RA 6657
modified by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Section 12. Determination of Lease Rentals. — In order to protect and improve the
tenurial and economic status of the farmers in tenanted lands under the retention
limit and lands not yet acquired under this Act, the DAR is mandated to determine
and fix immediately the lease rentals thereof in accordance with Section 34 of
Republic Act No. 3844, as amended: provided, that the DAR shall immediately and
periodically review and adjust the rental structure for different crops, including rice
and corn, or different regions in order to improve progressively the conditions of
the farmer, tenant or lessee.
RA 3844
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD SYSTEM
Section 4. Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy - Agricultural share tenancy, as
herein defined, is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy and shall be
abolished: Provided, That existing share tenancy contracts may continue in force
and effect in any region or locality, to be governed in the meantime by the
pertinent provisions of Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as
amended, until the end of the agricultural year when the National Land Reform
Council proclaims that all the government machineries and agencies in that region
or locality relating to leasehold envisioned in this Code are operating, unless such
contracts provide for a shorter period or the tenant sooner exercise his option to
elect the leasehold system: Provided, further, That in order not to jeopardize
international commitments, lands devoted to crops covered by marketing
allotments shall be made the subject of a separate proclamation that adequate
provisions, such as the organization of cooperatives, marketing agreements, or
other similar workable arrangements, have been made to insure efficient
management on all matters requiring synchronization of the agricultural with the
processing phases of such crops: Provided, furthermore, That where the agricultural
share tenancy contract has ceased to be operative by virtue of this Code, or where
such a tenancy contract has been entered into in violation of the provisions of this
Code and is, therefore, null and void, and the tenant continues in possession of the
land for cultivation, there shall be presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under
the provisions of this Code, without prejudice to the right of the landowner and the
former tenant to enter into any other lawful contract in relation to the land
formerly under tenancy contract, as long as in the interim the security of tenure of
the former tenant under Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine,
as amended, and as provided in this Code, is not impaired: Provided, finally, That if
a lawful leasehold tenancy contract was entered into prior to the effectivity of this
Code, the rights and obligations arising therefrom shall continue to subsist until
Section 5. Establishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The agricultural
leasehold relation shall be established by operation of law in accordance with
Section four of this Code and, in other cases, either orally or in writing, expressly or
impliedly.
Section 6. Parties to Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The agricultural leasehold
relation shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding, either as
owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and the person who
personally cultivates the same.
Section 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - 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.
Section 8. Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The agricultural
leasehold relation established under this Code shall be extinguished by:
(1) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the
agricultural lessor;
(2) Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural lessee,
written notice of which shall be served three months in advance; or
(3) Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to the lessee, in
the event of death or permanent incapacity of the lessee.
Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity
of the Parties - In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to
work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor
and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the
agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity,
from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant
by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of
their age: Provided, That in case the death or permanent incapacity of the
agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised
at the end of that agricultural year: Provided, further, That in the event the
agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the
priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established.
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold
shall bind his legal heirs.
Section 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.
Section 15. Agricultural Leasehold Contract in General - The agricultural lessor and
the agricultural lessee shall be free to enter into any kind of terms, conditions or
stipulations in a leasehold contract, as long as they are not contrary to law, morals
or public policy. A term, condition or stipulation in an agricultural leasehold
contract is considered contrary to law, morals or public policy:
(1) If the agricultural lessee is required to pay a rental in excess of that
which is hereinafter provided for in this Chapter;
(2) If the agricultural lessee is required to pay a consideration in excess of
the fair rental value as defined herein, for the use of work animals and/or
farm implements belonging to the agricultural lessor or to any other
person; or
(3) If it is imposed as a condition in the agricultural leasehold contract: (a)
that the agricultural lessee is required to rent work animals or to hire farm
implements from the agricultural lessor or a third person, or to make use
of any store or services operated by the agricultural lessor or a third
person; or (b) that the agricultural lessee is required to perform any work
or render any service other than his duties and obligations provided in this
Chapter with or without compensation; or (c) that the agricultural lessee is
required to answer for any fine, deductions and/or assessments.
Any contract by which the agricultural lessee is required to accept a loan or to make
payment therefor in kind shall also be contrary to law, morals or public policy.
Section 16. Nature and Continuity of Conditions of Leasehold Contract - In the
absence of any agreement as to the period, the terms and conditions of a leasehold
contract shall continue until modified by the parties: Provided, That in no case shall
any modification of its terms and conditions prejudice the right of the agricultural
lessee to the security of his tenure on the landholding: Provided, further, That in
case of a contract with a period an agricultural lessor may not, upon the expiration
of the period increase the rental except in accordance with the provisions of Section
thirty-four.
Section 23. Rights of Agricultural Lessee in General - It shall be the right of the
agricultural lessee:
(1) To have possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land;
(2) To manage and work on the land in a manner and method of cultivation
and harvest which conform to proven farm practices;
(3) To mechanize all or any phase of his farm work; and
(4) To deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance of
quedans and warehouse receipts for the produce due him.
Section 24. Right to a Home Lot - The agricultural lessee shall have the right to
continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any home lot he may have
occupied upon the effectivity of this Code, which shall be considered as included in
the leasehold.
Section 25. Right to be Indemnified for Labor - The agricultural lessee shall have the
right to be indemnified for the cost and expenses incurred in the cultivation,
planting or harvesting and other expenses incidental to the improvement of his
crop in case he surrenders or abandons his landholding for just cause or is ejected
therefrom. In addition, he has the right to be indemnified for one-half of the
necessary and useful improvements made by him on the landholding: Provided,
That these improvements are tangible and have not yet lost their utility at the time
of surrender and/or abandonment of the landholding, at which time their value
shall be determined for the purpose of the indemnity for improvements.
Section 26. Obligations of the Lessee - It shall be the obligation of the agricultural
lessee:
(1) To cultivate and take care of the farm, growing crops, and other
improvements on the landholding as a good father of a family and perform
all the work therein in accordance with proven farm practices;
 (2) To inform the agricultural lessor within a reasonable time of any
trespass committed by third persons upon the farm, without prejudice to
his direct action against the trespasser;
(3) To take reasonable care of the work animals and farm implements
delivered to him by the agricultural lessor and see that they are not used
for purposes other than those intended or used by another without the
knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor: Provided, however, That
if said work animals get lost or die, or said farm implements get lost or are
destroyed, through the negligence of the agricultural lessee, he shall be
held responsible and made answerable therefor to the extent of the value
of the work animals and/or farm implements at the time of the loss, death
or destruction;
(4) To keep his farm and growing crops attended to during the work
season. In case of unjustified abandonment or neglect of his farm, any or
all of his expected produce may, upon order of the Court, be forfeited in
favor of the agricultural lessor to the extent of the damage caused thereby;
(5) To notify the agricultural lessor at least three days before the date of
harvesting or, whenever applicable, of threshing; and
(6) To pay the lease rental to the agricultural lessor when it falls due.
Section 27. Prohibitions to Agricultural Lessee - It shall be unlawful for the
agricultural lessee:
(1) To contract to work additional landholdings belonging to a different
agricultural lessor or to acquire and personally cultivate an economic
family-size farm, without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural
lessor with whom he had entered first into household, if the first
landholding is of sufficient size to make him and the members of his
immediate farm household fully occupied in its cultivation; or
(2) To employ a sub-lessee on his landholding: Provided, however, That in
case of illness or temporary incapacity he may employ laborers whose
services on his landholding shall be on his account.
Section 28. Termination of Leasehold by Agricultural Lessee During Agricultural
Year - The agricultural lessee may terminate the leasehold during the agricultural
year for any of the following causes:
(1) Cruel, inhuman or offensive, treatment of the agricultural lessee or any
member of his immediate farm household by the agricultural lessor or his
representative with the knowledge and consent of the lessor;
(2) Non-compliance on the part of the agricultural lessor with any of the
obligations imposed upon him by the provisions of this Code or by his
contact with the agricultural lessee;
(3) Compulsion of the agricultural lessee or any member of his immediate
farm household by the agricultural lessor to do any work or render any
service not in any way connected with farm work or even without
compulsion if no compensation is paid;
(4) Commission of a crime by the agricultural lessor or his representative
against the agricultural lessee or any member of his immediate farm
household; or
(5) Voluntary surrender due to circumstances more advantageous to him
and his family.
Section 29. Rights of the Agricultural Lessor - It shall be the right of the agricultural
lessor:
(1) To inspect and observe the extent of compliance with the terms and
conditions of their contract and the provisions of this Chapter;
(2) To propose a change in the use of the landholding to other agricultural
purposes, or in the kind of crops to be planted: Provided, That in case of
disagreement as to the proposed change, the same shall be settled by the
Court according to the best interest of the parties concerned: Provided,
further, That in no case shall an agricultural lessee be ejected as a
consequence of the conversion of the land to some other agricultural
purpose or because of a change in the crop to be planted;
(3) To require the agricultural lessee, taking into consideration his financial
capacity and the credit facilities available to him, to adopt in his farm
proven farm practices necessary to the conservation of the land,
improvement of its fertility and increase of its productivity: Provided, That
in case of disagreement as to what proven farm practice the lessee shall
adopt, the same shall be settled by the Court according to the best interest
of the parties concerned; and
 (4) To mortgage expected rentals.
Section 30. Obligations of the Agricultural Lessor - It shall be the obligation of the
agricultural lessor:
(1) To keep the agricultural lessee in peaceful possession and cultivation of
his landholding; and
(2) To keep intact such permanent useful improvements existing on the
landholding at the start of the leasehold relation as irrigation and drainage
system and marketing allotments, which in the case of sugar quotas shall
refer both to domestic and export quotas, provisions of existing laws to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Section 31. Prohibitions to the Agricultural Lessor - It shall be unlawful for the
agricultural lessor:
(1) To dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding except upon
authorization by the Court under Section thirty-six. Should the agricultural
lessee be dispossessed of his landholding without authorization from the
Court, the agricultural lessor shall be liable for damages suffered by the
agricultural lessee in addition to the fine or imprisonment prescribed in
this Code for unauthorized dispossession;
(2) To require the agricultural lessee to assume, directly or indirectly, the
payment of the taxes or part thereof levied by the government on the
landholding;
(3) To require the agricultural lessee to assume, directly or indirectly, any
part of the rent, "canon" or other consideration which the agricultural
lessor is under obligation to pay to third persons for the use of the land;
(4) To deal with millers or processors without written authorization of the
lessee in cases where the crop has to be sold in processed form before
payment of the rental; or
(5) To discourage, directly or indirectly, the formation, maintenance or
growth of unions or organizations of agricultural lessees in his landholding,
or to initiate, dominate, assist or interfere in the formation or
administration of any such union or organization.
Section 32. Cost of Irrigation System - The cost of construction of a permanent
irrigation system, including distributory canals, may be borne exclusively by the
agricultural lessor who shall be entitled to an increase in rental proportionate to the
resultant increase in production: Provided, That if the agricultural lessor refuses to
bear the expenses of construction the agricultural lessee or lessees may shoulder
the same, in which case the former shall not be entitled to an increase in rental and
shall, upon the termination of the relationship, pay the lessee or his heir the
reasonable value of the improvement at the time of the termination: Provided,
further, That if the irrigation system constructed does not work, it shall not be
considered as an improvement within the meaning of this Section.
Section 33. Manner, Time and Place of Rental Payment - The consideration for the
lease of the land shall be paid in an amount certain in money or in produce, or both,
payable at the place agreed upon by the parties immediately after threshing or
processing if the consideration is in kind, or within a reasonable time thereafter, if
not in kind.
In no case shall the agricultural lessor require the agricultural lessee to file a bond,
make a deposit or pay the rental in advance, in money or in kind or in both, but a
special and preferential lien is hereby created in favor of the agricultural lessor over
such portion of the gross harvest necessary for the payment of the rental due in his
favor.
Section 34. Consideration for the Lease of Riceland and Lands Devoted to Other
Crops - The consideration for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops
shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five per centum of the average
normal harvest during the three agricultural years immediately preceding the date
the leasehold was established after deducting the amount used for seeds and the
cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing, whichever are
applicable: Provided, That if the land has been cultivated for a period of less than
three years, the initial consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest
during the preceding years when the land was actually cultivated, or on the harvest
of the first year in the case of newly-cultivated lands, if that harvest is normal:
Provided, further, That after the lapse of the first three normal harvests, the final
consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest during these three
preceding agricultural years: Provided, furthermore, That in the absence of any
agreement between the parties as to the rental, the maximum allowed herein shall
apply: Provided, finally, That if capital improvements are introduced on the farm
not by the lessee to increase its productivity, the rental shall be increased
proportionately to the consequent increase in production due to said
improvements. In case of disagreement, the Court shall determine the reasonable
increase in rental.
Section 35. Exemption from Leasehold of Other Kinds of Lands - Notwithstanding
the provisions of the preceding Sections, in the case of fishponds, saltbeds, and
lands principally planted to citrus, coconuts, cacao, coffee, durian, and other similar
permanent trees at the time of the approval of this Code, the consideration, as well
as the tenancy system prevailing, shall be governed by the provisions of Republic
Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended.
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due:
Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop failure
to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous event,
the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although the
obligation to pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby
extinguished; or

Section 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions - Notwithstanding any agreement (7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of the
as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.
continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his
dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and Section 37. Burden of Proof - The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful
executory if after due hearing it is shown that: cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural
lessor.
(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will
personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the landholding, if Section 38. Statute of Limitations - An action to enforce any cause of action under
suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or school site or other this Code shall be barred if not commenced within three years after such cause of
useful non-agricultural purposes: Provided; That the agricultural lessee action accrued.
shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years
rental on his landholding in addition to his rights under Sections twenty-
five and thirty-four, except when the land owned and leased by the
agricultural lessor, is not more than five hectares, in which case instead of
disturbance compensation the lessee may be entitled to an advanced
notice of at least one agricultural year before ejectment proceedings are
filed against him: Provided, further, That should the landholder not
cultivate the land himself for three years or fail to substantially carry out
such conversion within one year after the dispossession of the tenant, it
shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have the
right to demand possession of the land and recover damages for any loss
incurred by him because of said dispossessions.

(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the
terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of this Code
unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;

(3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a
purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon;

(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as

determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;

(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is

substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated
through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lessee;

Guerrero, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-44570, May 30, 1986.
Facts:
 In 1969, plaintiff Apolinario Benitez was taken by defendants- spouses
Manuel and Maria Guerrero to take care of their 60 heads of cows which
were grazing within their 21-hectare coconut plantation situated at Bo. San
Joaquin, Maria Aurora, Subprovince of Aurora, Quezon
 Plaintiff was allowed for that purpose to put up a hut within the plantation
where he and his family stayed
 During harvest time which usually comes every three months, he was also
made to pick coconuts and gather the fallen ones from a 16-hectare portion
of the 21-hectare plantation. He had to husk and split the nuts and then
process its meat into copra in defendants' copra kiln.
 For his work related to the coconuts, he shared 1/3 of the proceeds from the
copra he processed and sold in the market. For attending to the cows he was
paid P500 a year.
 Sometime in the early part of 1973, plaintiff was refrained from gathering
nuts from the 10-hectare portion of the 16-hectare part of the plantation
from where he used to gather nuts.
 He felt aggrieved by the acts of defendants and he brought the matter to the
attention of the Office of Special Unit in the Office of the President in
Malacanang, Manila.
 This led to an execution of an agreement whereby defendants agreed, among
others, to let plaintiff work on the 16-hectare portion of the plantation as
tenant thereon
 Then in July, 1973, he was again refrained from gathering nuts from the 10-
hectare portion of the plantation with threats of bodily harm if he persists to
gather fruits therefrom.
 Defendant spouses, the Guerreros, then assigned defendants Rogelio and
Paulino Latigay to do the gathering of the nuts and the processing thereof
into copra. Defendants Guerreros also caused to be demolished a part of the
cottage where plaintiff and his family lived, thus, making plaintiffs feel that
they (defendants) meant business.
ISSUE: Whether or not with the passage of Presidential Decree 1038 only last October
21, 1976, Republic Act 6389 otherwise known as the Code of Agrarian Reforms has
repealed in their entirety the Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act 1199) and the
Agricultural Reform Code (Republic Act 3844) abrogating or nullifying therefore all
agricultural share tenancy agreements over all kinds of lands, as the one involved in
the case at bar-over coconut plantation-and hence, the complaint below as well as the
challenged decision by the courts below, based as they are on such share tenancy
agreements, have lost their validity cessante ratio legis, cessat ipsa lex.
RULING: Petitioners are considered tenants
 The law 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 or
ascertainable, either in produce or in money, or in both (Section 3, Republic
Act 1199, The Agricultural tenancy Act, as amended.)
 With petitioner reference to this case, "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 of the 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
(Sec. 4, RA 1199; Sec. 166(25) RA 3844, Agricultural Land Reform Code).
 On August 8, 1963, Republic Act 3844 abolished and outlawed share tenancy
and put in its stead the agricultural leasehold system. On September 10, 1971,
Republic Act 6389 amending Republic Act 3844 declared share tenancy
relationships as contrary to public policy. On the basis of this national policy,
the petitioner asserts that no cause of action exists in the case at bar and the
lower court's committed grave error in upholding the respondent's status as
share tenant in the petitioners' landholding.
 It is important to note that the Agricultural Tenancy Act (RA 1199) and the
Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844) have not been entirely repealed by
the Code of Agrarian Reform (RA 6389) even if the same have been
substantially modified by the latter.
 Respondent Benitez has physically possessed the landholding continuously
from 1969 until he was ejected from it. Such possession of longstanding is an
essential distinction between a mere agricultural laborer and a real tenant
within the meaning of the tenancy law
  Cultivation is another important factor in determining the existence of
tenancy relationships. The mere fact that it was not respondent Benitez who
had actually seeded the land does not mean that he is not a tenant of the
land. 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.
o 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 fruitbearing.
 Further indicating the existence of a tenancy relationship between petitioners
and respondent is their agreement to share the produce or harvest on a
"tercio basis" that is, a 1/3 to 2/3 sharing in favor of the petitioner-
landowners
 Once a tenancy relationship is established, the tenant has the right to
continue working until such relationship is extinguished according to law.
People vs. Adillo, G.R. No. L-23785 November 27, 1975.
 The defendant-appellee Elias Adillo was a share-tenant of one Saturnino L.
Rebong on a parcel of riceland situated at Victoria, Laguna
 On January 4, 1962, he was charged before the Court of First Instance of
Laguna for violation of Section 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
o reap and thresh a portion of palay planted on said piece of land
without the knowledge and consent of Saturnino Rebong and even
before a date has been fixed for the reaping and threshing of the
palay, to the damage and prejudice of Saturnino Rebong
 the counsel for the defendant-appellee 1 moved for the quashal of the
information on the submission that the Agricultural Tenancy Act, on which
the accusatory pleading against defendant appellee was based, has been
repealed or abrogated by the new Agricultural Land Reform Code, thereby
resulting in the extinction of defendant-appellee’s criminal responsibility for
pre-reaping and prethreshing under the former law. The lower court
favorably resolved the motion and ordered the dismissal of the case.
ISSUE: Is there violation of the said law?
Ruling:
 "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 any time previous to the date set for its threshing; . . . 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,"
 the Court expressed that although the tenant is given the right under the
Agricultural Tenancy Act to determine when to reap the harvest, it is likewise
provided under the Act that the reaping "shall be after due notice to the
landholder" (Section 36, paragraph 1). Pre-reaping or pre-threshing is
considered a serious violation, subject to the sanction of dispossession of the
tenant (Section 50, subsection b) and the penalty of a "fine not exceeding
Two Thousand Pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the
discretion of the court" (Section 57)
 The two tenancy systems are distinct and different from each other. In
sharehold, the tenant may choose to shoulder, in addition to labor, any one
or more of the items of contributions (such as farm implements, work
animals, final harrowing, transplanting), while in leasehold, the tenant or
lessee always shoulders all items of production except the land. Under the
sharehold system, the tenant and the landholder are co-managers, whereas in
leasehold system, the tenant is the sole manager of the farmholding. Finally,
in sharehold tenancy, the tenant and the landholder divide the harvest in
proportion to their contributions, while in leasehold tenancy, the tenant or
lessee gets the whole produce with the mere obligation to pay a fixed rental.
 There is thus justification for the view that notice for 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 and limited in Section 45 of the
Act. Without any legal obligation imposed on the lessee to give such notice,
the lessor should take it upon himself to verify from the tenant-lessee the
date of reaping and threshing.
 TIMELINE
 o On August 8, 1963, the Tenancy Act of 1954 was amended by the
Agricultural Land Reform Code. Agricultural share tenancy was
declared "to be contrary to public policy and shall be abolished
o Nonetheless, based on transitory provision in the first proviso of
Section 4 of the Code, existing share tenancy contracts were allowed
to continue temporarily in force and effect, notwithstanding their
express abolition, until whichever or the following events occurs
earlier:
a. the end of the agricultural year when the National Land
Reform Council makes the proclamation declaring the
region or locality a land reform area; or
b. the shorter period provided in the share tenancy
contracts express; or
c. the share tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the
leasehold system.
o agricultural share tenancy throughout the country was declared
contrary to public policy and was automatically converted to
agricultural leasehold upon the effectivity of Section 4 thereof
although existing share tenancy contracts were again allowed to
continue temporarily in force and effect in any region or locality, to
be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of Republic
Act No. 1199, as amended, "until the end of the agricultural year
when the President of the Philippines shall have organized by
executive order the Department of Agrarian Reform in accordance
with the provisions of this amendatory Act, unless such contracts
provide for a shorter period or the tenant sooner exercises his option
to elect the leasehold system
o Immediately after the declaration of martial law, the President of the
Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 2 on September 26, 1912,
proclaiming the entire country "as a land reform area.”- unqualifiedly
abolished the sharehold system in the Philippine agricultural life
 It will be noted that Section 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954
(Republic Act No. 1199) which prohibited either the tenant or landholder,
without mutual consent, to reap or thresh a portion of the crop at any time
previous to the date set for its threshing and penalized any violation thereof
by either party is no longer found in the Agricultural Land Reform Code
(Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389) for the obvious
reason that agricultural share tenancy provided in the Agricultural Tenancy
Act of 1954 has already been abolished by the new Code. The omission of
such provision as Section 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954 in the
new Code operates as an implied repeal of said provision.
 Thus confronted with the issue as to whether or not the penal liability of a
share tenancy for pre-reaping or pre-threshing under the Agricultural Tenancy
Act (Republic Act No. 1199) enacted on August 30, 1954, has been obliterated
by the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by
Republic Act No. 6389) and the subsequent Presidential Decrees and
Proclamations, the solution to the issue seems to be clear that the injunction
against pre-reaping and pre-threshing under the Agricultural Tenancy Act of
1954 has lost its operative force and effect, and the penal sanction therein
subdued
Gabriel vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. L-27797. August 26, 1974.
 The plaintiff sinks to eject the defendant from the fishpond described in the
complaint which is under lease to the said defendant, who, however, refuses
to vacate. Instead, he has impugned the jurisdiction of this Court contending
that the action should have been filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations,
which has original and exclusive jurisdiction, as their relationship is one of
leasehold tenancy
 After the motion to dismiss was denied on the basis of the allegations of the
complaint, the parties were ordered to adduce evidence for the purpose of
determining which Court shall take cognizance of the case.
 It appears that the fishpond is presently in the possession of the defendant,
who originally leased it from the father of the plaintiff. Upon the death of the
said father, the fishpond was inherited by the plaintiff. It is now covered by
T.C.T. No. 1634 and is registered in her name. It contains an area of
169,507.00 square meters. The rental is on a yearly basis.
 It also appears that the defendant has ceased to work personally with the aid
of helpers the aforecited fishpond since 1956 he became ill and incapacitated.
His daughter, Pilar Pangilinan, took over. She testified that she helps her
father in administering the leased property, conveying his instructions to the
workers, Urbano Maninang, Isidro Bernal and Marciano Maninang. The names
of Ire, Juan and Aguedo Viada have been mentioned as the laborers who were
paid for the repair of the dikes. Bernardo Cayanan, a nephew of the
defendant, acts as the watcher. He has lived separately since he got married.
Excepting Pilar Pangilinan. who is residing near the fishpond, the other
children of the defendant are all professions; a lawyer, an engineer, and a
 priest all residing in Manila. None of these persons has been seen working on
the fishpond.
 Anent the question of jurisdiction, it is an admitted fact that plaintiff leased
the fishpond to the defendant in 1943 without a fixed term, the annual rental
payable at the end of the year
 It is likewise undisputed that the work in the fishpond consisted in letting out
 The mere fact, however, that a person works an agricultural land does not
the water so algae (lumut) would grow or if algae would not grow, getting
some from the river and putting them in the fishpond, changing the dirty
water with fresh water, repairing leaks in the dikes, and planting of fingerlings
and attending to them; that these were done by defendant, with some help;
 Assuming that appellant had previously entered in 1923 into an agreement of
that he personally attended to the fishpond until 1956 when he became ill;
that thereafter his nephew Bernardo Cayanan, who was living with him,
helped in the work to be done in the fishpond and his daughter Pilar
Pangilinan helped in the management, conveying his instructions to the
workers
ISSUE: was the relationship between the appellee and appellant a leasehold tenancy or
a civil law lease?
Ruling: the relationship between the appellee Trinidad Gabriel and appellant Eusebio
 The law is explicit in requiring the tenant and his immediate family to work
Pangilinan was not a leasehold tenancy under Republic Act No. 1199. Hence, this case
was not within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations
 There are important differences between a leasehold tenancy and a civil law
lease. The subject matter of leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land;
that of civil law lease may be either rural or urban property. As to attention
and cultivation, the law requires the leasehold tenant to personally attend to,
and cultivate the agricultural land, whereas the civil law lessee need not
personally cultivate or work the thing leased. As to purpose, the landholding
in leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture, whereas in civil law lease, the
purpose may be for any other lawful pursuits. As to the law that governs, the
civil law lease is governed by the Civil Code, whereas leasehold tenancy is
governed by special laws.
3 
 In order that leasehold tenancy under the Agricultural Tenancy Act may exist,
the following requisites must concur.
1. That the land worked by the tenant is an agricultural land;
2. That the land is susceptible of cultivation by a single person
together with members of his immediate farm household;
3. That the land must be cultivated by the tenant either personally or
with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm
household;
4. That the land belongs to another; and
5. That the use of the land by the tenant is for a consideration of a
4
fixed amount in money or in produce or in both.
necessarily make him a leasehold tenant within the purview of section 4 of
Republic Act No. 1199. He may still be a civil law lessee unless the other
requisites as above enumerated are complied with
leasehold tenancy with Potenciano Gabriel, appellee's father, such tenancy
agreement was severed in 1956 when he ceased to work the fishpond
personally because he became ill and incapacitated. Not even did the
members of appellant's immediate farm household work the land in question.
Only the members of the family of the tenant and such other persons,
whether related to the tenant or not, who are dependent upon him for
support and who usually help him to operate the farm enterprise are included
in the term "immediate farm household"
the land. Thus Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, defines a
"tenant" as 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 in produce or in money or both, under the
leasehold tenancy system. Section 8 of the same Act limits the relation of
landholder and tenant to the person who furnishes the land and to the person
who actually works the land himself with the aid of labor available from
within his immediate farm household
Section 4 of the same Act requires for the existence of leasehold tenancy that
the tenant and his immediate farm household work the land. It provides that
leasehold tenancy exists when a person, who either personally or with the aid
of labor available from members of his immediate farm household,
undertakes to cultivate a piece of agricultural land susceptible of cultivation
by a single person together with members of his immediate farm household,
belonging to, or legally possessed by, another in consideration of a fixed
amount in money or in produce or in both.
  A person, in order to be considered a tenant, must himself and with the aid
available from his immediate farm household cultivate the land. Persons,
therefore, who do not actually work the land cannot be considered
8
tenants; and he who hires others whom he pays for doing the cultivation of
the land, ceases to hold, and is considered as having abandoned the land as
tenant within the meaning of sections 5 and 8 of Republic Act. No. 1199, and
ceases to enjoy the status, rights, and privileges of one.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association vs. Court of Appeals, et.
al., GR No. 46281-83, August 19, 1988.
Facts:
 The owners of the coconut land in question located in Bo. Imok, Calauan,
Laguna, consisting of fifteen (15) hectares, more or less, are the spouses
Pedro Rulloda and Salud Sanchez.
 Prior to, and including the years 1964 up to 1971, Rosario Paraiso Vda. de Fule
obtained legal possession of the land by virtue of a yearly contract of sale
(pakyaw) of all the coconut produce and other fruits from said land. In 1972,
Fule did not renew the contract but spouses executed a similar contract with
Eddie A. Escudero, which was renewed every year until 1975
 During the period prior to 1964, Fule had utilized the services of Pedro,
Hermogenes and Lucas Cosico as caretakers over four (4) hectares each of the
land in question, paying them for their services in cash, which was equivalent
to 1/7 of the proceeds of the sale of coconuts harvested from the land they
each caretook.
o As caretakers, the Cosicos would check or visit said plantation to see
whether there was stealing in the plantation and they would report
to her (Fule).
o They lived in a place about 2 and 1/2 kms. away from the land in
question.
o They had no work animals to cultivate the land with;
o they used bolos to clean and clear the land by cutting grass and
burning them.
o Private respondents (Cosicos) alleged that they also planted coconut
trees and other permanent trees in the land, for which they have not
allegedly been paid.
o The tasks of harvesting, gathering, picking and hauling coconuts were
performed by laborers hired and paid by Fule or her coconut buyer.
o And when respondent Pedro Cosico was hired to gather coconuts in
the land, he was paid for his labor.
o The payment for his labor was separate from his 1/7 share received
as caretaker.
 Defendant Fule became a member of the petitioner COCOMA from 1964 to
1972, while Eddie A. Escudero became a member of the same cooperative-
corporation from 1972 to 1975. During the time that the land was under
contract with these persons, petitioner COCOMA claims to have acted as their
agent in providing management and marketing services.
 COCOMA then hired necessary aborers to harvest and transport the coconut
produce from the land (Among these workers were respondents Pedro and
Hermogenes Cosico who were recommendees of Fule, and who were hired to
clean the land of grass, shrubs, dried coconut leaves and husks.)
 During all the time that petitioner COCOMA was rendering management and
marketing services in the land in question, all the proceeds from the sale of
the coconut produce thereof, less the necessary expenses mentioned above,
were paid and delivered, after every harvest season, to said Fule and Eddie A.
Escudero, respectively, in compliance with the terms of their marketing
agreements with petitioner COCOMA
 On 9 October 1971, or after seven (7) years from 1964 that all the workers
had been receiving their wages as hired workers in said land from Fule and
later from Eddie A. Escudero, through the petitioner COCOMA, the
respondents Pedro, Hermogenes and Lucas, all surnamed Cosico, started to
claim to be the tenants in three (3) separate portions of said landholding,
consisting of about four (4) hectares each, more or less.
ISSUES:
(1) whether or not the private respondents are share tenants in the coconut land in
question;
(2) whether or not COCOMA, contending to be a mere marketing agent which provides
management and marketing services to the members of the cooperative, can be held
directly liable to the private respondents-tenants for their share in the coconuts
harvested;
Ruling:
First issue:
 petitioner contends that private respondents were merely caretakers, of Fule
and, later, Eddie Escudero, whose task included clearing the land by cutting
 grass and burning them to smudge the coconut trees to make them bear
fruits, planting of coconuts, and other fruit bearing trees, and harvesting,
gathering, picking and hauling coconuts, and that, as caretakers, private
respondents were paid separately in cash. Hence, the petitioner would like
this Court to believe that since private respondents were mere caretakers
who were paid in cash for their services, they were therefore, hired laborers,
not share tenants. – THIS IS WRONG!
 In determining the nature of the relationship of the parties in the instant case,
it would be well to review the concept of a share tenant as against that of an
agricultural worker.
o Share tenancy or agricultural tenancy = 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 (Section 3, Republic Act
1199, the Agricultural Tenancy Act, as amended)."cravirtua1aw
library
 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 of the 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 (Sec. 4, RA 1199; Sec. 166(25), RA
3844, Agricultural Land Reform Code).
 agricultural worker = A ‘farm 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
(Agricultural Land Reform Code, supplied) 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.’ The term includes ‘farm laborer and /or farm
employer.’ An ‘agricultural worker’ is not a whit different
from a farm worker.
 there should be an employer-employee
relationship between the farm employer and the
farm worker.
 In determining the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, the elements that are
generally considered are the following:
1. selection and engagement of the
employee;
2. the payment of wages;
3. the power of dismissal and
4. the employer’s power to control the
employee’s conduct. It is this last element
that constitutes the most important index
of the existence of relationship."
 The above-mentioned characteristics of an agricultural
worker or farm worker do not exist in share tenancy.
 The record of this case is bare of evidence to support the conclusion that the
private respondents are mere agricultural workers.
o Unlike ordinary laborers, respondents did not observe regular hours
of work. They did not work in shifts. Petitioner COCOMA could not
even remember the number of days that private respondents
worked on the land for each agricultural year.
o While petitioner kept a record of the full amount paid to
respondents for each agricultural season, it did not keep an accurate
record of the actual number of days respondents reported for work.
o The petitioner did not lay down regulations under which
respondents were supposed to do their work. Neither did petitioner
prescribe the manner by which the private respondents were to
perform their duties as farmworkers.
o We do not find that degree of control and supervision essential to
the presence of an employer-employee relationship between
petitioner and respondents and before that, between Fule or
Escudero, on the one hand and respondents, on the other.
 Petitioner, in an attempt to support its pretense that private respondents are
only hired laborers, not share tenants, claims that private respondents are
mere caretakers who paid for their services as such, and whose work consists
 of clearing and cleaning the land, planting the coconut and other fruit-bearing o "Sec. 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by
trees, and harvesting, gathering, picking and hauling coconuts. – THIS IS Expiration of Period, etc. — The agricultural leasehold relation under
WRONG! this Code shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or
o well-settled is the rule that cultivation is an important factor in period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer
determining the existence of a share tenancy relationship. As to the of the legal possession of the landholding. In case the agricultural
meaning of cultivation, see previous case  (about sa hindi biro lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the
magtanim ng coconut) landholdings, the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be
 The respondents are, share tenants, not hired workers, of the petitioner. subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the
o PROOFS= their agreement to share the produce or harvest on a 1/7 agricultural lessor."cralaw virtua1aw library
to 6/7 basis in favor of the petitioner COCOMA.  Petitioner, being a landholder, can be held liable to private respondents for
2nd ISSUE: their shares in the coconuts harvested from the landholding in question.
 It is contended by the petitioner COCOMA that it has never been a
landholder of the land in question, since it was, at no time, owner, lessee or
sub-lessee of the land, or buyer of the coconut produce thereof, or
usufructuary or legal possessor of the same, or even an assignee of any right
affecting it. Thus, assuming, without conceding, that respondents Pedro and
Hermogenes Cosico are considered tenants of the land, petitioner COCOMA
submits that, being only an agent of defendants Fule and Escudero, it can not
be held liable for the acts of its principals. Petitioner’s contention is not in
accordance with applicable laws, because —
o "A landholder shall mean a person, natural or juridical, who, either as
owner, lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor lets or grants to
another the use or cultivation of his land for a consideration either in
shares under the share tenancy system, or a price certain or
ascertainable under the leasehold system."
 In accordance with the above provision, petitioner COCOMA is the landholder
of the subject landholdings for (a) it is "juridical person" being a domestic
corporation established under the laws of the Philippines; (b) it is the "legal
possessor" of the land for it has the sole management and administration
thereof; (c) it has authorized or retained the private respondents to cultivate
the land; and (d) it has shared the harvest with the latter, albeit unlawfully,
making it appear that they are laborers instead of tenants.
 Petitioner, being a landholder, as defined by law, is therefore subject to the
rights, obligations, and limitations provided for under the agrarian laws
 There is also no question that, in this case, there was a transfer of the legal
possession of the land from one landholder to another (Rule to petitioner
COCOMA). In connection therewith, Republic Act 3844, Sec. 10 states: