relationship;

4. That the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;

5. That there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and6. That the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.

THE HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE ET. AL vs. CA (CRUZ)

G.R. No. 138016.

January 30, 2002

1. MORTA SR. VS. OCCIDENTAL G.R. NO. 123417 JUNE 10, 1999 DARAB JURISDICTION

2. HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE VS. CA G.R. NO. 138016 JAN 30, 2002

3. HON. ANTONIO M. NUESA VS. CA G.R. NO. 132048 MAR 6, 2002 DARAB JURISDICTION

4. JOSE OCA VS. CA G.R. NO. 144817 MAR 7, 2002

5. SPUSES ATUEL VS. SPOUSES BERNABE G.R. NO. 139561 JUNE 10, 2003

6. MARINO VS. REVILLEZA G.R. NO. 155544 AUG 24, 2007

7. PHILBANCOR VS. CA G.R. NO. 129572 JUN 26, 2000 RIGHT OF TENANCY

8. HEIRS OF ROMAN SORIANO VS. CA G.R. NO. 128177 AUG 15, 2001 SECURITY OF TENURE9. VALENCIA VS. CA G.R. NO. 122363 APR 29, 2003 RIGHT TO HIRE A TENANT

10. NATALIA VS. CA G.R. NO. 126462 NOV. 12, 2002


2/8

CASES: AGRARIAN

FACTS:

The spouses Edilberto Romero and Felisa Romero owned a piece of agricultural land in Alegria, Surigao del Norte. On

different dates, the Romeros sold separate portions thereof to Efren Pania, Macario Sanchez and Pio Yonson.

Claiming to be the agricultural tenants of the land in question, Jose Juanite (now deceased) and his

wife, Nicolasa O. Juanite, filed a complaint with the Provincial Agricultural Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB),Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), against the spouses Edilberto and Felisa Mercado and their vendees above-

named for the cancellation of the sales adverted to and for the Juanites to exercise their right of redemption pursuant

to RA No. 3844, section 12 of which reads:

Sec. 12.Lessees Right of Redemption. In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of

the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and

consideration: Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be redeemed: Provided, further, That where there are

two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area

actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within two years from the

registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption.

Edilberto Romero, et al., as defendants, filed their answer with special and affirmative defenses. They alleged that

the Romeros, being the owners of the property, had the perfect right to sell any portion thereof to any person. They

strongly denied the allegation of the Juanites that the latter were their tenants.

On October 28, 1993, the PARAB (Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board) rendered his decision declaring

the Juanite spouses as tenants; directing the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) to prepare the leasehold

contract in their favor; declaring the deeds of sale executed by the Romero spouses in favor

of Efren Pania, Macario Sanchez and Pio Yonsonnull and void; and directing the latter to vacate the premises.

On appeal, the DARAB reversed. In its decision dated April 21, 1998 , it declared that the Juanites were not tenants

on the subject landholding; and hence, had no right of redemption.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners were tenants of the Romero spouses (respondents) as to entitle them to the right of

redemption.

HELD:

The court affirmed the decision of PARAB. The PARAB declared the petitioners to be tenants on the basis of the

following evidence:

a) certification of 28 persons to the effect that spouses Juanite had been working on the land as tenants;

b) in the deed of absolute sale signed by Edilberto Romero as vendor, he stated that

spouses Juanite were his tenants;

c) the spouses Juanite had been in possession and cultivating the land since 1969.


3/8

CASES: AGRARIAN

Without any evidence to support its finding, the DARAB reversed the finding of the PARAB and found that

petitioner Juanites were not tenants because they failed to submit evidence that they were sharing the harvests of

the with the landowners, respondent Romero spouses. SC agreed with the Court of Appeals that the essential

requisites of a tenancy relationship are:

(1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant;

(2) the subject is agricultural land;

(3) there is consent;

(4) the purpose is agricultural production;

(5) there is personal cultivation; and

(6) there is sharing of harvests.

All these 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, ade jure tenant. Unless

a person has established his status as a dejuretenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the

Land Reform Program of the government under existing tenancy laws.

But note that from the time of the landowners admission that petitioners were tenants on the subject landholding,

the element of sharing harvest is assumed as a factual element in that admission.

HON. ANTONIO M. NUESA vs. CA (DAVID)G.R. No. 132048

March 6, 2002

FACTS:

On May 25, 1972, then Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an Order of Award in favor of Jose

Verdillo over two (2) parcels of agricultural land in Buenavista Estate, San Ildefonso, Bulacan, covering

14,496 and 19,808 square meters, respectively, under the following conditions:

- Within 6 months, he shall personally cultivate at least of the area; or- Occupy and construct his/her house in case of residential lot and pay at least the first

installment

In no case shall an agreement to sell or deed of sale be issued in favor of the covering the lots without a

certification issued by the Land Reform Project Team Leader of Land Settlement Superintendent that

the awardee(s) has/have developed or devoted to some productive enterprise at least one-half of thearea thereof, or constructed his/her/their house therein in case of residential land.

After twenty-one years, private respondent filed an application with the Regional Office of the

Department of Agrarian Reform for the purchase of said lots claiming that he had complied with the

conditions set forth in the Order. Restituto Rivera, herein petitioner, filed a letter of protest against

private respondent claiming that contrary to the manifestation of private respondent, it is petitioner

who had been in possession of the land and had been cultivating the same. Petitioner had filed his ownapplication for said parcels in opposition to that of private respondent.

On December 27, 1993, a representative of the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office

undertook an investigation and found that the subject lots were previously tenanted by other persons

and it is clear that Jose Verdillo has culpably violated the terms and conditions of the Order of Award

issued in his favor.


4/8


5/8

CASES: AGRARIAN

having sold his share and interest and had consequently, waived any interests he had thereon. Hence, the instant

petition, raising as a new argument the supposed lack of jurisdiction of the PARAD over the subject fishponds.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners be permitted to impugn for the first time the jurisdiction of the Provincial Adjudicator

at this stage of the case?

HELD:

The well-entrenched rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined exclusively by the Constitution and

the law. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties; it cannot be acquired through, or

waived or enlarged or diminished by, their act or omission; neither is it conferred by acquiescence of the court. Well

to emphasize, it is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in

character.

An error in jurisdiction over the subject matter can be objected to at any instance, as the lack of it affects the very

authority of the court to take cognizance of the action. This kind of defense can be invoked even for the first time on

appeal or after final judgment. Such is understandable as this kind of jurisdiction, to stress, is statutorily

determined.This rule on timing, however, is not absolute. In highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances,

estoppel or waiver may operate as a shield to prevent a party from belatedly resorting to this form of defense. Thus,

we have held in the leading case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy that a party may be barred by estoppel by laches from

invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active

participation of said party invoking the plea. We defined laches as "failure or neglect for an unreasonable and

unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is

negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting presumption that the party entitled to

assert it has abandoned it or has declined to assert it."In the case at bar, we find the petitioners guilty of estoppel by

laches. In the first place, they never disputed the jurisdiction of the Provincial Adjudicator at any stage of the

proceeding: whether in the Provincial Office level, the DARAB, or the Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the presence

of numerous opportunities in the various stages of this case to contest the adjudicator's exercise of jurisdiction, not

once did they register a hint of protest. Neither can they claim that they were prevented from contesting its

jurisdiction during the eight years this case was under litigation.

The ends of justice and equity require that petitioners should not be allowed to defeat the tenant's right by belatedly

raising the issue of jurisdiction. Permitting petitioners to assail the jurisdiction of the Provincial Adjudicator at this late

stage of the case would mean rendering useless all the proceedings held below. A great deal of time, effort and

resources would be put to waste both on the part of the litigants and of the State. This is especially oppressive for the

respondent, a tenant who cannot afford the discomforts of a protracted litigation.

SPOUSES ATUEL ET AL vs. SPOUSES VALDEZ (GATACELO)

G.R. No. 139561

June 10, 2003

FACTS:

Respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages with the Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. They assailed the decision of the Municipal Agrarian Reform

Office (MARO) which ordered the segregation of the subject lot from the land of respondents and awarding the same

to petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the DARAB which reversed the decision of the MARO.

After a review of the issues raised, the question is whether the DARAB has jurisdiction to resolve the controversy.

ISSUE:


6/8

CASES: AGRARIAN

WON DARAB has jurisdiction to try and hear this case.

HELD:

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the respondents' complaint for

recovery of possession of the subject lot. Though the parties did not challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB, theCourt may motu proprio consider the issue of jurisdiction. The court has discretion to determine whether the DARAB

validly acquired jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law. It may not be

conferred on the court by consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over

the subject matter of the action. In the case at bar, the respondents did not allege the existence of tenancy relations,

if any, between them and the petitioners. The allegations in the complaint indicate that the nature and subject

matter of the instant case is for recovery of possession or accion publiciana. For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction

over the case, there must exist a tenancy relations between the parties. Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is

vested in a court of general jurisdiction.

5.

6. Philbancor v. CAGR No. 12957226 June 2000Pardo, J.

Vicente Hizon, Jr. is the owner of agricultural lands which were tenanted by Alfredo Pare, Pablo Galang, and Amado Vie. Hizonmortgaged the subject property to Philbancor without his tenants knowledge, and when he failed to pay his obligations, Philbancorwas able to acquire the property at a public auction. The tenants allegedly only found out about the mortgage seven years after thepublic auction, when they were notified by Philbancor to vacate the lots. Thus, they filed a complaint for maintenance of possessionwith redemption and tenancy right of pre-emption against Philbancor and Hizon with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication

Board (PARAB). The PARAB ruled in favor of the tenants and ordered Philbancor to execute the necessary Deed of Redemption infavor of the tenants. The DARAB and the CA affirmed the decision.

W/N the tenants could still exercise their right of redemption, five years after the registration of the certificate of sale with theRegister of Deeds.

NO. Section 12 of RA 3844 provides that the right of redemption may be exercised within 2 years from the registration of the sale.The redemption period had already expired when the tenants filed the complaint for redemption. Nevertheless, the tenants maycontinue in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as legitimate tenants because the right of tenancy attaches to thelandholding by operation of law. The leasehold relation is not extinguished by the alienation or transfer of the legal possession of thelandholding.

The right of tenancy attaches to the landholding by operation of law. The leasehold relation is not extinguished by the alienation ortransfer of the legal possession of the landholding.

Heirs of Roman Soriano v. CAGR No. 12817715 August 2001Ynares-Santiago, J.

A parcel of land originally owned by Adriano Soriano passed on to his heirs who leased the same to the spouses de Vera for 15years beginning 1967 (until 1982). Roman, one Adrianos children, was to act as caretaker of the property during the period of thelease. However, in 1968, the de Vera spouses ousted him from the property and appointed Isidro and Vidal Versoza as hissubstitutes. Because of this, Roman filed a case for reinstatement and reliquidation against the de Vera spouses. On appeal to theCA, he won. Prior to the execution of the CAs decision in 1972, the de Vera spouses and Roman entered into a post -decisionalagreement wherein the spouses allowed Roman to sub-lease the property as an agricultural tenant until the termination of the leasein 1982. The said agreement was approved by the agrarian court. After executing an extrajudicial settlement among themselves,

Adrianos heirs divided the property into 2 lots. The first was assigned to Lourdes, Candido, and the heirs of Dionisia; the other wasassigned to Francisca, Librada, Elocadio, and Roman. In 1971, the first lot was sold by its owners to the spouses Abalos, while the

of the second lot was sold to the same spouses by Elocadio, Francisca, and Librada. In 1976, the spouses Abalos filed with theRTC of Pangasinan an application for registration of title over the lots they bought from the heirs of Adriano (the first one and the 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. In1983, Roman, along with Elocadio and Librada, filed a case against the Abalos spouses for annulment of document and/orredemption, ownership,and damages. It was denied by the trial court. In 1984, or 11 years after the approval of the post-decisional agreement betweenRoman and the spouses de Vera, the Abalos spouses filed with the agrarian court a motion for execution of the said post-decisionalagreement which allowed Roman Soriano to sub-lease the property. The motion prayed that the spouses Abalos be placed inpossession of the subject property, jointly with Roman Soriano, and to levy so much of Romans property toanswer for the use andoccupation of Roman of 6/7 share of the property. When Roman died in 1985, he was substituted by his heirs. It appears that in1988, the land registration courts decision was partially executed by partitioning the second lot into twoone part in favor of Romanand the other in favor of the spouses Abalos. Romans heirs appealed to the CA, which affirmed the partition but reversed the order


7/8

CASES: AGRARIANof the land registration court directing the issuance of a writ of possession because of the pendency of the case instituted by Romanagainst the Abalos spouses.

W/N the ruling in the land registration case in favor of the spouses Abalos becomes resjudicata with respect to the security of tenurerights 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 andthey have the right to work on their respective landholdings once the leasehold relationship is established.

Security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholdings istantamount 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 completelysubjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights of others. Ownership confers certain rights tothe owner, among which are the right to enjoy the thing owned and the right to exclude other persons from possession thereof. Onthe other hand, possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. Literally, to possess means to actuallyand 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.

Valencia v. CAGR No. 12236329 April 2003Bellosillo, J.

When Victor Valencia acquired two parcels of land, he entered into civil law leases with Glicerio Henson and Fr. Andres Flores.Henson instituted Crescenciano and Marciano Frias to work on the property; while Fr. Flores appointed the Friases, plus someothers, as farmhands. However, in Fr. Flores lease contract, there was a stipulation that he was prohibited from installing aleasehold tenant thereon. No such prohibition existed in Hensons contract. When Fr. Flores lease period expired, Valencia orderedhis farmhands to vacate the lot. The farmhands refused to do so, and actually even secured CLTs over the land in their names.Catalino Mantac, one of the farmhands, subsequently entered into a leasehold contract undertaking to have a profit-sharingagreementwith Valencia. After 12 years, DAR investigated the matter and found that the right of the farmhands to the land ceased upon the

termination of the lease contracts, except as regards to Mantac, with whom Valencia entered into a tenancy agreement. As such, itwas recommended that the CLTs given to the other farmhands be cancelled. However, the Regional Office disregarded theinvestigation report and ruled that the farmhands had a right to continue on the land until otherwise ordered by the court. On appealto the Office of the President, then Exec. Sec. Teofisto Guingona upheld the ruling of the DAR, with the modification that the areaacquired by Valencia as homestead be excluded from the coverage of PD 27. Valencia then appealed to the CA contending that theExec. Sec. erred in recognizing the farmhands as tenants, and disallowing him and his 7 compulsory heirs from exercising their rightof retention under RA 6657. However, the CA dismissed the case.

Can a contract of civil law lease prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a tenant on the land subject matter of the leaseagreement?

YES. Sec. 6 of RA 3844 does not automatically authorize a civil law lessee to employ a tenant without the consent of the landowner.The lessee must be so specifically authorized. A different interpretation would be most unfair to the hapless and unsuspectinglandowner who entered into a civil law lease agreement in good faith only to realize later on that he can no longer regain possessionof 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. Inthe case before us, not only is there no stipulation to the contrary; the lessee is expressly prohibited from subleasing or encumberingthe land, which includes installing a leasehold tenant thereon since the right to do so is an attribute of ownership.

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 oflandholders to install a tenant is their authority to do so; otherwise, without such authority, civil law lessees as landholders cannotinstall a tenant on the landholding.

Tenancy relationship has been held to be of a personal character. Deforciants cannot install lawful tenants who are entitled tosecurity of tenure. A contract of civil law lease can prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a tenant on the land subject matter ofthe lease agreement.

Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship:(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 between them parties.

An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not make the case an agrarian dispute. Claims that one is atenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle theclaimant to security of tenure. The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent.

Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy laws may be invoked only by tenants de jure, not by those who are not true and


8/8

CASES: AGRARIANlawful tenants. The act of subletting to third persons extinguishes the agricultural leasehold relations, as this constitutes anabandonment of the landholding due to absence of personal cultivation.

Obiter: Social justice is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is never justified togive preference to the poor simply because they are poor, or reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always beserved for the poor and the rich alike according to the mandate of law. Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimusinterpretandi modus. Interpreting and harmonizing laws with laws is the best method of interpretation.

table of cases in agrarian

Documents