Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Select Supreme Court Rulings On Agrarian Law: 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 185, 199
Select Supreme Court Rulings On Agrarian Law: 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 185, 199
Citing Martillano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148277, June 29, 2004,
433 SCRA 195, 203-204:
The issuance of the CLT does not sever the tenancy relationship
between the landowner and the tenant-farmer. A certificate of land
transfer merely evinces that the grantee thereof is qualified to avail
himself of the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of ownership of
the land tilled by him as provided under P.D. No. 27. It is not a
muniment of title that vests in the farmer/grantee absolute ownership
of his tillage.
CitingPagtalunan v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA
252, 259:
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 1/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 2/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
separate action specifically filed to assail the validity of the judgment. A collateral
attack against a judgment is generally not allowed, unless the judgment is void
upon its face or its nullity is apparent by virtue of its own recitals.
xxx xxx xxx
2009
Eight parcels of land with an aggregate area of 34.96 hectare was placed
under the coverage of OLT. Between the years 1978 to 1983 CLTs were
issued to farmer beneficiaries. Between 1986 to 1990, EPs were issued. In
1986 and, LBP paid AAC P35, 778, the amount of only two of the eight
parcels of land. Thereafter, AAC sold the landholding to Pacita. Pacita then
inquired from LBP regarding the price of the remaining six parcels. LBP
valued the same at P148,172, which was refused by Pacita. Upon the
passage of DAR AO, Series of 1994, a 6% per year increment on the value of
land from the date it was taken up to October 1994 shall be imposed. Hence,
the value was increased to P537,538. However, the said value was still
refused by Pacita, which then filed a complaint for determination of just
compensation before the SAC. It asked that the value of the remaining
parcels be pegged at 2.7M.
1. JUST COMPENSATION — WHEN COMPUTED
The instant case involves a closely similar factual milieu as that
in Natividadand Meneses.The DAR acquired the subject property in 1972
through its Operation Land Transfer Program, pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 27. Since then, the subject property has already been
distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries who, since then, have exclusively
possessed the same and harvested its produce. Eventually, the
Emancipation Patents were issued in the beneficiaries' favor. Even after
the lapse of 23 years — from 1972, when the DAR took the subject land
property, until 1995, when respondent filed its Petition before the SAC —
the full payment of just compensation due respondent has yet to be made
by petitioner. These circumstances, the same as
inNatividad andMeneses, make it more equitable for the SAC to
determine the just compensation due the respondent for the remainder of
the subject property using values at the time of its payment.
xxx xxx xxx
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 3/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
1. TENANCY — ESTABLISHMENT
Citing RA 1199:
A tenancy relationship arises between a landholder and a tenant once they agree,
expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land belonging to the
landholder, as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to
continue working on and cultivating the land.
2. TENANCY — QUANTUM OF PROOF
Citing Heirs of Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170346, March 12,
2007, 518 SCRA 202, 214-215, citingBerenguer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-60287, August 17, 1988, 164 SCRA 431, 438-439:
The petitioners cannot rely on their self-serving statements to prove the existence
of a tenancy relationship because independent and concrete evidence, aside from
self-serving statements, is needed to prove personal cultivation, sharing of
harvests, or consent of the landowner.
3. CULTIVATION — INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH TENANCY
Citing Danan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132759, October 25, 2005,
474 SCRA 113, 126:
A tiller or a farmworker does not automatically become an agricultural tenant
recognized under agrarian laws by mere occupation or cultivation of an
agricultural land.
4. ELEMENT OF TENANCY — SHARING OF HARVESTS
Citing Cornelio de Jesus, et al. v. Moldex Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 153595,
November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 316:
Independent evidence, such as receipts, must be presented to show that there
was a sharing of the harvest between the landowner and the tenant. And,
assuming the landowners received a share of the harvest, that the fact of receipt,
without an agreed system of sharing, does not ipso factocreate a tenancy.
5. IMPLIED TENANCY
Acquiescence by the landowner of their cultivation of the land does not
create an implied tenancy if the landowners have never considered
petitioners Federico and Buenaventura as tenants of the land and if the
essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are lacking. There was no
intention to institute the petitioners as agricultural tenants.
Citing Epitacio Sialana v. Mary Y. Avila, et al., G.R. No. 143598, July 20,
2006, 495 SCRA 501:
For an implied tenancy to come about, the actuations of the parties taken in their
entirety must be demonstrative of an intent to continue a prior lease established
by the landholder.
6. CAPACITY TO GIVE CONSENT
Citing Mario J. Mendezona v. Julio H. Ozamiz, et al., 426 Phil. 888, 906
(2002):
A person is not incapacitated to contract merely because of advanced years or by
reason of physical infirmities. It is only when such age or infirmities impair the
mental faculties to such extent as to prevent one from properly, intelligently, and
fairly protecting her property rights, is she considered incapacitated.
7. PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY OF PUBLIC INSTRUMENT
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 4/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
It is also important to note that both the 1976 and 1987Kasulatan are duly
notarized and are considered as public documents evidencing the
surrender of Francisco's tenancy rights over the subject landholdings.
They were executed with all the legal formalities of a public document and
thus the legal presumption of the regularity and validity of
the Kasulatanare retained in the absence of full, clear and convincing
evidence to overcome such presumption. Strong evidence is required to
prove a defect of a public instrument, and since such strong and
convincing evidence was not presented in the instant case, the 1976 and
the 1987 Kasulatanare presumed valid.
xxx xxx xxx
CASTILLO v. TOLENTINO, G.R. No. 181525, March 4, 2009
Tolentino was the owner of two parcels of land and a caretaker of another. The
said parcels were tenanted by Castillo who promised to remit lease rentals to
Tolentino. Castillo wrote the PARO informing the latter of his intention to
construct a water reservoir. Tolentino also received a copy of the letter and
opposed the same. Despite this, Castillo proceeded with the construction of the
water dike. Tolentino filed a case for ejectment. PARAD ruled for the ejectment
of Castillo. DARAB initially affirmed the Decision but reversed itself in a Motion
for Reconsideration. CA reinstated the Decision of the PARAD since it held that
the appeal was filed out of time.
1. OBLIGATIONS OF A TENANT WITH RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION
OF IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LANDHOLDING
Section 32 of R.A. No. 3844 specifically requires notice to and consent of
the agricultural lessor before the agricultural lessee may embark upon the
construction of a permanent irrigation system. It is only when the former
refuses to bear the expenses of construction that the latter may choose to
shoulder the same. More importantly, any change in the use of tillable
land in the leasehold, e.g.through the construction of a sizeable water
reservoir, impacts upon the agricultural lessor's share in the harvest,
which is the only consideration he receives under the agrarian law. This
being the case, before the agricultural lessee may use the leasehold for a
purpose other than what had been agreed upon, the consent of the
agricultural lessor must be obtained, lest he be dispossessed of his
leasehold.
The law (Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 3844) does not give blanket authority to the
agricultural lessee to construct an irrigation system at anytime and for any
reason; instead, it presupposes primarily that the same is necessary.
2. IMPLIED OBLIGATION OF A TENANT
The fact that CASTILLO was convicted by final judgment of an offense
against TOLENTINO's son, George, demonstrates how relations between
the two have deteriorated. While R.A. No. 3844 authorizes termination by
the agricultural lessee of the lease for a crime committed by the
agricultural lessor against the former or any member of his immediate
farm household, the same privilege is not granted to the agricultural
lessor. Yet, this does not mean that the courts should not take into
account the circumstance that the agricultural lessee committed a crime
against the agricultural lessor or any member of his immediate family. By
committing a crime against TOLENTINO's son, CASTILLO violated his
obligation to his lessor to act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith, an obligation that is deemed included in
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 5/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
his leasehold agreement. Provisions of existing laws form part of and are
read into every contract without need for the parties expressly making
reference to them.
3. VIOLATION OF OBLIGATION OF A TENANT — GROUND FOR
DISPOSSESSION
In sum, we hold that the construction of the reservoir constitutes a
violation of Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, an unauthorized use of the
landholding for a purpose other than what had been agreed upon, and a
violation of the leasehold contract between CASTILLO and TOLENTINO,
for which the former is hereby penalized with permanent dispossession of
his leasehold. SEAHcT
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 6/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
justification why a tenant should give away for free and sell his own
agricultural land until nothing is left, and then insist himself on someone
else's — without giving the landowner the proper respect and regard that
is due him, acting presumptuously and beyond his stature as mere
agricultural lessee.
Citing Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
120363, September 5, 1997, 278 SCRA 819:
The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply
because it is committed by the underprivileged. Compassion for the poor is an
imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal
claiming an undeserved privilege.
xxx xxx xxx
MERCADO v. MERCADO, G.R. No. 178672, March, 19 2009
The grandfather of Edmundo Mercado was the owner of a parcel of land
tenanted by Julio Mercado. J. Mercado was issued a CLT, and subsequently,
an EP covering the landholding. Having been designated in his
grandfather'sHuling Habilin, E. Mercado was able to obtain a Certificate of
Retention. Thus, he filed a complaint for the cancellation of the EP, alleging
that the same had been irregularly issued, and ejectment on the ground of
deliberate non-payment of lease rentals. The PARAD declared the validity of
the EP. The said Decision was reversed by the DARAB, ordering the ejecment
of J. Mercado. No appeal having been taken within the reglementary period,
the DARAB Decision became final and executory.
1. IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT
Citing Biglang-awa v. Philippine Trust Company, G.R. No. 158998, March
28, 2008, 550 SCRA 160, 177:
The DARAB decision in DARAB Case No. 4389 had long become final and
executory, hence, immutable and unalterable. It may thus no longer be modified in
any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of
fact or law. Excepted from this rule is when the modification involves correction of
1) clerical errors, 2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party,
and 3) void judgments. None of these exceptions is present in the case at bar,
however.
2. JURISDICTION — DARAB
Citing Hermoso v. C.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 140319, May 5,
2006, 489 SCRA 556, 563:
Jurisdiction over a case does not thus disappear the moment a certificate of title is
issued, for the issuance of such certificate is not a mode of transfer of property but
merely an evidence of such transfer.
3. JURISDICTION BY ESTOPPEL
Citing Hermoso v. C.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 140319, May 5,
2006, 489 SCRA 556, 563:
IN ANY EVENT, petitioner may not question the jurisdiction of the DARAB and its
adjudicative arm at this late juncture of the proceedings, he having actively
participated in the proceedings below. acADIT
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 7/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 8/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 9/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
to the DAR Secretary. Significantly, the DAR Secretary had already denied
petitioner's protest and determined that the subject property was covered by the
CARP. Such ruling was even affirmed by the Court of Appeals and this Court.
Absent palpable error by these bodies, of which this Court finds none, their
determination as to the coverage of the subject property under the CARP is
controlling. HAaDcS
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 10/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 11/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 12/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 13/14
2/10/2018 Department of Agrarian Reform
Octavio alleged that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case since the land
was subjected to CARP coverage. HTCDcS
1. JURISDICTION — IN GENERAL
Citing Rimasug v. Martin, G.R. No. 160118, November 22, 2005, 475
SCRA 703, 712:
At the outset, let us be clear that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an
action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law
at the time the action is commenced, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is
entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. It
cannot be made to depend upon the defenses
http://lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6609 14/14