JURISPRUDENCE ON AGRARIAN LAWS

Agrarian INTERPRETATION LAND REFORM LAWS; Estolas v.

Reform LIBERALLY, in favor of the grantee, in order to give Mabalot, GR
Laws full force and effect to their clear intent, w/c is “to 133706,
achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers” May 7,
and to make them “more independent, self-reliant 2002.
and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine
strength in our democratic society.”

CARL under RA 6657; LANDS COVERED BY NHA v.

THE LAW: Lands reserved for, or converted to, Allarde; GR
non-agricultural uses by the gov’t. agencies other 106593,
than the DAR, prior to the effectivity of the CARL, Nov. 16,
are not considered and treated as agricultural 1999.
lands and are not covered by said law.

Same; Same; Homesteads are not exempt from Paris v.

the operation of the Land Reform Law. The right to Alfeche, GR
retain seven hectares of land is subject to the 139083,
condition that the landowner is actually cultivating Aug. 30,
that area or will cultivate it upon the effectivity of 2001.
the said law.

Same; LAND EXCLUDED; Lands classified as non- Sta. Rosa

agricultural prior to CARL. Article 67 of the Water Realty Dev.
Code of the Philippines (P. D. No. 1067) provides Corp. v. CA,
that any watershed or any area of land adjacent to GR 112526,
any surface water or overlying any ground water Oct. 12,
may be declared by the Department of Natural 2001.
resources as a protected area. Rules and
Regulations may be promulgated by such
Department to prohibit or control such activities by
the owners or occupants thereof within the
protected area which may damage or cause the
deterioration of the surface water or ground water
or interfere with the investigation, use, control,
protection, management or administration of such
waters. Watersheds may be defined as "an area
drained by a river and its tributaries and enclosed
by a boundary or divide which separates it from
adjacent watersheds." Watersheds generally are
outside the commerce of man, so why was the
Casile property titled in the name of SRRDC? The
answer is simple. At the time of the titling, the
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
had not the declared the property as watershed
area. The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were
declared as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance adopted
by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as certified
by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. On
January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of
Cabuyao, Laguna issued a Resolution 26 voiding
the Zoning classification of the lands at Barangay
Casile as Park and declaring that the land was now
classified as agricultural land.

Same; LAND EXEMPTED; (1) Prawn farms,

fishponds – by virtue of RA 7881. (Sps. Tirona v.
Alejo, GR 129313, Oct. 10, 2001); (2) Watershed –
defined in Art. 67 of the Water Code of the Phils.
(PD 1067) (Sta. Rosa Realty Dev. Corp. v. CA,
supra).
Same; ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE LANDS; For a Sta. Rosa
valid implementation of the CARL program, two (2) Realty Dev.
notices are reqd: (a) NOTICE OF COVERAGE and Corp. v. CA,
LETTER OF INVITATION to a preliminary conference GR 112526,
sent to the landowner, the representative of the Oct. 12,
BARC. LBP, farmer-beneficiaries and other 2001.
interested parties; and (b) the NOTICE OF
ACQUISITION sent to the land owner under Sec. 16
of the CARL.

Same; VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL; Under DAR GSIS v. CA,

Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1989, it is not GR 128118,
necessary that the voluntary offeror of the lot be Feb. 15,
the registered owner thereof. However, private 2002.
respondent failed to show that the DAR accepted
and approved his offer to sell, w/o w/c, private
respondent cannot safely presume that his
voluntary offer to sell was accepted by the DAR.

RIGHT OF RETENTION; Under PD 27, the Paris v.

landowner’s right to retain 7 hectares of land is Alfeche,
subject to condition that said landowner is actually 2001.
cultivating that area or will cultivate it upon the
effectivity of the said law. Under the CARL,
landowners are no longer reqd to do so in order to
qualify fort he retention of an area not exceeding 5
hectares. However, they are required to maintain
the actual tiller of the area retained, should the
latter choose to remain therein.

LAND VALUATION; Jurisdiction of the RTC as a LBP v. CA,

Special Agrarian Court: Under Sec. 57 of the GR 126332,
CARL, the RTC has original and exclusive Nov. 16,
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination 1999
of just compensation to landowners.

Same; The DARAB has authority to determine LBP v. CA,

the initial valuation of lands involving GR 126332,
agrarian reform. But the RTC as special agrarian Nov. 16,
court is vested the final determination of just 1999
compensation.

JUST COMPENSATION; Although, under the law, Office of the

tenant farmers are already deemed owners of the Pres. V. CA,
land they till, they are still reqd. to pay the cost of GR 131216,
the land, including interest, w/in 15 years before July 19,
the title is transferred to them. (id.) Expropriation 2001.
of landholding did not take place on the effectivity
of PD 27. The seizure would take effect on the
payment of just compensation, judicially
determined.

RECLASSIFICATION; Agricultural Land to Sps. Calvo v.

Residential; The basic requirements for Sps.
reclassification of agricultural land to residential Vergara, GR
land such as: (1) the certification of the Housing 134741,
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Deputized Dec. 19,
Zoning Administrator of the city or municipality 2001.
concerned, or in its absence, the certification of the
Regional HLURB Officer that the land use conforms
with the approved Land Use Plan; and (2)
certification from the DAR Regional Director that
the land ceased to be economically feasible and
sound for agricultural use or a certification from the
Deputized Zoning Administrator of the HLURB that
the land or locality has become urbanized and has
greater economic value for commercial, industrial
or residential purposes.

Same; Conversion to Residential, Bunye v.

Commercial, Industrial or some other Urban Aquino, GR
Purposes; RA 3844, as amended by RA 6389, 138979,
provides — Oct. 9,
“SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding; 2000.
Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any agreement as
to the period or future surrender of the land, an
agricultural lessee shall 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 executory if after due
hearing it is shown that:
(1) The landholding is declared by the
department head upon recommendation of the
National Planning Commission to be suited for
residential, commercial, industrial or some other
urban purposes: Provided, That the agricultural
lessee shall be entitled to disturbance
compensation equivalent to five times the average
of the gross harvests on his landholding during the
last five preceding calendar years;
xxx xxx xxx”
Thus, even assuming that Zoilo Bunye did in fact
promise and deliver 500 square meters of his land
to Bartolome Aquino for use as a homelot, the right
of the latter to enjoy the same ceased when the
remaining 2,500 square meters of petitioner's land
was converted to residential and commercial land
in 1986

RIGHT OF TENANCY; The right of tenancy Philbancor

attaches to the landholding by operation of law and Finance v.
is not extinguished by the alienation or transfer of CA, GR
the legal possession of the landholding. 129572,
June 26,
2000.

TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; The essential Heirs of Jose

requisites of a tenancy relationship are: Juanite v.
(1) the parties are the landowner and the CA, GR
tenant; 138016, Jan.
(2) the subject is agricultural land; 30, 2002;
(3) there is consent of the landowner; Bejasa v.
(4) the purpose is agricultural production; CA, GR
(5) there is personal cultivation; and 108941, July
(6) there is sharing of harvests or payment of 6, 2000.
rentals.
All these requisites must concur in order to create
a tenancy relationship between the parties. The
absence of one does not make an occupant of a
parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter
theron, a de jure tenant. Unless a person has
established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not
entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by
the land Reform Program of the Government under
existing tenancy laws. With the landowner’s
admission that petitioners were tenants on the
subject landholding, the element of “sharing
harvest” is assumed as a factual element in that
admission.

Agricultural Tenancy; Sec. 7 of RA 3844 provides Pascual v.

that once the leasehold relation is established, the CA, GR
agricultural lessee cannot be ejected from the land 138781,
unless authorized by the court for cause provided Dec. 3,
by law. 2001.

Same; Once established, agricultural tenancy Tuazon v.

confers upon the agricultural lessee the right to Garilao, GR
continue working on the landholding until such 143673,
leasehold relation is extinguished. RA 3844 and the Aug. 10,
CARL provide for SECURITY OF TENURE of tenants. 2001.
Moreover, the CARL grants them the RIGHTS OF
PRE-EMPTION and REDEMPTION.

QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES; Actual Cultivator; Palele v. CA,

Personal cultivation; At the time private GR 138289,
respondent applied to purchase Lot No. 707 in July 31,
1962, the law in effect was the Agricultural 2001.
Tenancy Act of the Phils. (RA 1199) w/c reqd
that the applicant fort he purchase of agricultural
land should personally cultivate and/or occupy the
land subject of the purchase. The Agricultural
Land Reform Code (RA 3844), w/c was enacted
on 8 Aug. 1963, allowed the landholder to eject
tenants on the ground that the landholder will
personally cultivate the land. The Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6839, enacted on 10
Sept. 1971 and hereinafter referred to as the
CARL), abolished personal cultivation by the
landowner as a ground for ejecting an agricultural
lessee. Moreover, it allowed “personal cultivation”
by the agricultural lessee to be done w/ the
assistance of his immediate farm household or
members of his family.

Same; BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE; Sumatra v.

Without the element of personal cultivation, a Vda. De
person cannot be considered a tenant even if he is Pariñas, GR
so designated in the written agreement of the 142958,
parties. Or a general conclusion by the MARO that April 24,
respondent is a registered agricultural lessee of the 2002.
lands per records of their office, as the Kasunduang
Buwisan sa Sakahan was registered there.

Same; Same; Pursuant to Administrative Order Musa v.

No. 10, Series of 1989, Identification of actual and Amor, GR
potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the 141396,
DAR Secretary. April 2002.

RULE ON SUCCESSION; Section 9 of RA 3844 is Milestone

clear and unequivocal in providing for the rules on Realty and
succession to tenancy rights. A close examination Co. v. CA,
of the provision leaves no doubt as to its rationale GR 135999,
of providing for continuity in agricultural leasehold April 19,
relation in case of death or incapacity of a party. To 2002.
this end, it provides that 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. In the
same vein, the leasehold shall bind the legal heirs
of the agricultural lessor in case of death or
permanent incapacity of the latter. It is to achieve
this continuity of relationship that the agricultural
lessor is mandated by law to choose a successor-
tenant within one month from the death or
incapacity of the agricultural lessee from among
the following: (1) surviving spouse; (2) eldest direct
descendant by consanguinity; or (3) the next eldest
direct descendant or descendants in the order of
their age. Should the lessor fail to exercise his
choice within one month from the death of the
tenant, the priority shall be in accordance with the
aforementioned order.

NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF LAND AWARDED Estolas v.

UNDER PD 27; Title to land acquired pursuant to Mabalot, GR
PD 27 or the land Reform Program of the 133706,
government shall not be transferable, EXCEPT to May 7,
the grantee’s heirs by hereditary succession, or 2002.
back to the government by other legal means.
Upon the promulgation of PD 27, farmer-tenants
were deemed owners of the land they were tilling.
Their emancipation gave them the right to possess,
cultivate and enjoy the landholding for themselves.
These rights were granted by the government to
them as the tillers and to no other. Thus, to insure
their continuous possession and enjoyment of the
property, they could not, under the law, effect any
transfer, except back to the government, or by
hereditary succession, to their successors.

REALLOCATION OF LANDHOLDING; Any transfer Estolas v.

of farmer-beneficiary’s landholding may only be Mabalot, GR
made in favor of the government. Petitioner 133706,
cannot, by himself, take over a farmer-beneficiary’s May 7,
landholding, allegedly on the ground that it was 2002.
abandoned. The proper procedure for reallocation
must be followed to ensure that there was indeed
an abandonment, and that the subsequent
beneficiary is a qualified farmer-tenant as provided
by law.

ABANDONMENT OF LEASEHOLDING; For Estolas v.

abandonment to exist, the ff. requisites must be Mabalot, GR
proven: [1] a clear and absolute intention to 133706,
renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or May 7,
property; and [2] an external act by w/c that 2002.
intention is expressed or carried into effect. There
must be an actual, not merely a projected
relinquishment; otherwise, the right or claim is not
vacated or waived and, thus, susceptible of being
appropriated by another. Administrative Order No.
2, issued on March 7, 1994, defines abandonment
or neglect as a “willful failure of the agrarian
reform beneficiary, together w/ his farm household,
to cultivate, till or develop his land to produce any
crop, or to use the land for any specific economic
purpose continuously for a period of two calendar
years.”

RIGHT TO DISPOSE PROPERTY BY Milestone

LANDOWNER WITHOUT OTHER LIMITATIONS Realty and
THAN THOSE ESTABLISHED BY LAW; Secs. 10, Co. v. CA,
11 and 12 of RA 3844, allows the agricultural lessor GR 135999,
to sell the landholding, w/ or w/o the knowledge of April 19,
the agricultural lessee and at the same time 2002.
recognizes the right of preemption and redemption
of the agricultural lessee. Thus, the existence of
tenancy rights of agricultural lessee cannot affect
nor derogate from the right of the agricultural
lessor as owner to dispose of the property. The only
right of the agricultural lessee or his successor in
interest is the right of preemption and/or
redemption.

RIGHT OF REDEMPTION; RA No. 3844, Sec. 12 Philbancor

provides — In case the landholding is sold to a third Finance v.
person w/o the knowledge of the agricultural CA, GR
lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the 129572,
same at a reasonable price and consideration: June 26,
Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be 2000 ; Heirs
re-deemed: Provided, further, That where there are of Jose
two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be Juanite v.
entitled to said right of redemption only to the CA, GR
extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The 138016, Jan.
right of redemption under this Section may be 30, 2002.
exercised WITHIN TWO YEARS from the registration
of the sale, and shall have priority over any other
right of legal redemption.'

Same; Consignation or Tender of Payment in Heirs of Jose

Court; Under RA 3844, as amended, from the time Juanite v.
the Land Bank Certification dated 15 Jan. 1982 was CA, GR
presented to the RTC on 20 Jan. 1982; and that the 138016, Jan.
certification” is equivalent to a consignation or 30, 2002;
tender of payment in court.” Thus, The subsequent Sps. Mallari
cancellation of the LBP of its earlier Certification v. Arcega,
cannot affect the right already acquired by Arcega, GR 106615,
et al., as agricultural lessees. March 20,
2002.

TENANT SUCCESSION; Choice; A tenancy Felizardo v.

relationship may be established either verbally or Fernandez,
in writing, expressly or impliedly, in accordance w/ GR 137509,
Sec. 7 of RA 1199. Upon the death or incapacity of Aug. 15,
the original tenant, the lessor/landowner has the 2001.
right to choose the tenant successor pursuant to
Sec. 9 of RA 3844.

SALE OR TRANSFER OF RIGHTS; The sale or Corpus v.

transfer of rights over property covered by a CLT is Sps. Grospe,
void EXCEPT when the alienation is made in favor GR 135297,
of the government or through hereditary June 8,
succession. This ruling is intended to prevent a 2000.
reversion to the old feudal system in w/c the
landowner reacquired vast tracts of land, thus
negating the govt’s. program of freeing the tenant
from the bondage of the soil.

Same; Samahang Nayon – Valid; The incurrence Corpus v.

of various loans and mortgaging of agricultural Sps. Grospe,
land to secure said loans is not abandonment of GR 135297,
the agricultural tenancy relationship. However, the June 8,
voluntary surrender of the landholding to the 2000.
Samahang Nayon w/c, under the circumstances of
the case, qualifies as a surrender or transfer, to the
government of his rights under the agrarian laws.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM Monsanto v.
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) – created Zerna, GR
pursuant to Sec. 13 of EO 129-A. It has the primary, 142501,
original and appellate jurisdiction over agrarian Dec. 7,
dispute or cases involving tenancy relationship. 2001.

Same; JURISDICTION; The case at bar for the Centeno v.

maintenance of peaceful possession of the Centeno, GR
premises by private respondent (awardee of the 140825,
land), is an incident of the earlier decision of the Oct. 13,
DARAB upholding said respondent’s entitlement to 2000.
the award under the CARL. Hence the DARAB, w/c/
as a rule has jurisdiction to try and decided any
agrarian dispute or any incident involving the
implementation of CARL continues to have
jurisdiction over the case.

Same; Same; The DARAB has no jurisdiction to Laguna

grant private respondents (as beneficiaries of the Estates Dev.
agrarian reform program and tenants of the Corp. v. CA,
adjoining land) a right of way over petitioner’s GR 119357,
network of private roads intended for its exclusive July 5, 2000.
use. There is no tenancy relationship between the
parties.

Res Judicata; The doctrine, w/c embraces: [1] bar Ocho v.

by prior judgment” under Sec. 47 (b), Rule 39 of Bernardino,
the 1997 Rules of Civil Proc.; and [2] GR 137908,
“conclusiveness of judgment” under par. (c) Nov. 22,
thereof, applies to both judicial and administrative 2000.
proceedings.