Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1961-2001 Justice Milagros German
1961-2001 Justice Milagros German
GERMAN'S
A
ABANDONMENT
Gavino Corpus vs. Sps. Geronimo Grospe
G.R. No. 135297, June 8, 2000
Abandonment requires a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or
claim or to desert a right or property.
Rosello vs. Reyes
99 SCRA 1
After the Trial Court found as per its decision that the tenant was not ejected
by the landowner but that he voluntarily abandoned his landholding, it is incorrect for
the Court to order his reinstatement
Teodoro vs. Macaraeg
27 SCRA 8-9
Tenant's offer to surrender leasehold on the condition that one named by him
should be accepted as his successor does not constitute abandonment.
ACTIONS
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 406
All actions pursued under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DAR, in
accordance with 50 of R.A. No. 6657, must be commenced in the PARAD of the
province where the property is located and the DARAB only has appellate jurisdiction
to review the PARAD's orders, decisions and other dispositions.
Tongson vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
215 SCRA 428
Under Section 11, R.A. No. 1199, an action for accounting may be filed by the
tenant within three (3) years from the date of the threshing of the crop in question.
Laureto vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992
212 SCRA 397
An action for violation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 816 falls within the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations (Sec. 5, P.D. 816), now
the Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 19, par. 7, B.P. 129).
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
Lucia Mapa vda. de la Cruz, et al. vs. Adjuto Abille
G.R. No. 130196, February 26, 2001
Where there is no showing, as in the case at bar, that there was fraud,
collusion, arbitrariness, illegality, imposition or mistake on the part of a department
head, in rendering his questioned decisions or of a total lack of substantial evidence to
support the same, such administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and
respect and will not be interfered with.
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 298
It applies "where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into
play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under
a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral
of such issues to the administrative body for its review."
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
263 SCRA 758
The DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be granted jurisdiction
over cases of eminent domain and over criminal cases.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
249 SCRA 149
Administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative
enactment for settled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony
with the provisions of the law.
ADMISSION
Dequito vs. Llamas
66 SCRA 504-505
AFFIDAVITS
Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
216 SCRA 25
Section 16 of P.D. No. 946 states that in the hearing, investigation and
determination of any question or controversy, affidavits and counter-affidavits may be
allowed and are admissible in evidence.'
Candido vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107493, February 1, 1996
253 SCRA 79
An affidavit that has not been formally offered during the proceedings in the
trial court is not among the matters which the law mandatorily requires to be taken
judicial notice of.
AGRARIAN DISPUTE
Heirs of the Late Hermon Rey Santos vs. CA, et al.
March 7, 2000
There is no agrarian dispute where both parties are contending for the
ownership of the subject property.
AGRARIAN RELATIONS
Jaime Corpin vs. Amor S. Vivar
G.R. No. 137350, June 19, 2000
A Regional Trial Court's finding that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties, which was based on the documents attached by a party to his
memoranda in the RTC but not presented to the municipal trial court, must be set
aside due to insufficiency of evidence.
Bicol Federation of Labor vs. Cuyugan
65 SCRA 195
Term "agrarian relations" construed; the term embraces every situation where
an individual provides his personal labor over a parcel of agricultural land belonging
to another for the purpose principally of agricultural production, and where the
former, for his labor input and other sundry contributions, is compensated either in
wages or a share in the produce, or is obliged to pay lease rentals to the landowner.
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
De la Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
25 SCRA 480
In the classification of Agricultural Lands, in order to fix the consideration for
the use of ricelands in leasehold system, the use of the term "years" in Sec. 46 (a),
R.A. No. 1199 is taken to mean "agricultural year" as the phrase is understood in
Sections 32-33 of the same law.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
Determination of classes of land; since Republic Act No. 1199 establishes a
particular manner for determining whether land is first or second class, no other
method is acceptable.
Philippine National Railways vs. Valle
29 SCRA 573
Under Section 3 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and Section 166 (1) of the
Agricultural Land Reform Code, agricultural land means land devoted to agriculture
or to any growth.
The fact that a tenant or an agricultural lessee may have been assisted by farm
laborers hired by the landowners, on occasional or temporary basis, does not preclude
the element of "personal cultivation" essential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold
relationship.
Bernas vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993
225 SCRA 119
Whatever was the true nature of his designation, Benigno, was the LEGAL
POSSESSOR of the property and the law expressly grants him, as legal possessor,
authority and capacity to institute an agricultural leasehold lessee on the property he
legally possessed.
Endaya vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88113, October 23, 1992
215 SCRA 110
The 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
extinguishments of the agricultural leasehold relation.
AGRICULTURAL TENANCY
Qua vs. Court of Appeals
198 SCRA 237, June 11, 1991
Private respondent Carmen Carillo is not entitled to be considered an
agricultural tenant. Therefore, she may not be allowed the use of a homelot, a
privilege granted by Section 35 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, in relation to Section
22(3) of R.A. No. 1199, as amended, only to persons satisfying the qualifications of
agricultural tenants of coconut lands.
Zamoras vs. Su, Jr.
184 SCRA 248, April 6, 1990
Tenants, as defined in Pres. Decree No. 1517 does not include those whose
possession of the property is under litigation.
De los Reyes vs. Espineli
30 SCRA 574
Agricultural tenancy defined; 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.
Carag vs. Court of Appeals
151 SCRA 44
Definition of tenancy pursuant to Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199; a person who by
himself, or with the aid available from within his immediate 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 or for a price certain or
ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.
Matienzo vs. Servidad
107 SCRA 276
Definition of tenancy pursuant to Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199; a person who by
himself, or with the aid available from within his immediate 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 or for a price certain or
ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.
AGRICULTURAL WORKER
Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
AGRICULTURAL YEAR
De Santos vs. Santos
2 SCRA 820
"Agricultural year" defined. "Agricultural year" is the period of time
necessary for the raising of seasonal agricultural products, including the preparation
of the land, and the sowing, planting and harvesting the crop . . .".
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 704-705
Agricultural year: period covered; Each crop period is considered an
independent agricultural year.
AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS
Locsin vs. Valenzuela
194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991
The lease rentals paid by the tenant-farmers prior to such full payment by the
Land Bank to the old landowner would be credited no longer as rentals but rather as
amortization payments of the price of the land.
Locsin vs. Valenzuela
194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991
Lot No. 2-C-A-3 having been declared part of the land reform area and
subjected to Operation Land Transfer the payment made on and after 21 October
1972 by the private respondent tenants-farmers constituted amortization payments on
the cost of the land.
APPEALS
Roberto Mito vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 126099, March 12, 2001
Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
An appeal is a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided
by law.
De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
169 SCRA 289, January 20, 1989
Being an agricultural lessee, petitioner under Sec. 16 of PD 946 has the right to
appeal as a pauper and should not have been required to pay the docket fee.
Santiago vs. Court of Appeals
179 SCRA 188-189, November 8, 1989
The Court of Appeals has the discretion to require or not to require the parties
to submit simultaneous memoranda. In case of non-requirement, neither party can
rightfully claim that he has been deprived of his day in court, considering that the
filing of a memorandum is not an indispensable part and considering further that no
injustice is done, inasmuch as both parties stand on the same footing where no one
enjoys any advantage over the other.
De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
169 SCRA 288, January 20, 1989
Fact that petitioner intentionally did not pay the docket fee because having
been allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant he is not required to pay is in accord with
Sec. 16 of PD 946.
De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
169 SCRA 288, January 20, 1989
When appeal is deemed perfected; The appeal is not perfected on the date the
notice of appeal was filed but on the expiration of the last day to appeal.
APPROPRIATION LAW
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform
175 SCRA 345, July 14, 1989
An appropriation law is one of the primary and specific purpose of which is to
authorize the release of public funds from the treasury. Proclamation No. 131 is not
an appropriation measure. The creation of the fund is only incidental to the main
objective of the proclamation, which is agrarian reform.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
Oarde vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
280 SCRA 236
Award of attorney's fees depends upon the circumstances of each case and lies
within the discretion of the court.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 246
The matter of attorney's fees cannot be touched once and only in the
dispositive portion of the decision, the text itself must expressly state the reason why
attorney's fees are being awarded.
While the judicial discretion in the award of attorney's fees is not entirely left
out, the same, as a rule, must have a factual legal or equitable justification, the matter
cannot and should not be left to speculation and conjecture.
Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals
179 SCRA 5 (1989) citing Espiritu v. Court of Appeals, 20 SCRA 530 (Castillo vs.
Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 530, January 27, 1992
The award of attorney's fees by the trial court is unwarranted since the action
appears to have been filed in good faith.
Magbanua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
137 SCRA 327-328
The petitioners are also entitled to attorney's fees but the size of fees as well as
the damages is subject to the sound discretion of the court.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
The imposition of attorney's fees lies in the discretion of the Court of Agrarian
Relations under Article 2208, No. 11, of the New Civil Code, and is authorized under
Section 55 of Republic Act No. 1199, that applies to tenancy relations those
provisions of existing laws not consistent with said Act.
B
BANKS
Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
143 SCRA 300-301
The Land Bank cannot be ordered to pay DBP the loan obtained thereat by the
landowner whose lands were expropriated under P.D. 27 as said loan has nothing to
do with the PNB loan and DBP is not a party to the suit.
Vda. de Ortiz vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
148 SCRA 685-686
The Land Bank is not obliged to pay interest from October 21, 1972 the date of
effectivity of P.D. 27 up to the date the bank paid the acquisition price for lands
bought under the Land Reform Program.
Mallari vs. Court of Appeals
161 SCRA 504
It is not necessary for the lessee to make a tender of payment and/or
consignation of the amount of the redemption price. A certification issued by the
Land Bank that it will finance the redemption of the property in question is sufficient.
C
CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
162 SCRA 391
The certificate of employment submitted by the petitioner does not indicate
Roaring's hours of work in the said corporation so "as to establish that it is physically
impossible for him to do the work of a tenant.
CERTIORARI
Chico vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
284 SCRA 33
Certiorari; Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot be a substitute for lost appeal.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 404
The Court of Appeals could direct, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction,
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to resolve an application for a
writ of preliminary injunction within a specified period a 10-day period, counted
from receipt of a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, can by no means be
considered arbitrary or hasty.
Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
216 SCRA 25
Settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The right granted to a tenant to change the contract from share tenancy to
leasehold cannot be considered unreasonable or oppressive.
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 authorizing tenant to change from share
to leasehold tenancy is constitutional and valid.
Marcelo vs. Matias
25 SCRA 816
The right of the tenant to change the tenancy contract from one share tenancy
to the leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop-sharing arrangement to
another of the share tenancy, as provided in Section 14 of R.A. No. 1199 is a
constitutional right that has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
Enriquez vs. Cabangon
18 SCRA 81
The validity and constitutionality of the right of the tenant to change the
tenancy system under Section 14 of the Rice Tenancy Act has already been passed
upon and upheld by the Supreme Court in final decisions (Ramos vs. Court of
Agrarian Relations, L-19555, May 29, 1964; Vda. de Macasaet, vs. Court of Agrarian
Relations, et al., L-19750, July 17, 1964).
Reyes vs. Santos
18 SCRA 28
Section 14 of Agricultural Tenancy Law is constitutional.
Tinio vs. Macapagal
19 SCRA 421
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 is constitutional.
Vda. De Macasaet vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 521
Section 14 of the Rice Share Tenancy Act, giving the tenant the right to change
the tenancy system from share to leasehold is valid, being a privilege granted to the
tenant under the exercise of the police power of the state in order to remedy an acute
socio-economic problem existing in the country.
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, while in civil
lease, the purpose may be for any 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.
CLASSIFICATION
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform
175 SCRA 347, July 14, 1989
Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to
each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same
particulars.
Quiban vs. Butalid
189 SCRA 106, August 27, 1990
A compromise agreement is not valid and binding when a party in the case has
not signed the same. If any person signs for and in behalf of such party without being
duly authorized to do so, the said agreement is void and has no legal effect.
Quillian vs. Court of Appeals
169 SCRA 280, January 20, 1989
Parties to a contract should abide in good faith with their contractual
commitments.
Salen vs. Dinglasan
198 SCRA 623, June 28, 1991
Contracts solemnly and deliberately entered into may not be overturned by
inconclusive proof or by reason of mistakes of one of the parties to which the other in
no way has contributed.
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 99, July 21, 1990
Parties are to be placed in status quo which was the condition prevailing prior
to the execution of the void contract.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
175 SCRA 561, July 24, 1989
Under the law on contracts, vitiated consent does not make a contract
unenforceable but merely voidable.
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 703, April 10, 1989
Where the decision of the appellate court did not order the appellant where
anything for or to pay any amount to the appellee, but merely specified the value of
the contract between the parties and defined their rights thereunder, there was nothing
to be executed under such decision, and it was error for the lower court to direct
appellee to ask for execution thereof.
COCONUT LANDS
De los Reyes vs. Espineli
30 SCRA 576
Coconut land is considered agricultural land under both the Agricultural Land
Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals
142 SCRA 137
An agreement which states that the right and obligations of a person allowed
by the landowner to cultivate and take care of his coconut farm, shall be governed by
R.A. 1199, is not abrogated by the subsequent repeal of said law which does not
include coconut lands, inasmuch as the vested rights of a share tenant to security of
tenure would be adversely affected thereby.
Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals
142 SCRA 138
Mere fact that a person was not the one who seeded the land with coconuts
does not mean that he could not be a tenant thereof.
Robles vs. Batacan
154 SCRA 644
Nature of work performed by the respondents' father is that of a tenant on the
land.
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals
113 SCRA 521
Share tenants in coconut lands can redeem the same when landowner sells
them.
COMMISSIONERS REPORT
Republic of the Philippines vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 139592; October 5, 2000
In the absence of any irregularity in the survey and inspection of the subject
properties, and none is alleged, the report of the commissioners deserves full faith and
credit.
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge Br. V, CFI of Bulacan
119 SCRA 223-224
A judgment rendered upon a compromise "is in the nature of a contract and is
in effect an admission by the parties that the judgment is a just determination of their
rights on the facts of the case, had they been proved," and it has upon the parties "the
effect and authority of res judicata."
Jasmin vs. Valera
137 SCRA 214
A compromise agreement entered into in an ejectment case against an
agricultural tenant based on non-payment of rentals, subleasing, and others, is valid
where tenant agree to vacate, in consideration, among others, of condonation of his
unpaid rentals.
Velasquez vs. Magat
158 SCRA 206
Compromise agreement of August 21, 1972 not subject to resolutory term;
occupancy of the land as tenant extinguished as of the end of December 1972. The
end of December marked the end of the relation, not its continuation or resumption.
Algabre vs. Court of Appeals
28 SCRA 1131
The Court of Agrarian Relations decisions on the matter are to the effect that
by virtue of the power granted to it by Section 7 of Republic Act 1267, as amended by
R.A. No. 1409 (creating the CAR), as well as by the Agricultural Tenancy Act of
1954 itself (Sec. 21, Rep. Act No. 1199 as amended by Rep. Act 2263), it had
authority to approve Compromise Agreements although made out of court and
without its intervention, the principal reason for this stand being that "the Court
merely would be achieving the purposes for which it was created to maintain
harmonious relations between the parties and/or prevent future disputes between
them, more effectively."
Jasmin vs. Valera
137 SCRA 213
A court-approved compromise agreement to vacate an agricultural landholding
entered into by the lessee in consideration of condonation of all his back rentals and
his right to all crops harvested for the main crop, is valid and enforceable.
Osmea vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 828
Even more than a contract (which may be enforced by ordinary action for
specific performance) the compromise agreement is part and parcel of the judgment,
and may therefore, be enforced as such by a writ of execution (Serrano vs. Miave, L14678, March 31, 1965).
Vda. De Guilas vs. David
23 SCRA 762-763
Tenancy agreement between the tenant and a third party is not binding upon
the landowner, and subsequently, the latter sued them to surrender the land pursuant
to a compromise agreement entered into between the tenant and the landowner, the
third party cannot invoke the provision on security of tenure of agricultural tenants.
Gabayan vs. Navarro
124 SCRA 608
Where the parties to an agrarian case decide to execute a compromise
agreement the same is approved without need to resolved the jurisdictional issue
raised.
CONCEPTS OF TENANCY
Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals
118 SCRA 484
Tenancy is not purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant
does upon the land. it is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the
understanding when the farmer is installed, and as in this case, their written
agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even
more important.
Gabriel vs. Pangilinan
58 SCRA 591
To fall under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, land must be worked by tenant or
immediate farm household. Persons, therefore, who do not actually work the land
cannot be considered tenants and a person who hires others to do work ceases to be a
tenant.
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
Villaflor vs. Reyes
22 SCRA 385
One of the conclusive presumptions prohibits the tenant from denying the title
of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Ayog vs. Cusi, Jr.
118 SCRA 494
No contempt of court is committed by a party who plowed the land and
destroyed the standing crops of one of the herein petitioners who is not a partydefendant in the ejectment case below. Petitioner's remedy is not contempt but a civil
and/or criminal action.
CONTRACTS
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95684, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 300
Nonpayment, at most, gives him only the right to sue for collection. Generally,
in a contract of sale, payment of the price is a resolutory condition and the remedy of
the seller is to exact fulfillment or, in case of a substantial breach, to rescind the
contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code.
Payment of realty taxes does not necessarily prove ownership must less
stimulation of said contracts.
Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 123905, June 9, 1997
273 SCRA 152
An offer must be clear and definite, while an acceptance must be unconditional
and unbounded, in order that their concurrence can give rise to a perfected contract.
CONTRACTS, TENANCY
Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
4 SCRA 1152
A comparison between the provisions of Section 12 of Agricultural Tenancy
Act (R.A. No. 1199) and those of Act No. 4054 leaves no room for doubt that the
enumeration of the authorized acknowledging officers in section 12 of the prevailing
CROP SHARING
Andres vs. De Santos
55 SCRA 624
Agricultural tenancy act: Right of tenant to change from one crop-sharing
arrangement to another should not be impaired to technicalities.
Estrada vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
4 SCRA 1232
A change in the crop sharing agreement between the landlord and the tenant
under Section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, as amended from a 50-50 to a 7030 basis, cannot be made by the tenant unless he uses his own farm implements and
carabao, and spends for the last harrowing and transplanting without any contribution
or help from the landlord.
Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
4 SCRA 1152
The rejection by the tenant of the landholder's contribution to the cost of final
harrowing and transplanting, if tendered in due time, cannot be justified by the
tenant's right to change the crop sharing arrangement unless the tenant has served
upon the landlord notice of his intention to change such arrangement at the advance
end of the preceding agricultural year.
De Santos vs. Santos
2 SCRA 820
Pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, if the share tenancy contracts
is in writing and is duly registered, the right to change the crop-sharing arrangement
may be exercised at the expiration of the period of contract sought to be changed.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
Section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law, regarding change of system, does
not apply to the enforcement of the crop-sharing ratio in accordance with the actual
contributions of the tenant and the landlord. In the case of a second class riceland, if
the tenant contributed all except the land and one-half of the transplanting expenses,
his share in the harvests would be 62.5% and the landlord's share would be 37.5%.
Any change in the sharing ration is left to the initiative of the tenant.
CULTIVATION
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
175 SCRA 295, September 5, 1989
The term "personal cultivation" cannot be given a restricted connotation to
mean a right personal and exclusive to either lessor or lessee. In either case, the right
extends to the members of the lessor's or lessee's immediate family members.
Latag vs. Banog
16 SCRA 80
A "caretaker" of an agricultural land is also considered "cultivator" of the land.
Camus vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 372
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, in defining the jurisdiction of
the Court of Agrarian Relations, speaks not only of "cultivation" but also of "use" of
agricultural land "where one of the parties work the land," and includes within such
jurisdiction "all those relationships established by law" between said parties.
De los Reyes vs. Espineli
30 SCRA 577
"Cultivation" is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land. It
includes the various phases of farm labor described and provided by law, the
maintenance, repair and weeding of dikes, paddies, and irrigation canals in the
holding. Moreover, it covers attending to the care of the growing plants.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
164 SCRA 570
The definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling, plowing or
harrowing of the land. It includes the promotion to growth and the care of the plants,
or husbanding the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry.
The raising of coconuts is a unique agricultural enterprise.
Almodiel vs. Blanco
5 SCRA 648
Where the controversy involves a relationship which affects the rights of two
litigants over the cultivation and use of any agricultural land, one of the parties
agreeing to furnish the labor, such controversy comes within the jurisdiction of the
Court of Agrarian Relations, as provided for in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267,
as amended.
D
DAMAGES
Oarde vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
280 SCRA 236
Damages cannot be presumed or premised on conjecture or even logic. In
making an award, courts must point specific facts which show a basis for the amount
of compensatory or actual damages.
Galang vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80645, August 3, 1993
225 SCRA 38
Under the Civil Code, private respondents are liable for damages to the injured
party, the petitioners in this case. However, in lieu of actual payment of damages, and
considering the fact that private respondents were in possession of the land during the
entire period that this case was pending, private respondents are no longer entitled to
the interest payments which would have been due from petitioners.
Latag vs. Banog
16 SCRA 88-89
Agrarian court has jurisdiction over tenant's claim for damages.
DEMOLITION
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 379
No demolition of a party's house could be validly effected on the day of service
of the order of execution. An order by a court for the removal of a party's house
"before judgment becomes final and executory" is clearly in violation of Section 8,
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Section 21 of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure.
DEPOSIT
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
249 SCRA 150
There is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to want an expanded
construction of the term "deposit". It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must
be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds".
DISPOSSESSION
Under R.A. No. 3844, a landlord can dispossess a tenant on the ground that his
jobless son will personally till the land. There is no requirement that said child must
first be an experienced farmer.
Calderon vs. De la Cruz
138 SCRA 173-174
R.A. No. 6389 which abolished personal cultivation as a ground for
dispossession of a tenant cannot be given retroactive effect as to those who already
exercised their rights under R.A. 3844.
De Lamera vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 368
Dispossession of the tenant of his landholding may be allowed, in case of the
bona fide intention, either of the landowner or of his relative within the first degree of
consanguinity, to cultivate the land personally or through employment of farm
machinery and implements (Sec. 50, Rep. Act No. 1199).
Feliciano vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
5 SCRA 32
While Section 50(a) Republic Act No. 1199 provides that the bonafide
intention of the landholder to cultivate the land personally, or thru the employment of
farm machinery or implements, is a sufficient case for dispossession of a tenant from
his holding, this provision should not be taken literally.
Lustre vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
10 SCRA 659
Under Sec. 27 of Rep. Act No. 1199, the earnings of the tenant during the
period of unlawful ejectment are not deductible from the award of damages.
Tawatao vs. Garcia
8 SCRA 567
The jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations to order the reinstatement
of tenants unlawfully dispossessed of their landholdings does not depend on whether
or not at the time of the filing of the proper action there was tenancy relation nor does
it amount to a waiver of the right to reinstatement, for Republic Act No. 1199, as
amended, does not provide for a prescriptive period within which to file a complaint
for unlawful dispossession.
Guevarra vs. Santos
18 SCRA 709
The appellants failed "to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to
preserve the improvements existing in their holdings", and, therefore, they are guilty
of a violation of Section 43 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, which is a statutory
ground for dispossession under Section 50(b) thereof.
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
Ernesto Bunye vs. Lourdes Aquino, et al.
G.R. No. 138979; October 9, 2000
Tenant is entitled thereof in the event that tenanted land is converted pursuant
to Section 36, R.A. No. 3844 equivalent to five times the average of the gross
harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years.
Sintos vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 224
A cause of action for disturbance compensation arose from the time the tenants
were ejected.
Tanpingco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
207 SCRA 653, March 31, 1992
Court rules that the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports as the owner
cannot oust the petitioner from the subject Riceland and build a public high school
thereon until after there is payment of the disturbance compensation in accordance
with Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended.
DOCKET FEES
Conrado Colarina vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 117439, February 25, 1999
If the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the
docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no
case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
8 SCRA 195
A literal interpretation of Sec. 39 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by
Republic Act No. 2263, which makes it unlawful for the tenant or the landlord,
without mutual consent, to reap the crop before the date set for its threshing, can
warrant the ejectment of the tenant in the case at bar, who contrary to said provision,
reaped his crop of about two cavans of palay involving P7.70 at the most, as the
landowner's share.
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 78
Viewed within the context of the constitutional mandate and obvious
legislative intent, the provisions of the law should be construed to further their
purpose of redeeming the tenant from his bondage of misery, want and oppression
arising from the onerous terms of his tenancy and to uplift social and financial status.
Mipalar vs. Santos
20 SCRA 935-936
In the interpretation of Republic Act No. 1199, all doubts are to be resolved in
favor of the tenant (Sec. 56).
Quimson vs. De Guzman
7 SCRA 159
The punitive or disabling provisions of Rep. Act No. 1199 cannot be given
retroactive effect, and doubts must be resolved in favor of the tenant.
De Tanedo vs. De la Cruz
32 SCRA 64
In applying Section 50 of the law, the court is enjoined by Section 56 of the
same law to resolve all doubts in favor of the tenant.
DUE PROCESS
Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula Inc., vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 103953, March 25, 1999
In cases of denial of due process, exhaustion of available administrative
remedies is unnecessary. The aggrieved party may seek judicial relief outright.
Relucio III vs. Macaraig, Jr.
173 SCRA 635, May 30, 1989
It has already been settled that what due process abhors is not lack of previous
notice but absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. To satisfy due process, official
action must be responsive to the supremacy of reason and the dictates of justice.
There is no denial of due process where petitioner was afforded every opportunity to
present its case.
E
EARNEST MONEY
Sps. Lacson and Basilio vs. Pineda
40 SCRA 240
The condition that if the vendees fail or refuse to pay the amount (P7,676.00)
within the period ending December 31, 1963, then the whole amount of P9,000.00
paid at the time of the execution of the deed shall be deemed forfeited in favor of the
vendors is not a characteristic of a sale on installments, but it is one usually found in
agreements or promises to sell with "earnest money" to guarantee the vendor from
any loss or damage arising from the non-fulfillment of the obligation of the vendee.
EJECTMENT
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
Diga v. Adriano
133 SCRA 421 [1984]
Gallardo v. Borromeo
161 SCRA 500 [1988]
Bonifacio v. Dizon
175 SCRA 294 [1989]
2 SCRA 622
The ejectment of tenants of an agricultural land is beyond the jurisdiction of
the Court of First Instance, pursuant to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199, which
provides that the same "shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of such
court as may now or hereafter be authorized by law to take cognizance of tenancy
relations and disputes", and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, under which
jurisdiction over the same is vested in the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Garchitorena vs. Panganiban
6 SCRA 339
Ejectment of tenants is justified if failure to pay rentals is not attributable to
extraordinary event.
Tiongson vs. Court of Appeals
130 SCRA 483
Ejectment; There is no agrarian relationship of landlord and tenant where
respondent was allowed to stay and cultivate a portion of land only as a caretaker.
Silva vs. Cabagon
7 SCRA 33
Where the tenant has been working under tenancy in another landholding
without the petitioning landholder's consent, but the latter had not done anything to
assert her right under the law, it is held that petitioner cannot now be heard on that
charge because she has slept on her right and cannot now invoke the protection of the
law.
Gabani vs. Reas
2 SCRA 710
Ejectment of tenants by the landlord from an agricultural land held by the
former under a system of leasehold tenancy is exclusively cognizable by the Court of
Agrarian Relations.
Tiu vs. Court of Appeals
37 SCRA 99-100
Under Sec. 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court, the tenant is not
permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between them.
Tiu vs. Court of Appeals
37 SCRA 100
The Supreme Court had time and again held that the fact of lease and the
expiration of its terms are the only elements of an action for ejectment.
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 247
EMINENT DOMAIN
Panes vs. Visayas State College of Agriculture
G.R. Nos. 56219-56220; G.R. Nos. 56393-56394, November 27, 1996
264 SCRA 708
P.D. 1107 has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality that is not easily
eroded by a mere allegation of its illegality. Hence, respondent VISCA is entitled to
prosecute its expropriation case and be heard on the merits as to the rights that is
claims under P.D. 1107.
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993
222 SCRA 174
Local government units can expropriate agricultural lands without prior
authority from the Department of Agrarian Reform as the determination of the public
use of the property subject for expropriation is considered an expression of legislative
policy.
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
De los Reyes vs. Espineli
30 SCRA 575
In determining the existence of an employee-employer relationship, the
elements that are generally considered are the following: (1) the 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 the relationship.
EMPLOYMENT OF HELPERS
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
162 SCRA 392
Transplanting and harvesting are not among those required by law to be
personally performed by the tenant-farmer; the law expressly allows the employment
of helpers.
ESTOPPEL
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
Defendant is in estoppel to deny receipt of copy of plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration by (a) his failure to call the judge's attention to that fact; (b) his
receipt without protest of the copy of the motion sent to him by the clerk of court by
order of the judge; (c) his failure to set up this particular claim after receipt of court's
resolution reconsidering and revoking the decision in his favor; (d) his failure to
perfect the appeal from the revocatory resolution of the court; and (e) silence and
inaction of defendant for almost four years.
Arellano vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 131
Attack on timeliness of appeal not barred by estoppel.
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
The circumstances outlining estoppel must be unequivocal and intentional, for
it is an exception to standard legal norms and is generally applied only in highly
exceptional and justifiable cases.
Lantican vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 97929, October 22, 1993
227 SCRA 370
Petitioners having invoked the jurisdiction of the DAR are now estopped from
assailing such lack of jurisdiction.
Salen vs. Dinglasan
198 SCRA 624, June 28, 1991
While lack of jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a party's active
participation in the proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop such
party from assailing such lack of jurisdiction.
Prudential Bank vs. Gapultos
181 SCRA 160-161, January 19, 1990
An estoppel may arise from the making of a promise even though without
consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact it
was relied upon and if a refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the
perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice.
EVIDENCE
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
circumstantial, and where the findings of fact of the agrarian court are supported by
substantial evidence, such findings are conclusive and binding on the appellate court.
Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
216 SCRA 26
In agrarian cases, the quantum of evidence required is no more than substantial
evidence.
Tongson vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
215 SCRA 427
As mandated by the Rules of Court, each party must prove his own affirmative
allegation. Court agrees with petitioners that the claim of private respondent has not
been established by preponderance of evidence.
Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
215 SCRA 86
Under the terms of the written agreement signed by Obrique, et al., pursuant to
the livelihood program called "Kilusand Sariling Sikap Program", it was expressly
stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU and the
faculty and staff (participants in the project). The CMU did not receive any share
from the harvest/fruits of the land tilled by the participants. What the CMU collected
was a nominal service fee and land use participant's fee in consideration of all the
kinds of assistance given to the participants by the CMU.
Laureto vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992
312 SCRA 397
Substantial Evidence; In agrarian cases, substantial evidence will suffice to
support factual findings.
Velasquez vs. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 28
The review sought by petitioners does not fall under any of the grounds
warranting the exercise of this Court's discretionary power. The matter of what is the
reasonable redemption price being factual, precludes this Court from reviewing the
factual findings of the appellate court.
Gelos vs. Court of Appeals
208 SCRA 608, May 8, 1992
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence.
Castillo vs. Court of Appeals
Teruez v. IAC,
134 SCRA 414 (1985)
Gagola v. CAR
18 SCRA 992 (1966)
Chavez v. CAR
9 SCRA 412 (1963)
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
Sps. Felipe Buag and Irma Buag vs. CA
G.R. No. 107364, February 25, 1999
A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is essentially an order to
place the prevailing party in possession of the property. If the defendant refuses to
surrender possession of the property to the prevailing party, the sheriff or other proper
officer should oust him.
The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast
rule. It is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one; or (2)
where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the respondent is a department secretary, whose
acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter,
unless actually disapproved by him; or (4) where the circumstances indicating the
urgency of judicial intervention, - Gonzales vs. Hechanova, L-21897, October 22,
1963, 9 SCRA 230; Abaya vs. Villageas, L-25641, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA
1034; Mitra vs. Subido, L-21691, September 15, 1967, 21 SCRA 127. Said principle
may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy, (Cipriano vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291), when there is no due process
observed (Villanos vs. Subido, 45 SCRA 299), or where the protestant has no other
recourse (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637).
EXPENSES
Castro vs. Court of Appeals
99 SCRA 723
Agricultural tenant should be reimbursed for value of improvements he
introduced in the landholding.
Espiritu vs. David
2 SCRA 350
Expenses for the improvement of crop, case arising from tenant's debt from
landlord for purchase of carabao is within jurisdiction of court of agrarian relations.
Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
4 SCRA 1153
Under Section 34 of Republic Act No. 1199, reimbursements for either parties
contribution are not allowed. Acceptance, therefore by the tenant of the landlord's
belated contribution should be considered as loans payable upon liquidation of the
crop.
Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
4 SCRA 1160
Section 22 of R.A. No. 1199 does not provide for indemnity for the value of
permanent improvements existing on the land, other than the tenant's dwelling, or for
the expenses in clearing the same upon taking possession thereof originally by the
tenant. Any award therefore, that may be made with regard to the value of said
permanent improvements, or the expenses for the clearing of the land is improper and
unauthorized.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
F
FARM PRACTICES
Belmi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
7 SCRA 812
The mere fact that the expected quantity of harvest, as visualized and
calculated by agricultural experts, is not actually realized, or that the harvest did not
increase, is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the tenants failed to follow
proven farm practices.
FINAL JUDGMENT
Domingo Celendro vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 131099, July 20, 1999
It is " a vested interest which it is right and equitable that the government
should recognize and protect, and of which the individual could not be deprived,
arbitrarily without injustice." In the present case, the winning party must not be
deprived through a mere subterfuge, of the fruits of a final verdict.
FINDING OF FACTS
Cruz vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 223
That fact that respondent did not observe regular working hours indicates that
respondent is a tenant not a hired laborer.
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
162 SCRA 393-394
The determination that a person is a tenant-farmer is a factual conclusion made
by the trial court on the basis of evidence directly available to it and will not be
reversed on appeal except for the most compelling reasons. As we do not see any such
reason in the instant case, we are not justified in rejecting such findings, more so
since they have been affirmed in toto by the respondent court in the exercise of its
own powers of review.
Chavez vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
9 SCRA 412
A factual finding by the Court of Agrarian Relations, when supported by
substantial evidence, may no longer be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Ibaviosa vs. Tuazon
21 SCRA 1438
The conclusion reached by the respondent agrarian court regarding the
timeliness and validity of the tenant's exercise of his right to change tenancy system
between him and the landowner, being a question of fact, should not be disturbed on
appeal.
Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals
87 SCRA 263
Finding of the Court of Appeals on a question of fact whether or not
petitioner voluntarily surrendered his landholding by means of a document entitled
"Kasulatan ng pagsasauli ng karapatan" will not generally be disturbed.
Andres vs. De Santos
55 SCRA 624
The findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence is not binding.
De Chavez vs. Zobel
55 SCRA 26
Where all the facts are stated in the decision and the issue is the correctness of
the conclusions drawn therefrom, the question is one of law.
FISHPONDS
Isidro vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 503
It is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land.
Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 717
It is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land. In Gabriel vs. Pangilinan, 58
SCRA 590, 597, this Court rules that land in which fish is produced is classified as
agricultural land and the mere fact that a person works in an agricultural land does not
necessarily make him a leasehold tenant within the purview of Section 4 of Republic
Act No. 1199.
Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 718
Where a fishpond is covered by a civil law lease the rights of persons hired by
the lessee cannot rise higher than the lessee.
Gabriel vs. Pangilinan
58 SCRA 590
Under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, "agricultural land" specifically mentions
fishponds and prescribes the considerations for the use thereof.
Tawatao vs. Garcia
8 SCRA 566-567
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 226 is applicable to
fishponds.
Camus vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 371
The conversion of fishponds into saltbeds does not change their character as
agricultural into mineral lands.
FORCIBLE ENTRY
Villaflor vs. Reyes
22 SCRA 385
FORUM SHOPPING
De Dios vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 127623, June 19, 1997
274 SCRA 520
Forum Shopping; Circular No. 28-91; The requirement of Circular No. 28-91
for a certification against forum shopping does not apply to a motion for extension
since the same is not the petition spoken of in said Circular.
FRAUD
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383
In the instant case, the unconscionable failure of a party's lawyer to inform
such client of receipt of the court order and the motion for execution and to take the
appropriate action against either or both to protect his client's rights amounted to
connivance with the prevailing party which constituted extrinsic fraud.
H
HABEAS CORPUS
Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 326
Although it is well-accepted that a court should always strive to settle the
controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of
future litigation, this rule cannot apply if the result would negate the rational
application of the Rules of Court.
Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 324
Once the person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question
his detention by a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus his remedy
then is the quashal of the information and/or the warrant of arrest duly issued.
Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 323
In all petitions for habeas corpus, the court must inquire into every phase and
aspect of petitioner's detention from the moment petitioner was taken into custody
up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the petition and "only after such
a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution
has been satisfied."
HARVEST SHARING
Reynaldo Bejasa and Erlinda Bejasa vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 108941; July 6, 2000
Harvest sharing is not proven since no receipt, or any other evidence was
presented.
HARVESTING OF CROPS
Ignacio vs. De Guzman
5 SCRA 1161
Permission of the landlord before a tenant to harvest the crops is required only
if the reaping or threshing take place "at any time previous to the date set" therefore.
HOMESTEADS
Alita vs. Court of Appeals
170 SCRA 706-707, February 27, 1989
Both the Philippine Constitution and the CARL respect the superiority of the
homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform
statue.
Benzonan vs. Court of Appeals
205 SCRA, 515-517, January 27, 1992
Petitioners' proposed repurchase of the property does not fall within the
purpose, spirit and meaning of section 119 of the Public Land Act, authorizing
redemption of the homestead from any vendee thereof.
Patricio vs. Bayog
112 SCRA 42
The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the
poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest
house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the
satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens to their homes and to the
things necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. They have a
right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human beings, and the State
which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness is under a duty to safeguard
the satisfaction of this vital right.
Right of homesteader or his heirs to own a piece of land for their residence and
livelihood prevail over the right of tenants to security of tenure over the landholding.
I
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 71
Section 49 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that the judgment, with
respect to the matter directly adjudged therein, is conclusive between the parties and
their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action.
Ualat vs. Ramos
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996
265 SCRA 345
Sabio vs. Ramos
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-588, December 6, 1996
265 SCRA 345
Knowledge of existing agrarian legislation and prevailing jurisprudence on the
subject, together with an ordinary degree of prudence, would have prompted
respondent Judge to refer the case to the DAR for preliminary determination of the
real nature of the parties' relationship, as required by law.
Ualat vs. Ramos
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996
265 SCRA 346
Ignorance of land, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one
certainly not judges.
Ualat vs. Ramos
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996
265 SCRA 347
Valera
Those who wield the judicial gavel have the duty to study our laws and their
latest wrinkles they owe it to the public to be legally knowledgeable for ignorance
of the law is the mainspring of injustice.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383
It is a settled rule that a final and executory judgment may be set aside in three
ways, viz., (1) by a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38; (2) when the
judgment is void for want of jurisdiction, by direct action, as certiorari, or by
collateral attack; and (3) when the judgment was obtained by fraud and Rule 38
cannot be applied, by civil action under Article 1114 of the Civil Code.
make him a member of the tenants "immediate farm household", in accordance with
the law at the time, which is the status he claims to have.
INCAPACITY
De Guzman vs. Santos
6 SCRA 796
The requirement that the landholder must work the land himself personally
does not preclude him from entrusting the cultivation of the holding to another person
or persons in case of illness or temporary incapacity, or to avail himself of the labor
of the members of his farm household, or the use of the Filipino practice of exchange
of labor system, commonly known as the "amuyo" or "Tagnawa" in the Ilocos
regions, "palusong" or "bayanihan" to the Tagalogs and "salibot" or "ayon-ayon" in
the Western Visayas.
Silva vs. Cabagon
7 SCRA 33
The admission by the tenant that he was unable to plow the land for the second
crop of an agricultural year did not establish the fact of permanent incapacity but
merely his incapacity for that specific period. Consequently, the applicable law is not
section 9 but section 24, paragraph (b) of the Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act
No. 1199).
INDISPENSABLE PARTY
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
162 SCRA 392-393
An indispensable party is one without whom the action cannot be finally
determined, whose interests in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought
are so bound up with that of the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the
proceeding is an absolute necessity.
INJUNCTION
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals
168 SCRA 439, December 14, 1988
The CAR judge can issue a restraining order which is to last for only twenty
(20) days.
Prudential Bank vs. Gapultos
181 SCRA 160, January 19, 1990
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
Del Rosario vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
120 SCRA 422
Section 17 of P.D. 946 refers to interlocutory orders issued by the CAR which
cannot be elevated for review while trial is pending, not to orders or decisions
rendered after trial, which are appealable.
INTERVENORS
Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al.
G.R. No. 131457, August 19, 1999
Intervenors, who are admittedly not regular but seasonal farmworkers, have no
legal or actual and substantive interest over the subject land inasmuch as they have no
right to own the land. Rather, their right is limited only to a just share of the fruits of
the land.
Absent any definitive finding of the Department of Agrarian Reform,
intervenors cannot as yet be deemed vested with sufficient interest in the controversy
as to be qualified to intervene in this case.
INTERVENTION
Toledo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
8 SCRA 499
Persons having interest in the subject matter of the litigation may be allowed to
intervene in the action in order to avoid multiplicity of suits.
J
JUDGMENT
Tanpingco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
207 SCRA 650, March 31, 1992
An action must be brought against the real party-in-interest or against a party
which may be bound by the judgment to be reversed therein.
Relucio III vs. Macaraig, Jr.
173 SCRA 635-636, May 30, 1989
Court will not normally substitute its judgment for that of the administrative
body in the absence of any important cause therefor.
Tenants of the Estate of Dr. Jose Sison vs. Court of Appeals
210 SCRA 545, June 29, 1992
The orders for the issuance of Certificates of Land Transfer to the petitioners
had not become final and executory because the certificates had been marked "under
protest" on orders of Secretary Estrella.
Miranda vs. Court of Appeals
141 SCRA 302-303
An agreement already declared null and void by a competent court in once case
can no longer be relitigated.
Belleza vs. Dimson Farms Inc.
44 SCRA 386
There is no legal impediment whatsoever to the agrarian court setting aside its
decision and reopening the case for the sole purpose of enabling said court to render a
new judgment identifying specifically the lands to which the petitioners should be
reinstated.
Cunanan vs. Aguilar
85 SCRA 47
A court judgment is enforceable against a person not actually a party to the
case where he was instituted as tenant by the defendant therein who was declared not
a tenant and was ejected from the landholding in question.
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
Where the decision of the trial court is not appealed and allowed to become
final, the same becomes the law of the case and cannot anymore be set aside by the
judge.
Ayog vs. Cusi
118 SCRA 493
A judgment cannot be enforced against petitioners who are not defendants in
the case of ejectment below.
Ernesto vs. Court of Appeals
116 SCRA 755
A judgment of the court of appeals that become final by reason of the mistake
of the herein petitioner's lawyer may still be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme
Court. Particularly where the Supreme Court already gave due course to the petition
for review.
Ernesto vs. Court of Appeals
116 SCRA 757
Laborers should not be made to suffer due to mistake of their lawyer and the
Court of Appeals that led to the judgment becoming final otherwise the constitutional
mandate of protecting labor will not be serve.
De Borja vs. Court of Appeals
163 SCRA 175
Once a judgment has become final, the issues therein should be laid to rest.
Villaflor vs. Reyes
22 SCRA 385-386
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential
to an effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has become
final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of
the verdict.
Del Rosario vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
120 SCRA 423
The dispositive part does not always constitute a judgment and the judicial
pronouncements in the body of the decision must be considered.
Anduiza vs. Dy-Kia
29 SCRA 199
Under Section 4, Rule 43, in relation to Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court,
judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations becomes final and executory upon the
expiration of 15 days from notice of the order, ruling or decision.
Carandang vs. Cabatuando
53 SCRA 384
JUDGES
Abibuag vs. Estonina
58 SCRA 49
Remark by judge that complainant is troublesome does not constitute
interference with farmer's right to self-organization.
Abibuag vs. Estonina
58 SCRA 50
It is the duty and responsibility of judges to refrain from making remarks about
tenancy problems that could be misunderstood by tenants present.
Macandile vs. Macalino
85 SCRA 330
A judge of the agrarian court who has fully heard a case may render a decision
thereon even after he has been transferred to another station.
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
Under the rules, judicial admission cannot be contradicted unless shown to
have been made by palpable mistake.
JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
192 SCRA 52, December 4, 1990
It has been established that this Court will assume jurisdiction over a
constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential requisites of a judicial
inquiry into such a question are first satisfied.
JURISDICTION
Cipriano Centeno vs. Ignacia Centeno
G.R. No. 140825; October 13, 2000
Under Section 50, R.A. No. 6657, the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction
to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform
program.
Laguna Estates Devt. Corp. vs. CA, et al.
G.R. Nos. 119357 and 119375; July 5, 2000
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy
relationship between the parties.
Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000
Nothing contradictory between the provision of Sec. 50 granting the DAR
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and
exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform" which includes the determination of questions of just compensation,
and the provision of Sec. 57 granting RTC "original and exclusive jurisdiction" over
(1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowner, and (2)
prosecutions of criminal offenses under R.A. No. 6657.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 128557, December 29, 1999
Although it is true that Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the Special
Agrarian Courts shall have jurisdiction over the final determination of just
compensation cases, it must be noted that petitioner never contested the valuation of
the PARAD. Thus, the land valuation stated in its decision became final and
executory.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 126332, November 16, 1999
It is clear from Section 57 that the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a Special
Agrarian Court has "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowner". This "original and exclusive"
jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in
administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC
an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.
Jaime Morta, Sr., et al. vs. Jaime Occidental, et al.
G.R. No. 123417, June 10, 1999
In Vda. de Tangub vs. Court of appeals, we held that the jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the following:
a)
adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian
reform;
b)
resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related
problems; and
c)
approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or
readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial,
industrial and other non-agricultural uses.
Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula Inc., vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 103953, March 25, 1999
DARAB may only entertain appeals from decisions or orders of DAR officials
other than the Secretary.
Domingo Celendro vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 131099, July 20, 1999
The jurisdiction of the DARAB is merely to "determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters." Nothing in its charter confers upon it the power to review
findings of court.
Chico vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
284 SCRA 33
The rule has always been to the effect that the jurisdiction of a Court, as well
as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the averments in the
complaint and not by the defenses contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it
would not be too difficult to have a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings
unduly delayed by simple stratagem.
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 298
The rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application
in this case, since the questions on the identity of the land in dispute and the factual
qualification of private respondent as an awardee of a sales application require a
technical determination by the Bureau of Lands as the administrative agency with the
expertise to determine such matters.
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 297
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction courts cannot and will not resolve a
controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 404
Under 50 of R.A. No. 6657, it is the DAR which is vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform,
except those falling under, the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 406
The DAR's exclusive original jurisdiction is exercised through hierarchically
arranged agencies, namely, the DARAB, RARAD and PARAD, the latter two
exercising "delegated authority" while the first exercising appellate jurisdiction over
resolutions, orders, decisions and other dispositions of the RARAD and the PARAD,
and "functional supervision" over the RARAD and the PARAD.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
263 SCRA 758
Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies.
Thus Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial Courts, are given
original and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2) "the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]." The provision of 50 must
be construed in harmony with this provision by considering cases involving the
determination of just compensation and criminal cases for violations of R.A. No.
6657 as expected from the plenitude of power conferred on the DAR.
Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 326
Section 56 and 57 of R.A. No. 6657 vest upon the Regional Trial Court acting
as a Special Agrarian Court, with jurisdiction over the two classes of agrarian related
cases: (1) "petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and
(2) "prosecution of all criminal offenses" under the same law.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
263 SCRA 760
What agrarian adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a
preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to
the courts the ultimate power to decide the question.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
263 SCRA 759
It would subvert the "original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC for the
DAR to vest original jurisdiction in compensation cases in administrative officials
and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.
Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 325
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon the allegations made in
the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover
upon the claim asserted therein.
Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 378
There is nothing in Section 36 of B.P. Blg. 129 which bars the MCTC from
taking cognizance of a belatedly filed answer; The Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure, as well as it predecessor, do not provide that an answer filed after the
reglementary period should be expunged from the records as a matter of fact, there
is no provision for an entry of default if a defendant fails to file his answer.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 379
Where the answer filed asserts agricultural tenancy relationship between the
parties, which is clearly evidenced by their Agricultural Leasehold Contract and the
Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold, and even if this assertion per se does not
automatically divest the MCTC of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case, in view of
the defense asserted, the MCTC should hear and receive the evidence for the precise
purpose of determining whether or not it possesses jurisdiction over the case.
Pagara vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96882, March 12, 1996
254 SCRA 606
The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. 129) vested on RTC exclusive
original jurisdiction in all civil actions and special proceedings theretofore falling
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Machete vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995
250 SCRA 177
The resolution by the DAR of the agrarian dispute is to the best advantage of
the parties since it is in a better position to resolve agrarian disputes, being the
administrative agency presumably possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.
Machete vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995
established by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the cultivation
and use of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land. The Court is thus
empowered to act where there is a legal relationship between the parties fighting
before it. Such relationship must necessarily be that of agricultural tenancy.
Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
215 SCRA 87
Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 confers to the DAR quasi-judicial powers as
follows: The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform.
Tiongson vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 85403-06, September 23, 1992
214 SCRA 197
The rule is settled that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in
force at the time of the commencement of the action.
Quismundo vs. Court of Appeals
201 SCRA 609-610, September 13, 1991
Executive Order No. 229 vests in the Department of Agrarian Reform quasijudicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters.
Quismundo vs. Court of Appeals
201 SCRA 610, September 13, 1991
Republic Act No. 6657 contains provisions which evince and support the
intention of the legislature to vest in the Department of Agrarian Reform exclusive
jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters.
Vinzons-Magana vs. Estrella
201 SCRA 537, September 13, 1991
Determination of just compensation by the DAR is by no means final and
conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party.
Vinzons-Magana vs. Estrella
201 SCRA 536, September 13, 1991
The constitutionality of P.D. No. 27 from which Letter of Instructions No. 474
and Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 1978 are derived, is now well settled.
Ancheta vs. Court of Appeals
200 SCRA 408, August 1991
Leasehold relation cannot be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or
period in a leasehold contract or by the sale, alienation or transfer or conveyance of
the legal possession of the landholding.
JURISDICTION, COURTS
Angel vs. Inopiquez
It was not within the contemplation of the legislature in approving the tenancy
laws that persons occupying positions of general managerial character in agricultural
enterprises should be considered in the same category as farm laborers and other farm
hands as to put claims for salaries and other forms of emolument and compensation
for personal services of such general managers within the jurisdiction of the agrarian
courts.
Ira vs. Zafra
6 SCRA 513
The stipulation agreed upon between the plaintiffs and the defendants allowing
the latter to work and share on the land, converted the detainer case into a tenancy
matter, the termination of which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of
Agrarian Relations.
Arevalo vs. Benedicto
58 SCRA 187
Violations of Agrarian Law is within jurisdiction of agrarian courts.
JUST COMPENSATION
Panes vs. Visayas State College of Agriculture
G.R. Nos. 56219-20; G.R. Nos. 56393-94, November 27, 1996
264 SCRA 709
P.D. No. 1533 determines the just compensation in expropriation cases to be
the fair and current market value declared by the owner of the property sought to be
expropriated or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower.
As such, the determination of just compensation, by virtue of the enactment of P.D.
No. 1533, was converted from being a judicial prerogative to an executive decision.
Because the executive determination of just compensation is eminent domain
proceedings renders the court inutile in a matter which under the Constitution is
reserved to them for final determination, we declared P.D. No. 1533 to be
unconstitutional and void in the case of Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay.
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993
222 SCRA 175
The fixing of just compensation in expropriation proceedings shall be made in
accordance with Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and not on the basis of the valuation
declared in the tax declaration of the subject property by the owner or assessor which
has been declared unconstitutional.
Association of Small Landowners of the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 351, July 14, 1989
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court
that the measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to
intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the
equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full,
ample.
Association of Small Landowners of the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 350, July 14, 1989
The Court declares that the content and manner of the just compensation
provided for in the CARP Law is not violative of the Constitution.
Determination of Just Compensation, addressed to the courts of justice and
may not be usurped by any other branch.
National Housing Authority vs. Reyes
123 SCRA 245, June 29, 1983
There being no question raised as to the validity of P.D. 757, P.D. 42, P.D. 464
and P.D. 1224. The respondent judge should have followed the rule of valuation
therein stated on matters of just compensation in expropriation cases, that the lower
value made by the landowner should be the basis for fixing said just price.
Philippine National Bank vs. Amores
155 SCRA 446-447
Preamble of PD 251 eloquently articulates government intent to implement the
state policy of "diverting landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development,"
PNB is one of the government resources contemplated in the preamble.
Association of Rice & Corn Producers of the Philippines Inc. vs. The National Land
Reform Council
113 SCRA 799
The provision on the compensation of the landholder affected by the operation
of the land Reform Code is considered a judicial question.
Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay
149 SCRA 308
The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The executive
department or the legislature may make the initial determination but when a party
claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not
be taken for public use without just compensation. No statute, decree or executive
order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings.
Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed
compensation.
L
LAND BANK BONDS
LAND TITLES
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 125
The annotation in the Transfer Certificate of Title, stating that the land covered
thereby is not tenanted, cannot be regarded as conclusive upon the courts of justice as
to the legal nature and incidents of the relationship between the landowner and the
persons therein.
Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994
233 SCRA 626
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence not only of ownership of the land
referred but also its location.
LAND TRANSFER
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 166
Stipulation in Deed of Sale limiting disposition of land within five years binds
vendee's heirs.
Velasquez v. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 29
Transferee of agricultural land could be asked to sell land to lessee.
Velasquez v. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 28
Sale of agricultural land is valid even if not accompanied by affidavit of nontenancy where sale authorized by court nor lack of notice to lessee affect its validity.
LANDHOLDER
LAND USE
Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeal, et al.
G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999
Land Use refers to the manner of utilization of land, including its allocation,
development and management.
M
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
168 SCRA 240, December 5, 1988
The elements of the crime of malicious mischief are: 1. The offender
deliberately caused damage to the property of another; 2. The damage caused did not
constitute arson or crimes involving destruction; 3. The damage was caused
maliciously by the offender.
MANGO TREES
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 247
P.D. No. 316 referred only to agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and
corn.
MECHANIZATION OF FARMS
De Santos vs. Acosta
4 SCRA 359
While managerial discretion should be conceded to the landowner, and it
would ordinarily be his prerogative to decide what portion of his land should be
mechanized, the bona fide exercise thereof can be tested to determine if it conforms to
legislative measures enacted pursuant to the police power of the State, one of which is
Section 50(a) of R.A. No. 1199, as amended.
It is evident that P.D. No. 946 in the interest of the expeditious administration
of justice empowers the Court of Appeals to dispense with memoranda in deciding
agrarian cases.
Ty vs. Elale
115 SCRA 30
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we hold that, as a matter of orderly procedure
and to dispel the impression that a litigant in an agrarian case has been denied due
process or was not accorded a hearing in the Court of Appeals, it is advisable that if
the Appellate Court finds that memoranda are not necessary, it should at least issue a
notice to the parties that the case is submitted for decision without any memoranda.
MODE OF COMPENSATION
Edgardo Santos vs. LBP, et al.
G.R. No. 137431; September 7, 2000
Must be paid in the manner provided by R.A. No. 6657, that is, in cash and
bonds.
MORTGAGES
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 72
The land being an agricultural one, and considering the ocular inspection
conducted in 1978 when P.D. No. 27 had been effect for some time, the mortgagee's
suspicion that the land was tenanted should have been aroused by the existence of a
farmer on the land other than the mortgagors themselves.
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 70
adverse party. However, the defect is cured if a subsequent motion attaches photostat
copies of registry receipt showing that original motion was received by adverse
counsel and this is denied or disapproved.
Canturna vs. Court of Appeals
70 SCRA 564
Filing of notice of appeal does not constitute abandonment of motion for
reconsideration where said motion was actually acted upon by the court.
N
NEW TRIAL
Chingan vs. La Guardia
17 SCRA 541
Motion for new trial should be supported by affidavit of merits.
Chingan vs. La Guardia
17 SCRA 540-541
Failure to receive notice of hearing is not a ground for new trial because if
negligence that is not excusable, considering the antecedents of the case.
NON-TENANTED LANDS
Castro vs. Court of Appeals
99 SCRA 723
Agricultural lands which are non-tenanted lands are not covered by P.D. No.
27.
NOTICES
landlord regarding the change of tenancy system had, therefore, been duly complied
with.
O
OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 246
Neither Section 6 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. 6657)
nor Sec. 1 of E.O. 407 was intended to impair the obligation of contracts earlier
concluded.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 245
In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the
extinguishments or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of
the event which constitutes the condition.
Galang vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80645, August 3, 1993
225 SCRA 38
Rescission on ground of "impossible condition" is not proper absent proof of
status of "encargado" as tenant.
Intestate of Estate of the late Ricardo P. Presbitero Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102432, January 21, 1993
217 SCRA 374
The validity or compliance of a contract cannot be left to the will of one of the
contracting parties.
Intestate of Estate of the late Ricardo P. Presbitero Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102432, January 21, 1993
217 SCRA 373
In the interpretation of contracts, it is the intention of the contracting parties,
the literal meaning of the stipulations that shall control. Furthermore, subsequent or
contemporaneous acts of the contracting parties shall be considered in judging their
intention.
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
Rescission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach but
only for such substantial and fundamental breach as would defeat the very object of
the parties in making the agreement.
When the obligee accepts the performance knowing its incompleteness or
irregularity and without expressing any protest or obligation, the obligation is deemed
fully complied with.
OBLIGATIONS TO HEIRS
Natividad vs. De Guzman
1 SCRA 830
Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court applies to the obligations of a
decedent transmissible to his heirs in general, not to obligations of the decedent with
particular reference to land or properties under tenancy.
ORDER OF EXECUTION
Sps. Felipe Buag and Irma Buag vs. CA
G.R. No. 107364, February 25, 1999
Generally, an order of execution is not appealable because otherwise a case
would never end. If the order of execution cannot be appealed, neither can the order
of demolition issued in pursuance thereof be appealable.
OVERSEER
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 123
The act of an overseer in hiring agricultural lessees with the knowledge and
acquiescence of the landholder validated the relationship thereby created.
OWNERSHIP
Tanpingco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
207 SCRA 652, March 31, 1992
The owner has the right to dispose of a thing without other limitations than
those established by law.
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
P
PARI DELICTO
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 98, July 21, 1990
Pari delicto doctrine is not applicable to a homestead which has been illegally
sold in violation of the homestead law.
PARTIES
Antonio Samaniego, et al. vs. Vic Alvarez Aguila
G.R. No. 125567
It is clear that petitioners' failure to implead the Office of the President does
not warrant the dismissal of the case as it is in accordance with this Circular. It is not
true that the Office of the President is not included within the scope of this circular.
The absence of an affidavit of merit is not fatal where the petition itself, which
is under oath, recites the circumstances or facts which constitute the grounds for the
petition. The oath elevates the petition of the same category as the affidavit.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 381
In view of the unusual and peculiar circumstances of the instant case, where
unless some form of relief is made available to the aggrieved party, the grave injustice
and irreparable injury that visited him through no fault or negligence on his part will
only be perpetuated, the petition for relief from judgment which he filed may be
allowed or treated, pro hac vice, either as an exeption to the rule, or a regular appeal
to the RTC, or even an action to annul the order (decision) of the MCTC.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 378
Section 2 of Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court does not only refer to
judgments but also to orders, or any other proceedings.
Under the rules, even assuming the validity of the extension, the motion should
have been denied outright for tardiness as the order sought to be reconsidered had
already long become final.
Intestate Estate of the Late Ricardo P. Presbitero, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102432, January 21, 1993
217 SCRA 372
A motion for postponement is not a matter of right, it is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court.
POLICE POWER
Philippine National Bank vs. Remigio
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 363
Police power subordinates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.
Philippine National Bank vs. Remigio
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 362
The Constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is
limited by the exercise of the police power of the state; The reason being that public
welfare is superior to private rights.
Association of Small Landowners in the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 346, July 14, 1989
Property condemned under Police Power is noxious or intended for a noxious
purpose is not compensable.
Association of Small Landowners in the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 346, July 14, 1989
A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is a
concurrence of the lawful subject method.
Valencia vs. Surtida
2 SCRA 622
Laws enacted in the exercise of police power, to which Republic Act No. 1199
belongs, may constitutionally affect tenancy relations created before the enactment of
effectivity thereof.
Del Rosario vs. De los Santos
22 SCRA 1196
Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 1199 is a valid exercise of police power.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion rep. By Demetria Durolfo Asuncion vs. Jesus Santiago, et
al.
G.R. No. 115741, March 9, 1999
The writ of preliminary injunction is issued by the court to prevent threatened
or continuous irremediable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly
studied and adjudicated. Its sole objective is to prevent the status quo until the merits
of the case can be heard fully.
PRESCRIPTION
Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals
191 SCRA 880-881, December 3, 1990
Section 38 of Republic Act No. 3844 provides that "an action to enforce any
cause of action under this code shall be barred if not commenced within three (3)
years after such cause of action accrued." The law does not specifically require a
judicial action, hence, it can be an administrative action.
PROCEDURE
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
177 SCRA 295, September 5, 1989
It is the duty of the attorney to inform the court promptly of his client's death,
incapacity or incompetency during the pendency of the action and to give the name
and residence of his executor, administrator, guardian or other legal representative.
Angel vs. Inopiquez
169 SCRA 130, January 13, 1989
PD 946 being a special law, it shall have precedence over the Rules of Court
which is of general applicability.
Angel vs. Inopiquez
169 SCRA 130, January 13, 1989
Rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid technical sense.
Valino vs. Muoz
35 SCRA 413
Absence of verification is a formal, not jurisdictional defect.
Gamalog vs. Court of Appeals
30 SCRA 591-592
The change in procedure does not affect the nature of the proceeding as an
appeal by way of certiorari.
Ferrer vs. Villamor
60 SCRA 107
Parties to action must be real party in interest, not mere apoderado.
Espaol vs. Court of Appeals
124 SCRA 622-623
The CAR should have sent its decision to the "MAR Office, Kapatagan, Lanao
del Norte" rather than to BALA, MAR, Diliman, Quezon City.
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
Court is not bound by technical rules of evidence and procedure.
Molino vs. Court of Appeals
115 SCRA 799
Ex-parte hearing is allowed under PD 946 provided both parties and counsel
duly notified.
De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 171
The mere fact that the constitutionality of a law is raised in another case
pending in the Supreme Court is not a valid reason for suspending the proceedings in
a present case. Laws are considered valid until declared unconstitutional, and until
then courts are duty bound to enforce them.
Canturna vs. Court of Appeals
70 SCRA 563
Procedural requirements of R.A. 5440, on appeals from the decision of the
Court of Agrarian Relations may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice.
Magno-Adamos vs. Bagasao
162 SCRA 747
The remand of a case to the lower courts for reception of evidence is not
necessary if this Court could resolve the dispute on the records before it (See
Hechanova v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 550). In the case of Origas & Co., Ltd.
Partnership v. Hon. Ruiz, et al. (148 SCRA 326, 341), this Court further holds that: "x
x x such time consuming procedure may be properly dispensed with to resolve the
issue (Quisumbing v. Court of appeals, L-60364, June 23, 1983, 122 SCRA 709-710)
where there is enough basis to end the basic controversy between the parties here and
now, dispensing with procedural steps which would not anyway affect substantially
the merits of their respective claims.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
PUBLIC AUCTION
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 73
A purchaser at a public auction is only substituted to and acquired the right,
title, interest and claim of the judgment debtor or mortgagor to the property as of the
time of the levy.
R
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
Ejectment, accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria make up the three
kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.
REDEMPTION
Gerardo Rupa, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G. R. No. 80129, January 25, 2000
The right of redemption is validly exercised upon compliance with the
following requirements: (a) the redemptioner must be an agricultural lessee or share
tenant; (b) the land must have been sold by the owner to a third party without prior
written notice of the sale given to the lessee or lessees and the DAR in accordance
with Section 11, RA 3844, as amended; (c) only the area cultivated by the agricultural
lessee may be redeemed; (d) the right of redemption must be exercised within 180
days from notice; and e) there must be an actual tender or valid consignation of the
entire amount which is the reasonable price of the land sought to be redeemed.
therefore, premature and in clear violation of the Circular No. 29, series of 1973
implementing P.D. No. 316 in relation to P.D. No. 27.
Graza vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 39-40
Mandatory requirement of a certification of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
on whether or not an ejectment case involving the removal of a tenant of agricultural
land is property for trial by the agrarian court.
Graza vs. Court of Appeals
163 SCRA 40
Secretary's determination of the relationship between the parties cannot be
final and conclusive on the lower court.
Puertollano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
156 SCRA 188
Said order settles the issue of whether the case should be referred to the MAR
pursuant to P.D. 316 and 1038 and concludes the right of private respondent to such
referral, hence, it is a final order, that is appealable.
Caballero vs. Alfonso, Jr.
153 SCRA 155
Presidential Decree No. 1038 is not an undue encroachment on the
independence of the judiciary.
Caballero vs. Alfonso, Jr.
153 SCRA 155-156
The referral of a case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not "terminate"
but merely suspends a proceeding.
Curso vs. Court of Appeals
128 SCRA 568
Referral of preliminary determination of rights of tenant-farmers and the
landowner to Ministry of Land Reform is not necessary, where tenancy relationship
between the parties is admitted in the pleading.
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 427
Requirements of P.D. 1038 is not applicable to the instant case.
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 247-248
Under Section 3 of P.D. 1038, a case already submitted for decision before any
court was exempted from the requirement of referral to the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform for certification purposes.
REINSTATEMENT OF TENANT
Espaol vs. Court of Appeals
124 SCRA 623
An agreement limiting agrarian tenancy to two years is against the law. Tenant
was correctly reinstated.
Alarcon vs. Santos
5 SCRA 558
Expiration of tenancy contract does not terminate outright relationship.
Yusay vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
135 SCRA 256
In case reinstatement would be ordered, there is need of establishing the
identity and the area of the lands and the respective portions to which the tenants
would be entitled to be reinstated, as well as of determining the qualification to
succeed thereto of the surviving spouse or next of kin in case the original tenant is no
longer living.
Defensor vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 1
Should the vendor a retro repurchase the landholding from which the tenant
had been ejected by the vendee a retro, said tenant would be entitled to be reinstated
in the landholding.
Ilagan vs. Adame
10 SCRA 645
In sale with right to repurchase; a tenant has a right to reinstatement after
repurchase.
Catorce vs. Court of Appeals
RELIQUIDATION
Yusay vs. Tugba
7 SCRA 262
An accounting between a landowner and an agricultural tenant is a statement
made by the former of the contributions made by both, the expenses incurred, the
amount harvested, the sharing system followed by the parties and the share actually
received by each. A reliquidation, on the other hand, involves the determination bases
either upon the accounting made by the landholder, or upon the facts as determined
by the court, of the share to which each party is entitled.
Benson vs. Ocampo
6 SCRA 998
An accounting between a landowner and an agricultural tenant is a statement
made by the former of the contributions made by both, the expenses incurred, the
amount harvested, the sharing system followed by the parties and the share actually
received by each. A reliquidation, on the other hand, involves the determination bases
either upon the accounting made by the landholder, or upon the facts as determined
by the court.
Chingan vs. La Guardia
17 SCRA 541
Respondent Judge did not err in not considering petitioner's special defense of
ownership of only one-half of the land.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
Where the tenant received less than his rightful share of the harvests for certain
crop-years, he is entitled to a reliquidation thereof.
RENTALS
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 704, April 10, 1989
Petitioner's agreement to the rentals stated in the amicable settlement did not
make him a judgment debtor, since he did not agree to have the judgment executed
against him in case he defaults in the payment thereof.
Magno vs. Blanco
RES JUDICATA
Ramon D. Ocho vs. Bernardino Calos, et al.
G.R. No. 137908; November 22, 2000
Applies to both judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings; embraces two (2)
concepts: the first is "bar by prior judgment" under paragraph (b) of Rule 39, Section
47, and the second is "conclusiveness of judgment" under paragraph (c) thereof.
Greenfield Realty Corp. vs. Loreto Cardama, et al.
G. R. No. 129246, January 25, 2000
It is true that judgment upon a compromise has the effect of res judicata. But
any cause of action that arises from the application or violation of the compromise
agreement cannot be said to have been settled in the first case. Thus, petitioners' claim
that respondents' action is barred by res judicata is untenable.
Valles vs. CFI of Samar, Branch I
176 SCRA 804, August 28, 1989
The question of ownership and possession of the contested land can not be
reopened where the same issue has been terminated by a decision that has become
final and executory, and which in fact has been duly executed.
Vda. De Guillas vs. David
23 SCRA 763
Pursuant to Article 2037 of Our Civil Code, a compromise has upon the parties
the effect and authority of res adjudicata, even if not judicially approved (Meneses v.
De la Rosa, 77 Phil. 34).
Arevalo vs. Benedicto
58 SCRA 187-188
Defense of res judicata unavailing when judgment is a nullity.
Salazar vs. Santos
10 SCRA 358
Weight given to previous decision although not res adjudicata.
RESIDENTIAL LAND
De la Cruz vs. Bautista
186 SCRA 518, June 14, 1990
P.D. 316 on prior DAR certification of a case to the courts refers only to land
devoted to rice and corn, not to residential lots.
Tiongson vs. Court of Appeals
130 SCRA 483
Fact that respondent was giving the landowners 20 cavans of palay every
harvest not sufficient basis for formation of landlord tenant relationship where the
landowners never intended to devote part of their metropolitan property to agriculture.
Hilario vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
148 SCRA 573
The land in question was purchased at a foreclosure proceeding as "residential"
and tax assessments show that it is "residential", not agricultural.
Hilario vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
148 SCRA 573-574
Where land is within the poblacion, the presumption is it is residential, not
agricultural.
RETENTION
Eudosia Daez vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000
Landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No.
27 are entitled to the new retention rights under R.A. No. 6657.
RETENTION RIGHTS
Tenants of the Estate of Dr. Jose Sison vs. Court of Appeals
210 SCRA 546, June 29, 1992
An heir does not have to cultivate personally the 7-hectare retention area.
Tenants of the Estate of Dr. Jose Sison vs. Court of Appeals
210 SCRA 546, June 29, 1992
Secretary of Agrarian Reform may recall Certificates of Land Transfer which
violate the law on retention scheme.
RETROACTIVITY
De Borja vs. Court of Appeals
163 SCRA 175
P.D. No. 27 cannot be applied retroactively, there being no express nor clearly
implied authorization.
Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals
87 SCRA 264-265
P.D. No. 27 does not apply retroactively. In the case at bar the Court of
Appeals already rendered judgment finding that tenancy relationship between
petitioner and respondent was extinguished and said judgment was rendered prior to
the effectivity of P.D. 27 on October 21, 1972.
Castro vs. Court of Appeals
99 SCRA 724
P.D. No. 27 does not apply retroactively.
Ayog vs. Cusi, Jr.
Section 46(a) of Rep. Act No. 1199 fixes the rentals in case of leasehold
tenancy of riceland not on the basis of the net but of the gross produce thereof.
Evanado vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 367-368
Where there is no showing at all as to the gross produce of a riceland, the trial
court is not justified in concluding that the rentals agreed upon by the parties are
excessive and illegal; consequently, the presumption of legality of said rentals should
stand under the circumstances.
Zurbano vs. Estrella
137 SCRA 333
LOI 474 which decreed the land transfer program of the government of
agricultural lands planted to rice and corn is not unconstitutional. It is neither a class
legislation nor does it deprive a person of property without the due process of law or
just compensation.
Geronimo vs. Court of Appeals
121 SCRA 859
Persons who are not tenants on the property are not covered by PD 315 which
prohibits the ejectment of tenant-farmers in agricultural lands primarily devoted to
rice and corn.
Quimson vs. De Guzman
7 SCRA 159
The only criterion for classification of land under Republic Act No. 1199 is its
PRODUCTIVITY. If the normal harvest of three preceding years is not over 40
cavans per hectare the riceland is considered second class.
the poor," as we said in Galay et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al. "is an imperative of
every humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an
undeserved privilege."
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
249 SCRA 151
Social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners
who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection.
RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 126
The right of redemption vested in agricultural lessees is superior to the right of
the mortgagee of the land.
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 124
The right of lessees to redeem the land they have been working on that has
been disposed of without their knowledge is statutory in character and attaches to a
particular landholding by operation of law.
Philippine National Bank vs. Remigio
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 363
Right of redemption by the mortgagor could be exercised by paying to the
creditor bank all the amounts owing to the latter, "on the date of the sale, with interest
on the total indebtedness at the rate agreed upon in the obligation from said date.
Philippine National Bank vs. Remigio
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 362
Right of Redemption; In the foreclosure of real property by banking
institutions as well as in the extrajudicial foreclosure by any other mortgagee, the
mortgagor could redeem the property within one year from date of registration of the
deed of sale in the appropriate Registry of Deeds.
RIGHT OF REMOVAL
Guzman vs. Court of Appeals
177 SCRA 607, September 15, 1989
Private respondents have the right to remove their house and other useful
improvements should petitioner refuse to reimburse the amount thereof. Ornamental
objects may be removed if no damage shall be cause to the principal and that the
owner of the principal do not choose to retain them by paying their value.
RULES OF COURT
Jovelo vs. Vda. De Bautista
8 SCRA 185
Inasmuch as the rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations do not provide for the
time when the hearing should be scheduled nor the method of determining when the
issues may be considered as joined, where the petition has been amended, the Rules
which govern proceedings in the Court of First Instance should be applied in a
suppletory character (Sec. 1, Rules of Court of Agrarian Relations).
Baranda vs. Padios
154 SCRA 721
Sec. 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court does not apply to cases covered by the
Agricultural Tenancy Act.
Phil. Packing Corp. vs. Reyes
42 SCRA 383
With the enactment of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, the Court of
Agrarian Relations ceased to have the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure
and became subject instead to the present Rules of Court.
Del Rosario vs. Chingcuangco
18 SCRA 1150-51
The Rules of Court would apply to agrarian cases brought on and after August
8, 1963, when the Land Reform Code took effect, and also to pending cases, except
when their application would not be feasible or would work injustice in which case
the former procedure would apply (Rule 133, Old Rules of Court).
S
SALTBEDS
Chavez vs. Court of Appeals
147 SCRA 580
The evidence in this case shows that respondents were performing all phases of
salt-making, the court below's finding being back up by substantial evidence will not
be overturned.
Camus vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 372
A reading of the pertinent provision of the Agricultural Tenancy Act (R.A. No.
1199) and the Agricultural Reform Code (R.A. No. 3844) shows the clear intention of
Congress to include saltbeds within the purview of tenancy laws, concerning disputes
which come under the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
SECURITY OF TENURE
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals
168 SCRA 440, December 14, 1988
Security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value
as life and deprivation of their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation of their only
means of livelihood.
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals
168 SCRA 440, December 14, 1988
Procedural lapses should not prejudice the right to security of tenure of a tenant
who is also entitled to protection even where the power of eminent domain is
exercised.
Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals
159 SCRA 244
A share tenant of saltbeds and agricultural lessee of fishpond is entitled to a
security of tenure.
Lastimosa vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
Security of tenure can be invoked only by tenants de jure.
Lastimosa vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
Tenant of intruder cannot invoke security of tenure.
Philippine National Railway vs. Valle
29 SCRA 573
The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy law may be invoked only by
tenants de jure.
Manubay vs. Martin
33 SCRA 730
The court is given some discretion to determine whether or not the cause,
although among those enumerated, is of such gravity as to warrant the drastic remedy
of dismissal of the tenant or whether or not there exist circumstances under which the
application of the provision warranting eviction and dispossession may be stayed.
Davao Steel Corporation vs. Cabatuando
10 SCRA 705
Security of tenure of tenant is not extinguished by sale of land.
Teodoro vs. Macaraeg
27 SCRA 8
Security of tenure subsists despite termination of contract which limit tenancy
relationship to one year.
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
162 SCRA 392
The settled jurisprudence is that as long as the legal possessor of the land
constitutes a person as a tenant-farmer by virtue of an express or implied lease, such
an act is binding on the owner of the property even if he himself may not have given
his consent to such an agreement.
SHARE TENANCY
Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
189 SCRA 758, September 21, 1990
There is share tenancy whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for
agricultural production.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
Gamalog vs. Court of Appeals
30 SCRA 592
Social justice would be a meaningless term, if in a situation like the present, an
element of rigidity would be affixed to procedural precepts and made to cover the
matter.
Ayog vs. Cusi
11 SCRA 493
Administrative authorities should find ways and means to accommodate some
of the petitioners if they are landless and are tillers of the soil.
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 77
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, was enacted to improve lot of sharecropper.
Republic Act No. 3844 and Republic Act No. 6389, being social legislations,
should be liberally interpreted in favor not only to the actual tillers, tenant-farmers but
also to landowners.
Feliciano vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
5 SCRA 32-33
Tenancy law; its protective arm is for tenant as well as for landlord.
Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes
125 SCRA 225
Welfare of small landowners and the landless should prevail over right of PTA
to expropriate land for tourism development.
STATUTES
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
177 SCRA 296, September 5, 1989
We categorically ruled that both R.A. No. 6389 and P.D. No. 27 cannot be
applied retroactively under the general rule that statutes have no retroactive effect
unless otherwise provided therein.
Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
192 SCRA 51, December 4, 1990
In construing constitutional provisions which are ambiguous or of doubtful
meaning, the courts may consider the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Santiago vs. Court of Appeals
179 SCRA 188, November 8, 1989
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo
33 SCRA 106
Statutory construction; spirit or intent must prevail over letter of the law.
People vs. Almuete
69 SCRA 410
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same
subject operates as a repeal of anything not so included in the amendatory act.
Tumulin vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 450
Tenant may not be ousted except by virtue of a final and executory judgment.
SUB-TENANTS
Belmi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
7 SCRA 813
Workers engaged to transplant seedlings and reap harvest not sub-tenants.
SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
Vda. De Salazar vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995
250 SCRA 305
Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when the heirs themselves
voluntarily appeared, participated in the case and presented evidence in defense of
deceased defendant.
SUGARLANDS
Cunanan vs. Sengson
179 SCRA 695-696, December 1, 1989
Law providing for automatic conversion from agricultural share tenancy to
agricultural leasehold, applies to sugarland tenants.
David vs. Court of Appeals
161 SCRA 114-115
Sugarlands are not mentioned as among the areas covered by the Agricultural
Land Reform Code, and neither they are included in the exempted lands.
Dayrit vs. Court of Appeals
163 SCRA 257
Automatic conversion, from agricultural share tenancy to agricultural
leasehold, applicable to sugarland tenants.
Ernesto vs. Court of Appeals
116 SCRA 757
Sugar planters within the meaning of Sec. 1 of the Sugar Act means all
planters, including emergency non-quota, non-district, or accommodation planters.
The courts should not stick to executive interpretations of statutes applicable only to a
situation in the past which had since changed.
T
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88384, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 176
By issuing the Order maintaining the status quo while a committee ascertained
facts necessary in resolving whether or not the writ of preliminary injunction should
be issued, the trial court should be deemed as merely exercising its inherent power
under Section 5(b), Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of Court "to enforce order in
proceedings before it."
Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88384, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 175
There is no reason to prevent a court from extending the 20-day period for the
efficacy of a temporary restraining order when the parties themselves ask for such
extension or for the maintenance of the status quo.
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
Anastacio Victorio vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 110012, March 28, 2001
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent
among the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal
cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests. All these requisites must concur in
order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties.
Bayani Bautista vs. Patricia Araneta, et al.
G.R. No. 135829, February 22, 2000
Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and
lawful landholder who is either the "owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of
the land," and not thru the acts of the supposed landholder who has no right to the
land subject of the tenancy.
Edmundo Benavidez vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 125848, September 6, 1999
The following essential requisites must concur in order to establish a tenancy
relationship: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is
agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5)
there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of harvests between
the parties.
Chico vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
284 SCRA 33
In order for a tenancy relation to take serious hold over the dispute, it would be
essential to first establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) that the parties are
the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the
relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is share between the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee. It is not enough that these requisites are alleged; these
requisites must be shown in order to divest the regular court of its jurisdiction in
proceedings lawfully began before it.
Oarde vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
280 SCRA 235
Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship. - The essential requisites of a
tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the
subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural
production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of
harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur in order to create a
tenancy relationship between the parties.
Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
278 SCRA 820
A mere member of a tenant's immediate farm household is not entitled to a
home lot.
Suplico vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103103, June 17, 1996
257 SCRA 397
The Supreme Court finds no reasons to disturb the findings of both courts
below where the facts found by the Court of appeals sustaining the trial court readily
converge towards one conclusion that tenancy did exist between the parties.
Sintos vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 223
Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship. - The essential requisites of a
tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the
subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural
production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of
harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur in order to create a
tenancy relationship between the parties.
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 124
The fact that a tenant or an agricultural lessee may have been assisted by farm
laborers hired by the landowners, on an occasional or temporary basis, does not
preclude the element of "personal cultivation" essential in a tenancy or agricultural
leasehold relationship.
Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the
landholder and the tenant; (2) the subject is the agricultural holding; (3) there is
consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is
personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests between
landlord and tenant.
Talavera vs. Court of Appeals
182 SCRA 779, February 27, 1990
Tenancy Relations cannot be bargained away except for strong reasons.
Gonzales, Jr. vs. Alvarez
182 SCRA 15-16, February 7, 1990
Tenancy is a legal relationship between the tenant and the landowner, it cannot
be made to depend upon what the alleged tenant does on the land, consent of the
landowner is necessary.
Gonzales, Jr. vs. Alvarez
182 SCRA 16, February 7, 1990
Private respondents not being a bona fide tenant-farmers cannot avail of the
benefits under PD 27.
Prudential Bank vs. Gapultos
181 SCRA 160, January 19, 1990
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4)
the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there
is sharing of harvests. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy
relationship between the parties.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
It is an undisputed fact that petitioner is cultivating an adjacent fishpond with a
size of 11-1/2 hectares which further proves that he is not a small farmer but a
businessman.
Relucio III vs. Macaraig, Jr.
173 SCRA 636, May 30, 1989
Under the Land Reform Code, tenants are entitled to the enjoyment and
possession of their landholding except when their dispossession has been authorized
by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory.
Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
168 SCRA 248, December 5, 1988
The fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship.
private respondent's status is more of a caretaker rather than a tenant.
The remedy provided in Section 15, Rule 39 of the old Rules of Court for a
person to file a third party claim in the proceedings for execution of a decision is not
exclusive, for the said section also provides that such third person is not prevented
"from vindicating his claim to the property by any proper action.
Davao Steel Corporation vs. Cabatuando
10 SCRA 705
Third party complaint by vendee against vendor is not within jurisdiction of
agrarian court.
U
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Jalandoni, Jr. vs. Arsenal
189 SCRA 56, July 30, 1990
Arsenal's complaint for non-payment of overtime wages is an agrarian dispute.
Locsin vs. Valenzuela
194 SCRA 196, February 19, 1991
Court believes that the usufruct which had theretofore existed as a jus in re
aliena in favor of Helen Schon was effectively extinguished by Presidential Decree
No. 27.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 389
Unfair labor practice CAR has jurisdiction to entertain a ULP case involving
agricultural workers under R.A. No. 3844.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390
The CAR can try violations of the minimum wage law for purposes of a ULP
case filed under R.A. No. 3844.
The holding of a preliminary investigation ordered by the CAR before the
filing of the ULP case though not required did not affect its jurisdiction to try the ULP
case.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390-391
Under P.D. No. 442, jurisdiction to try ULP cases is now transferred to the
labor arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Reyes
42 SCRA 383
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994
233 SCRA 627
What is clear is that one whose stay, like that of petitioner, is merely tolerated
becomes a deforciant illegally occupying the land the moment he is required to leave.
Isidro vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 505
In the absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for unlawful detainer is
properly within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
Isidro vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 503
A court does not lose its jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case by the
simple expedient of a party raising as a defense the alleged existence of a tenancy
relationship between the parties.
V
VENUE
Davao Abaca Plantation Company, Inc. vs. DOLE Philippines, Inc.
G.R. No. 134431; December 1, 2000
Venue; lies where the property in dispute is located, pursuant to Section 1,
Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended by Circular No. 13-95.
Voluntary surrender, to extinguish tenancy relations, does not require any court
authorization, but it must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent
evidence.
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 704, April 10, 1989
A writ of execution not warranted of the decision or judgment which gives it
life or cause to exist, has no validity.
Jasmin vs. Valera
137 SCRA 214
A compromise is based on mutual reciprocal concessions.
Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals
87 SCRA 263
Voluntary surrender of landholding is one of the recognized grounds for
severance of tenancy relationship.
Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals
87 SCRA 264
Extinguishment of tenancy relationship by means of voluntary surrender of the
landholding does not require court approval.
W
WORDS AND PHRASES
Acap vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
251 SCRA 31
"Contract of Sale" and Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights,"
Distinguished. - In the case at bench, the trial court was obviously confused as to the
nature and effect of the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights, equating the
same with a contract (deed) of sale. They are not the same. In a Contract of Sale, one
of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver
a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a price certain in money or its
equivalent. Upon the other hand, a declaration of heirship and waiver of rights
operates as a public instruments when filed with the Registry of Deeds whereby the
intestate heirs adjudicate and divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves
as they see fit. It is in effect an extrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule
74 of the Rules of Court.
Machete vs. Court of Appeals
November 20, 1995
250 SCRA 176
"Agrarian Dispute," Defined. - Section 3, par. (d), of R.A. No. 6657 defines the
term "agrarian dispute" as referring 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.
Sintos vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 223
"Agricultural Lessee," Defined. Section 166(2) of R.A. No. 3844, as
amended, provides: . . . . . . . . . "(2) Agricultural lessee' means a person who, by
himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farmhousehold,
cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by, another with the latter's consent for
purposes of production, for a price certain in money or in produce or both. It is
distinguished from civil law lessee as understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession when
dispossession has lasted for more than one year or when dispossession was effected
by mean other than those mentioned in Rule 70.
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 166
Illegal detainer consist in withholding by a person from another of the
possession of a land or building to which the latter is entitled after the expiration or
termination of the former's right to hold possession by virtue of a contract express or
implied.
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 122
We note that the landholding in dispute is a mango plantation. We consider
that and there appears no dispute on this point this plantation is covered by the
provisions of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, Section 166 (1) of which defines
agricultural land as "land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop
lands as defined in pars. 18 and 19 of this section, respectively.
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 123
Common requisites elements in share tenancy and lease relationships. - It is
apparent from the foregoing that a "share tenant" and an "agricultural lessee" are
defined in very similar terms and that a share tenancy and an agricultural lease
relationship have the following common requisite elements: (1) The parties are the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) The subject matter of the
relationship is agricultural land; (3) There is consent between the parties to the
relationship; (4) The purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
production; (5) There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural
lessee; and (6) The harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 124
"Cultivation" is not limited to the plowing or harrowing of the soil but includes
all activities designed to promote the growth and care of the plants or trees and
husbanding the earth, by general industry, so that it may bring forth more products or
fruits.
Isidro vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 503
Agrarian disputes refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements
whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to
agriculture.
Isidro vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 504
The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ifso facto make the
possessor an agricultural lessee or tenant.
De Luna vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 97788, May 11, 1993
221 SCRA 703
The "third party" mentioned in Sec. 21, R.A. No. 1199 should be construed to
mean a person who is neither landholder nor tenant but who acts for, openly, secretly,
or factually for the landholder.
Meaning of the word third party in Section 21 of Republic Act 1199.
Velasquez vs. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 28
"Substantial evidence" defined. - Substantial evidence in support of the
findings of the Court of Agrarian Relations does not necessary import preponderant
evidence as is required in ordinary civil cases. Substantial evidence has been defined
to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence
on record, direct or circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own
judgment or criterion for that of the trial court in determining wherein lies the weight
of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.
WRIT OF EXECUTION
Vda. de Tisado vs. Tablizo
Adm. Mat. No. P-94-1025, February 20, 1996
253 SCRA 647
The mere fact that defendants, in a threatening manner, prohibited the deputy
sheriff from entering the premises is no excuse for the latter to retreat and refuse to
enforce the writ of execution a deputy sheriff is a front-line representative of the
justice system, and if he shows fear, or worse, is cowed by mere threats from
enforcing the legitimate orders of court, then by his cowardly act, he diminishes the
judiciary.
Jereos, Jr. vs. Reblando, Sr.
71 SCRA 126, 131-132 (1976)
Vda. De Tisado vs. Tablizo
Adm. Mat. No. P-94-1025, February 20, 1996
253 SCRA 646
Sheriffs must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement the
writ as early as possible, and by the nature of their functions, sheriffs at all times must
act above suspicion.
De Borja vs. Court of Appeals
163 SCRA 175
An execution is the fruit and end of the suit; once a judgment becomes final,
the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution.
Osmea vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 828
Motion for execution is proper where there is violation of compromise
agreement.
Z
ZONING
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
162 SCRA 390
Metro Manila zoning ordinance No. 81-01, series of 1981, does not disclose
any provision converting existing agricultural land in the covered area into residential
or light industrial; the ordinance should be given prospective operation only as a
general rule.
The Zoning ordinance in question while valid as a police measure was not
intended to effect existing rights protected by the impairment clause affirmed.