CASES ON

TENANCY
AND
SECURITY OF
TENURE
DARABIANS (GROUP 2)
AGRARIAN LAW & SOCIAL
LEGISLATION

GREGORIO CASTILLO,Petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALBERTO IGNACIO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 98028
January 27, 1992

By: FAIDA P. MACASAWANG

FACTS:
This is a petition for review of the Court of Appeals decision which
reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil
Case No. 8302-M and bv declared respondent Alberto Ignacio as
agricultural tenant of the petitioner.
Respondent Aberto Ignacio is the agricultural tenant of the petitioner
in the latter's parcel of land consisting of 9,920 square meters with fruitbearing trees situated in Cut-cut, Pulilan, Bulacan.

GREGORIO CASTILLO,Petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALBERTO IGNACIO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 98028
January 27, 1992

April 1985, the petitioner requested the respondent to allow him to construct a
resthouse in said land, and as a token of goodwill, the respondent agreed, which
agreement is embodied between them; that in violation of said agreement, the
petitioner started to cut fruit-bearing trees on the land in question and filled with
adobe stones the area devoted by the private respondent to the planting of
vegetables.
On July 18, 1985, a complaint for injunction was filed by private respondent Alberto
Ignacio against petitioner Gregorio Castillo with the Regional Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan.
The complaint asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
the petitioner from further cutting fruit-bearing trees and from committing further
acts of dispossession against the private respondent. The injunction was granted.

GREGORIO CASTILLO,Petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALBERTO IGNACIO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 98028
January 27, 1992

The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the private respondent
is not his agricultural tenant; that respondent Alberto Ignacio is merely
a "magsisiga" (smudger) of the landholding in question; that he did not
ask permission from the private respondent to construct a rest house on
subject land, since as owner thereof, he had the right to do so; that he
was merely exercising his right of ownership when he cut certain trees in
the subject premises.

GREGORIO CASTILLO,Petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALBERTO IGNACIO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 98028
January 27, 1992

Issue:
Whether or not a tenancy relationship exists between the parties.
Ruling:
The petition is granted.
The Agricultural Tenancy Act defines as the physical possession by a person
of a 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.

GREGORIO CASTILLO,Petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALBERTO IGNACIO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 98028
January 27, 1992

From the foregoing definition, the petitioner insists that for a person to claim
tenancy relationship, he must be an occupant or must be in physical
possession of the agricultural land. He alleges that, Alberto Ignacio, being a
mere smudger (magsisiga) of the mango land, no tenancy relationship can
exist between them for the element of physical possession is absent.
In the case ofQua v.Court of Appeals, the essential requisites of tenancy
relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the
subject is agricultural land; (3) the purpose is agricultural production; (4)
there is consideration which consist of sharing the harvest; (5) there is
consent to the tenant to work on the land and (6) there is personal cultivation
by him.

GREGORIO CASTILLO,Petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALBERTO IGNACIO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 98028
January 27, 1992

One of the essential requisites for the existence of a tenancy relationship is sharing, by the
landowner and tenant, of the produce. There is no basis for the petitioners claim that he is
an agricultural tenant. No proof of sharing has been shown in the case.
The Court held in Gagola v.Court of Agrarian Relationsthat a tenant has possession of the
land only through personal cultivation. Thus, in the instant case, the key factor in
ascertaining the existence of a landowner-tenant relationship in the personal cultivation of
the land by the private respondent is absent.
The plaintiff has never performed on the property in question any of the acts of cultivation
contemplated by the law as essential to the creation of an agricultural tenancy relationship.
In fine, it is the sense of the Court that absent the important factor of cultivation, no tenancy
relationship has ever existed between the plaintiff and the defendant over the property
involved in the instant case. At most and at best, the contractual relationship between them
was purely civil nature consisting solely of the seasonal engagement of plaintiff's services as
"magsisiga" or "taga-suob."

GREGORIO CASTILLO,Petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALBERTO IGNACIO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 98028
January 27, 1992

Thus, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby reversed

and set aside and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is reinstated
with the modification.

RAFAEL GELOS, Petitioner vs. THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS AND ERNESTO ALZONA,
Respondents.
G.R. NO. 86186 May 8, 1992
By: PINKY JEVINI G. TENTATIVA
FACTS:

The subject land is a 25,000 square meter farmland situated in Cabuyao,

Laguna, belonging originally to private respondent Ernesto Alzona and
his parents in equal shares. On July 5, 1970, they entered into a written
contract with petitioner Rafael Gelos employing him as their laborer on
the land at the stipulated daily wage of P5.00.On September 4, 1973,
after Alzona had bought his parents' share and acquired full ownership
of the land, he wrote Gelos to inform him of the termination of his
services and to demand that he vacate the property. Gelos refused and
continued working on the land.

 On October 1, 1973, Gelos went to the Court of Agrarian Relations and asked for the
fixing of the agricultural lease rental on the property. He later withdrew the case
and went to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, which granted his petition.
While, Alzona filed a complaint for illegal detainer against Gelos in the Municipal
Court of Cabuyao, but this action was declared "not proper for trial" by the Ministry
of Agrarian Reform because of the existence of a tenancy relationship between the
parties. Alzona was rebuffed for the same reason when he sought the assistance of
the Ministry of Labor and later when he filed a complaint with the Court of
Agrarian Relations for a declaration of non-tenancy and damages against Gelos.
On appeal to the Office of the President, however, the complaint was declared proper
for trial and so de-archived and reinstated.

 The RTC of San Pablo City (which had taken over the Court of Agrarian Relations
under PB 129) dismissed the complaint on April 21, 1987. It found Gelos to be a tenant
of the subject property and entitled to remain thereon as such.
On November 25, 1988, the Court of Appeals held that Gelos was not a tenant of the
land and was ordered to surrender the land to Alzona.

RAFAEL GELOS, Petitioner vs. THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS AND ERNESTO ALZONA,
Respondents.
G.R. NO. 86186 May 8, 1992
Issues:
1. Whether or not petitioner is a tenant of the private respondent and entitled to
the benefits of tenancy laws.
2. Whether or not the complaint of the private respondent has prescribed under
Section 38 of RA 3844.

RAFAEL GELOS, Petitioner vs. THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS AND ERNESTO ALZONA,
Respondents.
G.R. NO. 86186 May 8, 1992
Ruling:
The stipulations in the contract clearly indicate that the parties did not enter into a
tenancy agreement but only a contract of employment. Therefore, it is a lease of
services, not of the land in dispute.
The work specified is not peculiar to tenancy. What a tenant may do may also be done by
a hired laborer working under the direction of the landowner, as in the case at bar. It is
not the nature of the work involved but the intention of the parties that determines the
relationship between them.

RAFAEL GELOS, Petitioner vs. THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS AND ERNESTO ALZONA,
Respondents.
G.R. NO. 86186 May 8, 1992
The Court stressed that"tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on
what the alleged tenant does upon the land but also a legal relationship. The intent of
the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and as in this case, their
written agreements,providedthese are complied with and are not contrary to law, are
even more important.
Under Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 1199 a tenant is a person who himself and with
the aid available from within his immediate farm household cultivates the land
belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent, for purposes of
production,sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or
paying to the landholder a price-certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or
both, under the leasehold tenancy system.

RAFAEL GELOS, Petitioner vs. THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS AND ERNESTO ALZONA,
Respondents.
G.R. NO. 86186 May 8, 1992
For this relationship to exist, it is necessary that: 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
harvest or payment of rental. In the absence of any of these requisites, an occupant of a
parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or planter thereon, cannot qualify as ade
juretenant.
The private respondent, instead of receiving payment of rentals or sharing in the
produce of the land, paid the petitioner lump sums for specific kinds of work on the
subject lot or gave himvales, or advance payment of his wages as laborer thereon.

RAFAEL GELOS, Petitioner vs. THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS AND ERNESTO ALZONA,
Respondents.
G.R. NO. 86186 May 8, 1992
There being no tenancy relationship, the contention that the private respondent's
complaint has prescribed under Section 38 of R.A. 3844 must also fail. That section is
not applicable. It must be noted that at the very outset, Alzona rejected the petitioner's
claim of agricultural tenancy and immediately instituted his action for unlawful
detainer in accordance with Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
As it happened, the said case was held not proper for trial by the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform. He then resorted to other remedies just so he could recover possession of his
land and, finally, in 1979, he yielded to the jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian
Relations by filing there an action for declaration of non-tenancy. The action, which was
commenced in 1979, was within the ten-year prescriptive periodprovidedunder Article
1144 of the Civil Code for actions based on a written contract.

RAFAEL GELOS, Petitioner vs. THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS AND ERNESTO ALZONA,
Respondents.
G.R. NO. 86186 May 8, 1992
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED and the
petition is DENIED, with costs against the petitioner.

SPOUSES TITUS L. ENDAYA and GLENDA TRINIDAD; SPOUSES

RICO L. ENDAYA and NANETTE AQUINO; and SPOUSES
JOSEPHINE L. ENDAYA and LEANDRO BANTUG,Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO FIDELI,Respondents.

G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992

By: LIEZELLE ROVIE C. MENDOZA
Facts:

In San Pioquinto, Malvar, Batangas, spouses Natividad Trinidad and Cesar San Diego owned
a piece of agricultural land measuring 20,200 square meters devoted to rice and corn. Since
1934, private respondent Fideli has been cultivating the land as a tenant of the Spouses
respondent and as a tenant of the spouses San Diego under a fifty-fifty sharing agreement.
Here, the petitioners do not dispute.

 A lease contract was executed on May 2, 1974 between the Spouses San Diego and one
Regino Cassanova for a period of four years from May 1974 up to May 1978.3The
lease contract obliged Cassanova to pay P400.00 per hectareper annumand gave him
the authority to oversee the planting of crops on the land.4Private respondent signed
this lease contract as one of two witnesses.
The lease contract was again renewed to last until May 1980 but the rental was raised
to P600.00. Again, private respondent signed the contract as witness.6
During the entire duration of the lease contract between the Spouses San Diego and
Cassanova, private respondent continuously cultivated the land, sharing equally with
Cassanova the net produce of the harvests.

SPOUSES TITUS L. ENDAYA and GLENDA TRINIDAD; SPOUSES

RICO L. ENDAYA and NANETTE AQUINO; and SPOUSES
JOSEPHINE L. ENDAYA and LEANDRO BANTUG,Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO FIDELI,Respondents.

G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992

On January 6, 1980, the Spouses San Diego sold the land to petitioners for the sum of P26,000.00. The
sale was registered with the Register of Deeds of Batangas and a Transfer Certificate of Title was duly
issued on January 7, 1981.7Private respondent continued to farm the land although petitioners claim
that private respondent was told immediately after the sale to vacate the land.8In any case, it is
undisputed that private respondent deposited with the Luzon Development Bank an amount of about
P8,000.00 as partial payment of the landowner's share in the harvest for the years 1980 until 1985. 9

respondent filed a complaint in 1985 with the RTC of Batangas praying that he be declared the
agricultural tenant of petitioners.
Private

 After trial, the trial court decided in favor of petitioners by holding that private
respondent is not an agricultural lessee of the land now owned by petitioners.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and declared private
respondent to be the agricultural lessee of the subject landholding.
R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as amended By R.A. No. 6839 (1971), which is the relevant law
governing the events at hand, abolished share tenancy throughout the Philippines from
1971 and established the agricultural leasehold system by operation of law.11Section 7
of the said law gave agricultural lessees security of tenure by providing the following:
"The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural
lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is
extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his
landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes
herein provided."

SPOUSES TITUS L. ENDAYA and GLENDA TRINIDAD; SPOUSES

RICO L. ENDAYA and NANETTE AQUINO; and SPOUSES
JOSEPHINE L. ENDAYA and LEANDRO BANTUG,Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO FIDELI,Respondents.

G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992

12The fact that the landowner entered into a civil lease contract over the subject landholding
and gave the lessee the authority to oversee the farming of the land, as was done in this case,
is not among the causes provided by law for the extinguishment of the agricultural leasehold
relation.13On the contrary, Section 10 of the law provides:
Sec. 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc.
The agricultural leasehold relation under this code shall not be extinguished by mere
expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer
of the legal possession of the landholding. In 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 obligations of the agricultural lessor.

SPOUSES TITUS L. ENDAYA and GLENDA TRINIDAD; SPOUSES

RICO L. ENDAYA and NANETTE AQUINO; and SPOUSES
JOSEPHINE L. ENDAYA and LEANDRO BANTUG,Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO FIDELI,Respondents.

G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992

Hence, transactions involving the agricultural land over which an agricultural leasehold subsists resulting
in change of ownership, e.g., sale, or transfer of legal possession, such as lease, will not terminate the right
of the agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by making such rights enforceable against the
transferee or the landowner's successor in interest.14
In the instant case, private respondent has been cultivating the subject farm landholding with a fifty-fifty
(50-50) sharing arrangement with the Spouses San Diego, petitioners' predecessors-in-interest. The passage
of R.A. 6839 in 1971, amending R.A. 3844 (1963), secured to private respondent all the rights pertaining to
an agricultural lessee. The execution of a lease agreement between the Spouses San Diego and Regino
Cassanova in 1974 did not terminate private respondent's status as an agricultural lessee.

SPOUSES TITUS L. ENDAYA and GLENDA TRINIDAD; SPOUSES

RICO L. ENDAYA and NANETTE AQUINO; and SPOUSES
JOSEPHINE L. ENDAYA and LEANDRO BANTUG,Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO FIDELI,Respondents.

G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992

The fact that private respondent knew of, and consented to, the said lease contract by signing as
witness to the agreement may not be construed as a waiver of his rights as an agricultural lessee.
On the contrary, it was his right to know about the lease contract since, as a result of the
agreement, he had to deal with a new person instead of with the owners directly as he used to.
No provision may be found in the lease contract and the renewal contract even intimating that
private respondent has waived his rights as an agricultural lessee. Militating against petitioners'
theory that the agricultural leasehold was terminated or waived upon the execution of the lease
agreement between the San Diegos and Cassanova is the fact the latter desisted from personally
cultivating the land but left it to private respondent to undertake the farming, the produce of the
land being shared between Cassanova and private respondent, while the former paid P400.00 and
later P600.00 per hectareper annumto the San Diegos, as agreed upon in the lease contract.

 It is true that the Court has ruled that agricultural tenancy is not created where the
consent the true and lawful owners is absent.20But this doctrine contemplates a
situation where an untenanted farm land is cultivated without the landowner's
knowledge or against her will or although permission to work on the farm was given,
there was no intention to constitute the worker as the agricultural lessee of the farm
land.21
The rule finds no application in the case at bar where the petitioners are successorsin-interest to a tenanted land over which an agricultural leasehold has long been
established. The consent given by the original owners to constitute private respondent
as the agricultural lessee of the subject landholding binds private respondents whom
as successors-in-interest of the Spouses San Diego, step into the latter's shows,
acquiring not only their rights but also their obligations.22

 Contradicting their position that no agricultural leasehold exists over the land they
acquired from the Spouses San Diego, petitioners also pray for the termination of the
tenancy of private respondent allegedly due to: (a) non-payment of the agricultural
lease rental; and (b) animosity between the landowners and the agricultural lessee.
The Court, however, observes that nowhere in the petitioners' Answer to private
respondent's Complaint or in the other pleadings filed before the trial court did
petitioners allege grounds for the termination of the agricultural leasehold. Wellsettled is the rule that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal.23

SPOUSES TITUS L. ENDAYA and GLENDA TRINIDAD; SPOUSES

RICO L. ENDAYA and NANETTE AQUINO; and SPOUSES
JOSEPHINE L. ENDAYA and LEANDRO BANTUG,Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO FIDELI,Respondents.

G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992

Supreme court ruled that private respondent is the agricultural lessee over the land owned by
petitioners. As such, private respondent's security of tenure must be respected by petitioners.
The Court, however, notes from the records of the case that private respondent has
unilaterally decided to pay only 25% of the net harvests to petitioners. 24Since the agreement
of private respondent with the Spouses San Diego, the original owners, was for a fifty-fifty
(50-50) sharing of the net produce of the land, the same sharing agreement should be
maintained between petitioners and private respondents, without prejudice to a renegotiation
of the terms of the leasehold agreement.

SPOUSES TITUS L. ENDAYA and GLENDA TRINIDAD; SPOUSES

RICO L. ENDAYA and NANETTE AQUINO; and SPOUSES
JOSEPHINE L. ENDAYA and LEANDRO BANTUG,Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO FIDELI,Respondents.

G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED and the

decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Private respondent is hereby
ordered to pay the back rentals from 1980 until 1992 plus interest at the
legal rate. An accounting of the production of the subject landholding is
to be made by private respondent to the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan,
Batangas which shall determine the amount due to petitioners based on
the rate ordered above.

ZACARIAS OARDE and PRESENTACION MOLAR, Petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, Spouses WILFREDO and LOURDES
GUERRERO and Spouses ROGELIO and VILMA MOLAR,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 104774-75 October 8, 1997
By: GLADYS GAY B. PAGULONG
Facts:
The original tenant tiller of the land was Francisco Molar, father of the
Plaintiff Presentacion Molar and father in law of the other plaintiff Zacarias
Oarde.
That the eldest and only son of Francisco Molar is Basilio Molar.
That defendant Rogelio Molar is the son of Basilio Molar and the grandson of
Francisco Molar.
That defendant spouses Wilfredo and Lourdes Guerrero sold a parcels of
land to the defendant spouses Rogelio and Vilma Molar in October 1987.

 It is claimed by the Plaintiffs Presentacion Molar and Zacarias Oarde that they are tenanttillers of the land in question, Lot 17 and Lot 18 of the Agrarian Reform Project for Barangay
Gotob, Camalig, Albay. Plaintiff Oarde testified that he began to till the land on April 29, 1964
when he got married to the daughter of Francisco Molar. The wife, Melicia Oarde, also testified
that as tenant- tillers, they gave the owners share to Atty. Wilfredo Guerrero.
Plaintiff Presentacion Molar alleged that she is also a tenant- lessee of the land previously
owned by Atty. Guerrero and started tilling the land in 1965. She caused the land to be worked
on Pakyaw basis, hiring different persons for different work. She actually does not till the land.
According to Zacarias Oarde who testified in behalf of Presentaction Molar, the latter began
tilling in 1968. She is not married and she only hires laborers to till the land. It was Francisco
Molar who distributed to his children the land they are farming. Presentacion hires laborers to
prepare and plant the land. She does not actually till the land. On the other hand, defendants
claim that plaintiffs are not tenant- tillers of the land in question.
The trial court held that plaintiffs were not lawful tenants of the defendants but the Court of
Appeals reversed it with respect to Oarde. It ordered the reinstatement of Oarde as a tenant
and awarded him damages in the sum of P5850.00. Thus, Petitioner Molar prays that she will be
declared as a lawful tenant.

ZACARIAS OARDE and PRESENTACION MOLAR, Petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, Spouses WILFREDO and LOURDES
GUERRERO and Spouses ROGELIO and VILMA MOLAR,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 104774-75 October 8, 1997
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner Presentacion Molar is a lawful tenant- tiller?
- Ruling:
No. The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are the following:
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;
6. there is a sharing of harvests.

 All this must concur to establish the juridical relationship of the tenancy. Absent in the
case of Petitioner Molar is the element of personal cultivation. Molar admitted that she
has the property tenanted on pakyaw basis meaning that she hires different persons for
harrowing, for plowing and for harvesting and that she did not actually till the land but
merely pays others because she is a woman and she has a small store. Molar added that
she has been a registered tenant- tiller since 1977 as evidenced by certifications from
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
Molar was not a tenant. The certifications issued by administrative agencies or officers
that a certain person is a tenant are merely provisional and not conclusive on courts.
Molar further argues that the court failed to apply Section 6 of RA 6657, Section 106 of
PD 1529, Section 10 of RA 3844 as Amended by RA 2263, Section 4 of PD 583, Section
12 of RA 6389 which enumerate the benefits available to a tenant. Petitioner Molar
cannot claim such benefits because she failed to prove that she was a tenant at all.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied.

JAIME MORTA, SR. and PURIFICACION

PADILLA,Petitioners,vs.JAIME OCCIDENTAL, ATTY.
MARIANO BARANDA, JR., and DANIEL CORRAL, Respondents.
G.R. No. 123417.June 10, 1999

Facts:
Jaime Morta and Purificacion Padilla filed a suit against JaimeOccidental, 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 tenancyrelated problem which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of DARAB. The CA affirmed the
RTC.

ISSUE: Whether of 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.

Dissenting Opinion
Dissent: Davide, CJ.
It is a tenancy-related issue because whether it is Josefina or Morta who is the
owner of the land is no moment. It does not affect Occidentals tenancy. Tenancy
attaches to the land. The cases filed by Morta and Padilla were a clever way to
defeat the agrarian law. While the cases were ostensibly for damages, they were, at
bottom, a fight on issues incident to or arising from an agrarian relationship.

DOCTRINE
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 tothe relationship;
4.That the purpose of therelationship is to bringabout agricultural production;
5.That there is personalcultivation on the partof the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
6.That the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.

Limited jurisdiction of DAR:

1.Adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;
2.Resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-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.

LEONARDA L. MONSANTO,Petitioner, vs. JESUS AND

TERESITA ZERNA AND COURT OF APPEALS,Respondents.
G.R. No. 142501 December 7, 2001

By: Chariz Krezel C. Faustino

Doctrine
The filing of a criminal action carries with it the civil liability arising from the offense.
However, the trial court cannot adjudge civil matters that are beyond its competence and
powers. Thus, while a court may have authority to pass upon the criminal liability of the
accused, it cannot make any civil awards that relate to the agrarian relationship of the
parties because this matter is beyond its jurisdiction.

Doctrine
The resolution of an agrarian dispute is a matter beyond the legal competence of regular
courts. The DARAB exercises primary jurisdictionboth original and appellateto
determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or
incidents involving the implementation of agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations.
An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangementswhether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwiseover lands devoted to agriculture,
including(1) disputes concerning farmworkers associations; or (2)representation of persons
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of
such tenurial arrangement. A tenancy relationship may be established either verbally or in
writing, expressly or impliedly.

Facts:
Leonardo Monsanto owned a parcel of land wherein Jesus and Teresita were overseers. In
1995, the Zernas harvested coconuts from the plantation without Monsantos consent and
processed them into copra for the purpose of confirming their claim that they are tenants of
the land.
It was alleged that the total amount that they actually made was P 6,262.50; they
deposited P 5162.50 with the Barangay Secretary of the locality, keeping the balance of
P 1,100.00 for their labor.
Spouses Jesus and Teresita Zerna were charged with qualified theft, filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Norte, Branch 6 by Monsanto 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 P 1,100.00.
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 to pay Monsanto
the P 1,100.00. 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 f the P 1,100.00.

 ISSUES:

1.) Whether or Not an Agrarian Dispute existed between the Parties.

2.) Whether or Not the RTC was stripped of its criminal jurisdiction
when the CA annulled the Order regarding the remaining P 1,100.00.

 1.) YES.
The subject of the dispute between them was the taking of coconuts from the property
owned by Monsanto;
The Zernas were the overseers of the property at the time of the taking of the
coconuts, as can be gleaned from their Kasabutan;
Monsanto allowed the Zernas to plant coconut, coffee, jackfruit, and cacao as shown by
the Kasabutan;
A tenurial arrangement exists among herein parties as regards the harvesting of the
agricultural products, as shown by the several remittances made by the Zernas to
Monsanto, substantiated by receipts.

 2.) 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.

RODOLFO ARZAGA and FRANCIS

ARZAGA,Petitioners,vs.SALVACION COPIAS and PRUDENCIO
CALANDRIA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 152404.March 28, 2003

By: FLORENTINO P. ENCIO, JR.

Facts:

The petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Antique on February 28, 1996, a
complaint for the recovery of possession and damages against the private respondents.Petitioners
contended that they are the co-owners of the lot being the purchasers thereof in a tax delinquency sale
under a Certificate of Sale of Delinquent Real Property.Sometime prior to 1994, private respondents
allegedly entered and occupied the disputed property without the consent of the petitioners. Despite
several demands, private respondents refused to vacate the premises, hence the petitioners filed a
complaint for recovery of possession and damages with the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Antique.
Private respondents filed their answer with counterclaim alleged that they are the amortizing owners.
And being the tenant-beneficiaries of one Caridad Fuentebella, the previous owner. They prayed that
the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the subject matter thereof was cognizable by the
DARAB and not by the regular courts.

 Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmedin totothe assailed resolution of the
trial court. Then petitioners filed the instant petition contending that the Court of Appeals erred
in affirming the trial court's dismissal of the case at bar on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether or not the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has a
jurisdiction over a dispute involving a parcel of land.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the petition is impressed with merit. The basic rule is that jurisdiction
over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Jurisdiction is not affected
by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise,
jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.From the
averments of the complaint in the instant case, it is clear that the petitioners' action does not involve
an agrarian dispute, but one for recovery of possession, which is perfectly within the jurisdiction of
the regional trial courts.

RODOLFO ARZAGA and FRANCIS

ARZAGA,Petitioners,vs.SALVACION COPIAS and PRUDENCIO
CALANDRIA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 152404.March 28, 2003

It was stated Under Rule II, Section 1, paragraph (a), of the Revised Rules of Procedure
of the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board, the DARAB exercises
primary jurisdiction both original and appellate to determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the
implementation of agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations.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 or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.

GRACIANO BERNAS,Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and NATIVIDAD BITOON DEITA,Respondents.
.
G.R. No. 85041 August 5, 1993
By: RALPH LAYAO and KEITH A. ABALDONADO
Facts:

Petitioner Graciano Bernas is before this Court assailing the decision*of the respondent appellate
court dated 19 August 1988 in CA G.R. SP No. 14359 (CAR), which reversed the decision**of the
Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 18, in Civil Case No. V-5146 entitled "Natividad Bito-on
Deita, et al. vs, Graciano Bernas." As disclosed by the records and the evidence of both parties, the
facts involved in the controversy are as follows:
Natividad Bito-on Deita gratuitously entrusted farm lots by way ofdugo to her brother Benigno
Bito-on so that he could use the fruits thereof to defray the cost of financing his children's schooling
in Manila.
Benigno then engaged Graciano Bernas in a production sharing agreement; the former shouldered
the expenses while the latter provided labor.

 Natividad knew nothing of this arrangement. When Benigno returned the lots to his sister,
Bernas contested their possession, claiming he was an agricultural leasehold lessee
instituted on the land, by Benigno and, as such, he is entitled to security of tenure under
the law.
Faced with this opposition from Bernas, Natividad filed an action with the Regional Trial
Court for Recovery of Possession, Ownership and Injunction with Damages.In the RTC,
the issue was whether or not Bernas was a leasehold lessee. RTC ruled in his favor using
RA 1199 and 3844.
In her appeal to the CA, the issue was whether or not the Benigno-Bernas arrangement
was binding upon her. Natividad argued that since their agreement was one of
commodatum, Benigno cannot lend nor lease the properties contested. CA agreed with her
since she knew nothing of the Benigno-Bernas arrangement.

GRACIANO BERNAS,Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and NATIVIDAD BITOON DEITA,Respondents.
.
G.R. No. 85041 August 5, 1993
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the agricultural leasehold established by Benigno Bito-on in
favor of Graciano Bernas is binding upon the owner of the land.
2. Is defendant an agricultural leasehold lessee of the parcels of land
described in the complaint?
3. Whether the parties are entitled to damages claims by them in their
respective pleadings?

 HELD:
Yes it is. RA 3844 made Benigno the LEGAL POSSESSOR, granting him the authority and
capacity to institute agricultural leasehold lessees. Natividad did not raise the issue of
terminating the leasehold so this court cannotdecide on that. there is absolutely no showing
that the possession of Benigno was limited by his agreement with Natividad (as to prohibit
him from instituting a tenant) or by operation of law; and because there is a total failure to
disprove and even dispute that Benigno was a legal possessor at the time Bernas was
installed by him as an agricultural lessee, then Bernas validly became an agricultural
leasehold lessee of the land and is protected by the law from ejectment except for causes
specified therein.
The court states that defendant was a share tenant on the parcels of land subject of the
complaint, and an agricultural leasehold lessee under the provisions of Agricultural
Land Reform as amended by Presidential Decrees on the matter.
No damages as damages were proved or established by evidence by the defendant.

Thank You!!!