Corpuz vs. Grospe (Cruz) : Agrarian Law Case Digests

!"#!#$!% '!( )!
*+ ,$"+*-*
CR0ZBAvIBBEL0S SANT0SuATACEL0ISNAELLAZAR0
NEBINAN0NTESN0NZ0NR0NAN0TIB0RCI0
./ )0#123 45/ "#0*1+ 6)#237
u.R. No. 1SS297
}une 8, 2uuu

8!)-*9
Petitionei uavino Coipuz was a faimei-beneficiaiy unuei the 0peiation Lanu
Tiansfei Piogiam of the Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim. Be was issueu a Ceitificate
of Lanu Tiansfei ovei two paicels of agiicultuial lanu. In oiuei to pay foi the
hospitalization of his wife, he moitgageu the subject lanu in favoi of viiginia ue
Leon. When the contiact expiieu, he again moitgageu it to iesponuent Bilaiia
uiospe foi a peiiou of foui yeais. The paities executeu a contiact, which alloweu the
iesponuents to cultivate the lanu uuiing the uuiation of the moitgage oi until
Becembei uS, 199u.

Coipuz subsequently instituteu a complaint which allegeu that the uiospe's hau
enteieu the uisputeu lanu by foice anu uestioyeu the palay that he hau planteu on it.
Bowevei accoiuing to the uiospes, Coipuz hau alieauy executeu a "waivei of iights'
ovei the lanuholuing in favoi of the spouses in consiueiation of S4k.

PARAB aujuuicatoi Einesto Tabai iuleu that Coipuz abanuoneu anu suiienueieu
the lanuholuing to the Samahang Nayon of Nueva Ecija. Saiu Samahang Nayon even
passeu Resolution No. 16 anu 27 iecommenuing the ieallocation of saiu lots to the
uiospes, who weie the most qualifieu faimeis-beneficiaiies. BARAB anu CA
affiimeu the uecision

$**2+*9
1.Whethei oi not the 'waivei of iights' is contiaiy to agiaiian law
2. Whethei oi not Coipuz hau abanuoneu his lanuholuing
S. Whethei oi not Coipuz hau voluntaiily suiienueieu his lanuholuing

:+',9
1. Yes. The sale oi tiansfei of iights ovei a piopeity coveieu by a ceitificate of lanu
tiansfei is voiu except when the alienation is maue in favoi of the goveinment oi
thiough heieuitaiy succession. This iuling is intenueu to pievent a ieveision to the
olu feuual system in which the lanuowneis ieacquiie vast tiact of lanu thus,
negating the goveinment's piogiam of fieeing the tenant fiom the bonuage of the
soil.

2. No. Coipuz' suiienueieu of possession uiu not amount to an abanuonment
because theie was an obligation on the pait of the uiospe's to ietuin the possession
of the lanuholuing upon full payment of the loan. Theie was no cleai, absolute oi
iiievocable intention to abanuon.

S. Yes. Coipuz' intention to suiienuei the lanuholuing was cleai anu unequivocal. Be
signeu his concuiience to the Samahang Nayon Resolutions. Bis voluntaiy
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
suiienuei to the samahang nayon qualifies as a suiienuei oi tiansfei to the
goveinment because such action foims pait of the mechanism foi the uisposition
anu ieallocation of of faimholuings of tenant faimeis who iefuse to become
beneficiaiies of pu 27.
;/ +*-0'!* 45/ <!=!'0- 6,!>$,7
u.R. No. 1SS7u6
Nay 7, 2uu2
8!)-*9
0n Novembei 11, 197S, a Ceitificate of Lanu Tiansfei was issueu in favoi of
iesponuent ovei a S,uuu squaie metei lot locateu in Baiangay Samon, Sta. Naiia,
Pangasinan. Sometime in Nay, 1978, neeuing money foi meuical tieatment,
iesponuent passeu on the subject lanu to the petitionei foi the amount of PS,8uu.uu
anu P2uu.uu woith of iice. Accoiuing to iesponuent, theie was only a veibal
moitgage; while accoiuing to petitionei, a sale hau taken place. Acting on the
tiansfei, the BAR officials in Sta. Naiia, Pangasinan authoiizeu the suivey anu
issuance of an Emancipation Patent, leauing to the issuance of a Tiansfei Ceitificate
of Title in favoi of the petitionei. Responuent fileu a Complaint against the
petitionei ieueeming the subject lanu anu the case was iefeiieu to the Bepaitment
of Agiaiian Refoim.

0n }uly 8, 1988, the BAR's Bistiict 0ffice submitteu an investigation iepoit finuing
that iesponuent meiely gave the subject lanu to petitionei as guaiantee foi the
payment of a loan anu iecommenuing that the CLT iemain in the name of
iesponuent anu that the money loan be ietuineu to petitionei.

Anothei investigation was conuucteu on the mattei which leu to the 0iuei uateu
Naich 9, 1989, issueu by BAR Regional Biiectoi Antonio N. Nuesa. In the saiu
0iuei, the BAR founu the act of iesponuent in suiienueiing the subject lanu in favoi
of petitionei as constituting abanuonment theieof, anu uenieu iesponuent's piayei
foi ieuemption of the subject lanu.
CA iuleu: The tiansfei of the subject lanu to petitionei is voiu; it shoulu be ietuineu
to iesponuent. Responuent hau not effectively abanuoneu the piopeity, because he
tiieu to ieueem it in 1981 anu 198S.
$**2+9
Whethei oi not iesponuent abanuoneu the subject piopeity, theieby making it
available to othei qualifieu faimei-giantees.

:+',9
Theie was no abanuonment anu even if theie was it coulu not be tiansfeiieu to
anyone othei than the uoveinment. PB 27 specifically pioviues that title to lanu
acquiieu puisuant to its manuate oi to that of the Lanu Refoim Piogiam of the
goveinment shall not be tiansfeiable except to the giantee's heiis by heieuitaiy
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
succession, oi back to the goveinment by othei legal means. The law is cleai anu
leaves no ioom foi inteipietation.

Foi abanuonment to exist, the following iequisites must be pioven: (a) a cleai anu
absolute intention to ienounce a iight oi claim oi to ueseit a iight oi piopeity anu
(b) an exteinal act by which that intention is expiesseu oi caiiieu into effect. Theie
must be an actual, not meiely a piojecteu, ielinquishment; otheiwise, the iight oi
claim is not vacateu oi waiveu anu, thus, susceptible of being appiopiiateu by
anothei. Auministiative 0iuei No. 2, issueu on Naich 7, 1994, uefines abanuonment
oi neglect as a "willful failuie of the agiaiian iefoim beneficiaiy, togethei with his
faim householu, to cultivate, till oi uevelop his lanu to piouuce any ciop, oi to use
the lanu foi any specific economic puipose continuously foi a peiiou of two
calenuai yeais." In the piesent case, no such "willful failuie" has been
uemonstiateu. Quite the contiaiy, iesponuent has continueu to claim uominion
ovei the lanu.
Petitionei cannot, by himself, take ovei a faimei-beneficiaiy's lanuholuing, allegeuly
on the giounu that it was abanuoneu. The piopei pioceuuie foi ieallocation must
be followeu to ensuie that theie was inueeu an abanuonment, anu that the
subsequent beneficiaiy is a qualifieu faimei-tenant as pioviueu by law.
?/ ):!>+3 45/ 12='$) +*-!-+ !2-:0#$-@ 6,+'0* *!%-0*7
"/#/ %A/ .??;BC
DEFG HI ;CC;

8!)-*9
The goveinment thiough the Commissionei of Public Bighways signeu a contiact
with the Constiuction anu Bevelopment Coipoiation of the Philippines (CBCP) to
ieclaim ceitain foieshoie anu offshoie aieas of Nanila Bay. The contiact also
incluueu the constiuction of Phases I anu II of the Nanila-Cavite Coastal Roau. CBCP
obligateu itself to caiiy out all the woiks in consiueiation of fifty peicent of the total
ieclaimeu lanu. A few yeais aftei, the PEA enteieu into a }oint ventuie Agieement
(}vA) with ANARI to uevelop the Fieeuom Islanus. This }vA was enteieu into
thiough negotiation without public biuuing.

The Senate Committee on uoveinment Coipoiations anu Public Enteipiises, anu the
Committee on Accountability of Public 0fficeis anu Investigations, conuucteu a joint
investigation. Among the conclusion aie: that the ieclaimeu lanus PEA seeks to
tiansfei to ANARI unuei the }vA aie lanus of the public uomain which the
goveinment has not classifieu as alienable lanus anu theiefoie PEA cannot alienate
these lanus, the ceitificates of the title coveiing the Fieeuom Islanus aie thus voiu,
anu the }vA itself is illegal.

0n Apiil 27, 1998, Petitionei as taxpayei fileu the instant petition foi manuamus
with piayei foi the issuance of a wiit of pieliminaiy injunction anu TR0. Petitionei
contenus the goveinment stanus to lose billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
ieclaimeu lanus to ANARI. Petitionei piays that PEA publicly uisclose the teims of
any ienegotiation of the }vA. Fuitheimoie, petitionei assails the sale to ANARI of
lanus of the public uomains as a violation of Sec S, Ait XII of the Constitution
piohibiting the sale of alienable lanus of the public uomain to piivate coipoiations.
Petitionei asseit that he seeks to enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in piopeities of
the State that aie of public uominion.

$**2+9
Whethei oi not ANARI, a piivate coipoiation, can acquiie anu own the lanus unuei
the amenueu joint ventuie agieement having S67.S hectaies s. of ieclaimeu
foieshoie anu submeigeu aiea in Nanila Bay in view of Sections 2 & S, Ait. 12 of the
Constitution.

:+',9
The Supieme Couit affiimeu that the 1S7.84 hectaies of ieclaimeu lanus compiising
the Fieeuom Islanus, now coveieu by ceitificates of title in the name of PEA, aie
alienable lanus of the public uomain. The S92.1S hectaies of submeigeu aieas of
Nanila Bay iemain inalienable natuial iesouices of the public uomain. Since the
Amenueu }oint ventuie Agieement seeks to tiansfei to ANARI, a piivate
coipoiation, owneiship of 77.S4 hectaies of the Fieeuom Islanus, such tiansfei is
voiu foi being contiaiy to Section S, Aiticle XII of the 1987 Constitution which
piohibits piivate coipoiations fiom acquiiing any kinu of alienable lanu of the
public uomain. Fuitheimoie, since the Amenueu }vA also seeks to tiansfei to ANARI
owneiship of 29u.1S6 hectaies of still submeigeu aieas of Nanila Bay, such tiansfei
is voiu foi being contiaiy to Section 2, Aiticle XII of the 1987 Constitution which
piohibits the alienation of natuial iesouices othei than agiicultuial lanus of the
public uomain.

The Ponce Cases weie ueciueu unuei the 19SS Constitution which alloweu piivate
coipoiations to acquiie alienable lanus of the public uomain. Bowevei, the 197S
Constitution piohibiteu piivate coipoiations fiom acquiiing alienable lanus of the
public uomain, anu the 1987 Constitution ieiteiateu this piohibition. 0bviously, the
Ponce Cases cannot seive as authoiity foi a piivate coipoiation to acquiie alienable
public lanus, much less submeigeu lanus, since unuei the piesent Constitution a
piivate coipoiation like Amaii is baiieu fiom acquiiing alienable lanus of the public
uomain.

J/ '23 8!#<* 45/ -:+ :0%0#!='+ *+)#+-!#@ 08 -:+
,+1!#-<+%- 08 !"#!#$!% #+80#< 6"!-!)+'07
u.R. No. 86889
Becembei 4, 199u

8!)-*9
Luz Faims, a coipoiation engageu in the livestock anu poultiy business, piayeu that
Sections S(b), 11, 1S, 16(u), 17, anu S2 of R.A. No. 66S7, incluuing the Implementing
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
Rules anu uuiuelines piomulgateu in accoiuance theiewith, be ueclaieu
unconstitutional foi being iepugnant to the uue piocess clause. Sections 1S anu S2
uiiecteu "coipoiate faims", which incluueu livestock anu poultiy iaiseis to execute
anu implement "piouuction-shaiing plans" (penuing final ieuistiibution of theii
lanuholuings) that woulu uistiibute fiom thiee peicent (S%) of theii gioss sales anu
ten peicent (1u%) of theii net piofits to theii woikeis as auuitional compensation.
Luz Faims also aigueu that livestock oi poultiy iaising was not similai to ciop oi
tiee faiming; it was not the piimaiy iesouice in this unueitaking anu iepiesenteu
no moie than five peicent (S%) of the total investment of commeicial livestock anu
poultiy iaiseis. Thus, they must not be coveieu by the law. 0n the othei hanu, BAR
commenteu that livestock anu poultiy iaising weie embiaceu in the teim
"agiicultuie" baseu on Webstei's Inteinational Bictionaiy's uefinition. The Couit,
then, took cognizance of the case, as it assaileu the constitutionality of the law.

$**2+9
W0N the contesteu piovisions anu implementing iules, which coveieu livestock anu
poultiy inuustiy unuei agiaiian iefoim, weie unconstitutional.

:+',9
Yes. The tiansciipts of the uelibeiations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986
on the meaning of the woiu "agiicultuial" cleaily showeu that it was nevei the
intention of the fiameis of the Constitution to incluue livestock anu poultiy inuustiy
in the coveiage of the constitutionally-manuateu agiaiian iefoim piogiam of the
uoveinment. Noieovei, the Committee auopteu the uefinition of "agiicultuial lanu"
as uefineu unuei Section 166 of R.A. S844, as lauu uevoteu to any giowth, incluuing
but not limiteu to ciop lanus, saltbeus, fishponus, iule anu abanuoneu lanu. Simply,
the saiu piovisions anu iules weie violative of the Constitution.
K/ 1:$'$11$%+ %!-$0%!' #!$'(!@* !"/ :0%/ >!'+#$!%0 !/
,+' >!''+ 6'!3!#07
u.R. No. L-29S81
Septembei Su, 1969

8!)-*9
PNR, a goveinment-owneu coipoiation, is the iegisteieu ownei of thiee (S) stiips
of lanu with a unifoim wiuth of Su meteis aujoining one anothei longituuinally,
the same being pait of its iailioau iight of way iunning fiom Nanila to Legazpi.
These stiips of lanu lie within the municipalities of 0as anu Polangui, Piovince of
Albay. At the centei theieof is a tiack measuiing ten (1u) to twelve (12) meteis in
wiuth wheie iailioau ties aie placeu anu iails built foi iunning locomotives. 0n
both siues of the tiack, oi about two (2) to five (S) meteis away fiom the
embankment of the tiack, aie telegiaph anu telephone posts fifty (Su) meteis
apait fiom each othei, which maintain communication wiies necessaiy in the
opeiation of PNR tiains. PNR uiaws eaith fiom these siues to fill up the iailioau
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
tiack whenevei it is uestioyeu by watei uuiing iainy uays; anu uses them as
uepositoiy of iailioau mateiials foi the iepaii of uestioyeu lines, posts, biiuges
uuiing washouts. oi othei uamageu paits of the line occasioneu by ueiailments oi
othei calamities.

The poitions of these lanus not actually occupieu by the iailioau tiack hau been a
souice of tiouble. People occupieu them; they ieap piofits theiefiom. Bisputes
among those uesiiing to occupy them cioppeu up. It is on the face of all these that,
with auequate piovisions to safeguaiu iailioau opeiations, PNR auopteu tempoiaiy
iules anu iegulations.
Sometime in 196S, PNR awaiueu the poitions of the thiee stiips of lanu
afoiementioneu which aie on both siues of the tiack, aftei a competitive public
biuuing, to petitionei Pantaleon Bingabing foi a peiiou of thiee (S) yeais. A civil law
lease contiact in piinteu foim was, on Apiil 1S, 196S, enteieu into by anu between
PNR anu Bingabing. That contiact expiessly stipulates that Bingabing was "to
occupy anu use the piopeity . . . !"#$%&'&()* foi agiicultuie." Bingabing, howevei,
faileu to take possession because iesponuent Pampilo Boltz was occupying the lanu,
hau a house theieon. Boltz claims to be a tenant of pievious awaiuees, anu latei, of
Bingabing himself.
$**2+*9
./ Whethei oi not stiips of lanu owneu by Philippine National Railways (PNR)
which aie on both siues of its iailioau tiack, anu aie pait of its iight of way foi its
iailioau opeiations but tempoiaiily leaseu, aie agiicultuial lanus within the
puiview of the Agiicultuial Tenancy Act anu the Agiicultuial Lanu Refoim Coue,
such as woulu come within the juiisuiction of the Couit of Agiaiian Relations.

;/ W0N CAR has juiisuiction ovei the piesent case.
:+',9
The answei to both issues is no.

Accoiuing to Section S of the +,&(-.)!.&') 0"1'1-* +-!, "|ajgiicultuial tenancy is the
physical possession by a peison of lanu 2"3%!"2 !% ',&(-.)!.&" belonging to, oi
legally possesseu by, anothei foi the puipose of piouuction thiough the laboi of the
foimei anu of the membeis of his immeuiate faim householu, in consiueiation of
which the foimei agiees to shaie the haivest with the lattei, oi to pay a piice
ceitain oi asceitainable, eithei in piouuce oi in money, oi in both." The teim
"agiicultuial lanu" as unueistoou by the +,&(-.)!.&') 4'12 5"6%&# 7%2" is not as
bioau in meaning as it is known in the constitutional sense. The phiase "agiicultuial
lanu," constitutionally speaking, incluues all lanus that aie neithei mineial noi
timbei lanus anu embiaces within its wiue sweep not only lanus stiictly agiicultuial
oi uevoteu to cultivation foi agiicultuial puiposes but also commeicial, inuustiial,
iesiuential lanus anu lanus foi othei puiposes. 0n the othei hanu, by Section 166(1)
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
of the +,&(-.)!.&') 4'12 5"6%&# 7%2"," '|ajgiicultuial Lanu means lanu 2"3%!"2 !%
'1* ,&%8!9, incluuing but not limiteu to ciop lanus, salt beus, fishponus, iule lanu
anu abanuoneu lanu as uefineu in paiagiaphs 18 anu 19 of this section,
iespectively."

It is obvious then that unuei the law, the lanu heie in contioveisy uoes not fit into
the concept of agiicultuial lanu. PNR cannot uevote it to agiicultuie because by its
own chaitei, Republic Act 41S6, PNR cannot engage in agiicultuie.
The entiie wiuth of Su meteis is impoitant to PNR's iailioau opeiations which
shoulu not be hampeieu. Anu, communication lines must not be uistuibeu. Builuings
shoulu not be constiucteu so close to the tiack. Because, it is not so easy to pievent
people fiom walking along the tiack; animals, too, may stiay into the aiea;
obstiuctions theie coulu be along the tiack itself which might cause ueiailment. All
of these coulu pievent the locomotive engineei fiom taking the necessaiy
piecautions on time to aveit acciuents which may cause uamage to the tiains, injuiy
to its passengeis, anu even loss of life.
The use of the stiips of lanu on both siues of the tiack in iailioau opeiation is
inconsistent with agiicultuial activities. The contiact of lease authoiizes the iailioau
company to entei upon the piemises to make iepaiis, place its mateiials on the lanu.
It may even take soil fiom the lanu to fill up any pait of the iailioau tiack uestioyeu
by watei uuiing iainy uays. What if PNR shoulu ueciue to constiuct anothei paiallel
tiack on the lanu leaseu. The occupant of the lanu cannot pievent oi stop PNR fiom
uoing any of these. Secuiity of tenuie so impoitant in lanuloiu-tenant ielationship
may not thus be attaineu.
In an ejectment suit biought by the lanuownei against saiu thiiu peison in the CAR,
this Couit helu that the CAR hau no juiisuiction ovei the case because no tenancy
ielationship existeu between the paities, as the thiiu peison was, in ieality, an
unlawful squattei oi intiuuei. Coiielating :';.<!'1 to the piesent case, the lessee
heie hau no powei to sublet. Theie is also thus ho legally cognizable ielationship of
tenancy between the paities.
We, accoiuingly, iule that CAR uoes not have juiisuiction ovei the case at bai anu
the pioceeuings below aie thus null anu voiu.

L/ M#$>+%M0 45/ #+"$*-+# 08 ,++,* 6<+,$%!7
u.R. No. L-6Su
Novembei 1S, 1947

8!)-*9
Alenxanuei A. Kiiventoi alien, bought a iesiuential lot fiom the Nagualena Estate,
Inc., in Becembei of 1941, the iegistiation of which was inteiiupteu by the wai. In
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
Nay, 194S, he sought to accomplish saiu iegistiation but was uenieu by the iegistei
of ueeus of Nanila on the giounu that, being an alien, he cannot acquiie lanu in this
juiisuiction. Kiivenko then biought the case to the fouith bianch of the Couit of
Fiist Instance of Nanila by means of a consulta, anu that couit ienueieu juugment
sustaining the iefusal of the iegistei of ueeus.

$**2+9
W0N an alien may own piivate lanus in the Philippines.

:+',9
No. "Public agiicultuial lanus"[ mentioneu in Sec. 1, Ait. XIII of the 19SS
Constitution, incluue iesiuential, commeicial anu inuustiial lanus, the Couit stateu:
Natuial iesouices, with the exception of public agiicultuial lanu, shall not be
alienateu,' anu with iespect to public agiicultuial lanus, theii alienation is limiteu to
Filipino citizens. But this constitutional puipose conseiving agiicultuial iesouices
in the hanus of Filipino citizens may easily be uefeateu by the Filipino citizens
themselves who may alienate theii agiicultuial lanus in favoi of aliens. Thus Section
S, Aiticle XIII pioviues: Save in cases of heieuitaiy succession, no piivate
agiicultuial lanus will be tiansfeiieu oi assigneu except to inuiviuuals, coipoiations
oi associations qualifieu to acquiie oi holu lanus of the public uomain in the
Philippines.

N/ #0O!* P )0/I $%)/ 45/ )! 6<0%30%7
"/#/ %A/ .;LNLK
,QRQSTQU .LI .HHH

8!)-*9
Petitionei Roxas & Co. is a uomestic coipoiation anu is the iegisteieu ownei of
thiee hacienuas, namely, Bacienuas Palico, Banilau anu Caylaway, all locateu in the
Nunicipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. The events of this case occuiieu uuiing the
incumbency of then Piesiuent Coiazon C. Aquino who issueu Pioclamation No. S
piomulgating a Piovisional Constitution. Befoie the law's effectivity, petitionei fileu
with iesponuent BAR a voluntaiy offei to sell Bacienua Caylaway puisuant to the
piovisions of E.0. No. 229. Bacienuas Palico anu Banilau weie latei placeu unuei
compulsoiy acquisition by iesponuent BAR in accoiuance with the Republic Act No.
66S7, the Compiehensive Agiaiian Refoim Law of 1988(CARL).

In a lettei, iesponuent BAR Secietaiy infoimeu petitionei that a ieclassification of
the lanu woulu not exempt it fiom agiaiian iefoim. Responuent Secietaiy also
uenieu petitionei's withuiawal of the voluntaiy 0ffei to Sell (v0S) on the giounu
that withuiawal coulu only be baseu on specific giounus such as unsuitability of the
soil foi agiicultuie, oi if the slope of the lanu is ovei 18 uegiees anu that the lanu is
unuevelopeu. Bespite the uenial of the v0S withuiawal of Bacienua Caylaway,
petitionei fileu its application foi conveision of both Bacienuas Palico anu Banilau.
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
petitionei, thiough its Piesiuent, Euuaiuo Roxas, ieiteiateu its iequest to withuiaw
the v0S ovei Bacienua Caylaway

Petitionei instituteu Case with iesponuent BAR Aujuuication Boaiu (BARAB)
piaying foi the cancellation of the CL0A's issueu by iesponuent BAR in the name of
seveial peisons. Petitionei allegeu that the hacienuas hau been ueclaieu a touiist
zone, is not suitable foi agiicultuial piouuction. BARAB helu that the case involveu
the piejuuicial question of whethei the piopeity was subject to agiaiian iefoim,
hence, this question shoulu be submitteu to the 0ffice of the Secietaiy of Agiaiian
Refoim foi ueteimination. Petitionei fileu with the Couit of Appeals. It questioneu
the expiopiiation of its piopeities unuei the CARL anu the uenial of uue piocess in
the acquisition of its lanuholuings.

Neanwhile, the petition foi conveision of the thiee hacienuas was uenieu by the
NAR0. Petitionei's petition was uismisseu by the Couit of Appeals. Petitionei
moveu foi ieconsiueiation but the motion was uenieu by couit of Appeals.

$**2+9
Whethei oi not the BAR obseives uue piocess of the pioceeuings ovei the thiee
hacienuas

:+',9
The acquisition pioceeuings ovei the thiee hacienuas aie nullifieu foi iesponuent
BAR's failuie to obseive uue piocess theiein. In accoiuance with the guiuelines set
foith in this uecision anu the applicable auministiative pioceuuie, the case is heieby
iemanueu to iesponuent BAR foi piopei acquisition pioceeuings anu ueteimination
of petitionei's application foi conveision. failuie of iesponuent BAR to comply with
the iequisites of uue piocess in the acquisition pioceeuings uoes not give this Couit
the powei to nullify the CL0A's alieauy issueu to the faimei beneficiaiies. To
assume the powei is to shoit-ciicuit the auministiative piocess, which has yet to
iun its iegulai couise. Responuent BAR must be given the chance to coiiect its
pioceuuial lapses in the acquisition pioceeuings. In Bacienua Palico alone, CL0A's
weie issueu to 177 faimei beneficiaiies in 199S. Since then until the piesent, these
faimeis have been cultivating theii lanus. It goes against the basic piecepts of
justice, faiiness anu equity to uepiive these people, thiough no fault of theii own, of
the lanu they till.

H/ <0#-! >*/ 0))$,+%-!' 6#0<!%07
u.R. No. 12S417
}une 1u, 1999

8!)-*9
}aime Noita anu Puiificacion Pauilla fileu a suit against }aime 0cciuental, Atty.
Naiiano Baianua, anu Baniel Coiial, foi allegeuly gatheiing pili nuts, anahaw leaves,
anu coconuts fiom theii iespective lanu anu uestioying theii banana anu pineapple
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
plants. 0cciuental claimeu that he was a tenant of the actual ownei of the lanu,
}osefina Baiaclan, anu that Noita anu Pauilla weie not actually the owneis of the
lanu in question. The tiial couit iuleu in favoi of Noita anu Pauilla. 0cciuental, et al.
appealeu, contenuing that the case was cognizable by the BAR Aujuuicatoiy Boaiu
(BARAB). Thus, the RTC ieveiseu the lowei couit anu iuleu in favoi of 0cciuental,
stating that the case is a tenancy-ielateu pioblem which falls unuei the exclusive
juiisuiction of BARAB. The CA affiimeu the RTC.

$**2+9
Whethei oi not the cases aie piopeily cognizable by the BARAB.

:+',9
N0. Since theie is a uispute as to who is the iightful ownei of the lanu, the issue is
cleaily outsiue BARAB's juiisuiction. Whatevei finuings maue by the BARAB
iegaiuing the owneiship of the lanu aie not conclusive to settle the mattei. At any
iate, whoevei is ueclaieu to be the iightful ownei of the lanu, the case cannot be
consiueieu tenancy-ielateu foi it still fails to comply with the othei iequiiements.
Assuming aiguenuo that }osefina is the ownei, then the case is not between the
lanuownei anu tenant. If, howevei, Noita is the lanuownei, 0cciuental cannot claim
that theie is consent to a lanuownei-tenant ielationship between him anu Noita.
Thus, foi failuie to comply with the iequisites, the issue involveu is not tenancy-
ielateu cognizable by the BARAB.

Foi BARAB to have juiisuiction ovei a case, theie must exist a tenancy ielationship
between the paities. In oiuei foi a tenancy agieement to take holu ovei a uispute, it
woulu be essential to establish all its inuispensable elements, to wit:

1. That the paities aie the lanuownei anu the tenant oi agiicultuial lessee;
2. The subject mattei of the ielationship is an agiicultuial lanu;
S. That theie is consent between the paities to the ielationship;
4. That the puipose of the ielationship is to biing about agiicultuial
piouuction;
S. That theie is peisonal cultivation on the pait of the tenant oi agiicultuial
lessee; anu
6. That the haivest is shaieu between the lanuownei anu the tenant oi
agiicultuial lessee.

.C/ >,! ,+ -!%"2= 45/ )! 6-$=2#)$07
0BK N0. 9864
Becembei S, 199u

8!)-*9
Rufina Tangub anu hei husbanu, Anuies, now ueceaseu, fileu with the RTC of Lanao
uel Noite, an agiaiian case foi uamages by ieason of theii unlawful uispossession in
which they weie tenants fiom the lanuholuing owneu by the Spouses Bomingo anu
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
Eugenia Naitil. Seveial peisons weie also impleaueu as uefenuants which has
inteiests ovei the lanu. The juuge uismisseu the complaint. Be iuleu that baseu on
E0 No. 229, E0 No. 129-A in ielation to RA No. 66S7, agiaiian cases no longei fall
unuei the juiisuiction of Regional Tiial Couits but iathei unuei the juiisuiction of
the BAR Aujuuication Boaiu. CA affiimeu.

$**2+9
Whethei oi not the RTC has juiisuiction to tiy the case.

:+',9
RTC has no juiisuiction. BAR has juiisuiction.

The juiisuiction thus confeiieu on the BAR baseu on E0 No. 229 anu E0 No. 129 - A,
aie:
(a) aujuuication of all matteis involving implementation of agiaiian iefoim;
(b) iesolution of agiaiian conflicts anu lanu tenuie ielateu pioblems; anu
(c) appioval oi uisappioval of the conveision, iestiuctuiing oi ieaujustment of
agiicultuial lanus into iesiuential, commeicial, inuustiial, anu othei non-
agiicultuial uses.

The iules incluueu the cieation of the Agiaiian Refoim Aujuuication Boaiu uesigneu
to exeicise the aujuuicatoiy functions of the Bepaitment.

Fuithei, RA 66S7 states:
SEC. Su. Quasi-}uuicial Poweis of the BAR. The BAR
is heieby vesteu with piimaiy juiisuiction to ueteimine
anu aujuuicate agiaiian iefoim matteis anu shall have
exclusive oiiginal juiisuiction ovei all matteis involving
the implementation of agiaiian iefoim, except those
falling unuei the exclusive juiisuiction of the
Bepaitment of Agiicultuie |BAj anu the Bepaitment of
Enviionment anu Natuial Resouices |BENRj.

The RTCs have not, howevei, been completely uivesteu of juiisuiction ovei agiaiian
iefoim matteis. Section S6 of RA 66S7, on the othei hanu, confeis "special
juiisuiction" on "Special Agiaiian Couits," which aie Regional Tiial Couits
uesignateu by the Supieme Couit at least one (1) bianch within each piovince
to act as such. These Regional Tiial Couits as Special Agiaiian Couits have,
accoiuing to Section S7 of the same law, oiiginal anu exclusive juiisuiction ovei:

1) "all petitions foi the ueteimination of just
compensation to lanu-owneis," anu
2) "the piosecution of all ciiminal offenses unuei . .
|thej Act."

!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
The RTC City was theiefoie coiiect in uismissing the case. It being a case conceining
the iights of the plaintiffs as tenants on agiicultuial lanu, not involving the "special
juiisuiction" of saiu Tiial Couit acting as a Special Agiaiian Couit, it cleaily came
within the exclusive oiiginal juiisuiction of the Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim, oi
moie paiticulaily, the Agiaiian Refoim Aujuuication Boaiu, establisheu piecisely to
wielu the aujuuicatoiy poweis of the Bepaitment.

../ -:+ :+$#* 08 D0*+ D2!%$-+ +-/ !' 45/ )! 6)#237
u.R. No. 1S8u16.
}anuaiy Su, 2uu2

8!)-*9
The spouses Euilbeito Romeio anu Felisa Romeio owneu a piece of agiicultuial lanu
in Alegiia, Suiigao uel Noite. 0n uiffeient uates, the Romeios solu sepaiate poitions
theieof to Efien Pania, Nacaiio Sanchez anu Pio Yonson. Claiming to be the
agiicultuial tenants of the lanu in question, }ose }uanite (now ueceaseu) anu his
wife, Nicolasa 0. }uanite, fileu a complaint with the Piovincial Agiicultuial Refoim
Aujuuication Boaiu (PARAB), Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim (BAR), against the
spouses Euilbeito anu Felisa Neicauo anu theii venuees above-nameu foi the
cancellation of the sales auveiteu to anu foi the }uanites to exeicise theii iight of
ieuemption puisuant to RA No. S844, section 12 of which ieaus:

'Sec. 12. 4"<<""=< 5(,9! %6 5"2"#$!(%1> ? In case the lanuholuing is solu to a thiiu
peison without the knowleuge of the agiicultuial lessee, the lattei shall have the
iight to ieueem the same at a ieasonable piice anu consiueiation: :&%3(2"2, That the
entiie lanuholuing solu must be ieueemeu: :&%3(2"2@ 6.&!9"&@ That wheie theie aie
two oi moie agiicultuial lessees, each shall be entitleu to saiu iight of ieuemption
only to the extent of the aiea actually cultivateu by him. The iight of ieuemption
unuei this Section may be exeiciseu within two yeais fiom the iegistiation of the
sale, anu shall have piioiity ovei any othei iight of legal ieuemption.'

Euilbeito Romeio, et al., as uefenuants, fileu theii answei with special anu
affiimative uefenses. They allegeu that the Romeios, being the owneis of the
piopeity, hau the peifect iight to sell any poition theieof to any peison. They
stiongly uenieu the allegation of the }uanites that the lattei weie theii tenants.

0n 0ctobei 28, 199S, the PARAB (Piovincial Agiaiian Refoim Aujuuication
Boaiu) ienueieu his uecision ueclaiing the }uanite spouses as tenants; uiiecting the
Nunicipal Agiaiian Refoim 0fficei (NAR0) to piepaie the leaseholu contiact in
theii favoi; ueclaiing the ueeus of sale executeu by the Romeio spouses in favoi
of Efien Pania, Nacaiio Sanchez anu Pio Yonsonnull anu voiu; anu uiiecting the
lattei to vacate the piemises.

0n appeal, the BARAB ieveiseu. In its uecision uateu Apiil 21, 1998 , it ueclaieu
that the }uanites weie not tenants on the subject lanuholuing; anu hence, hau no
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
iight of ieuemption."

$**2+9
Whethei oi not the petitioneis weie tenants of the Romeio spouses (iesponuents)
as to entitle them to the iight of ieuemption.

:+',9
The couit affiimeu the uecision of PARAB. The PARAB ueclaieu the petitioneis to be
tenants on the basis of the following eviuence:

a) ceitification of 28 peisons to the effect that spouses }uanite hau been woiking on
the lanu as tenants;
b) in the ueeu of absolute sale signeu by Euilbeito Romeio as venuoi, he stateu that
spouses }uanite weie his tenants;
c) the spouses }uanite hau been in possession anu cultivating the lanu since 1969.

Without any eviuence to suppoit its finuing, the BARAB ieveiseu the finuing of the
PARAB anu founu that petitionei }uanites weie not tenants because they faileu to
submit eviuence that they weie shaiing the haivests of the with the lanuowneis,
iesponuent Romeio spouses. SC agieeu with the Couit of Appeals that the essential
iequisites of a tenancy ielationship aie:
(1) the paities aie the lanuownei anu the tenant;
(2) the subject is agiicultuial lanu;
(S) theie is consent;
(4) the puipose is agiicultuial piouuction;
(S) theie is peisonal cultivation; anu
(6) theie is shaiing of haivests.

All these iequisites must concui in oiuei to cieate a tenancy ielationship between
the paities. The absence of one uoes not make an occupant of a paicel of lanu, oi a
cultivatoi theieof, oi a plantei theieon, a 2" A.&" tenant. 0nless a peison has
establisheu his status as a 2"A.&" tenant, he is not entitleu to secuiity of tenuie noi is
he coveieu by the Lanu Refoim Piogiam of the goveinment unuei existing tenancy
laws.

But note that fiom the time of the lanuowneis' aumission that petitioneis weie
tenants on the subject lanuholuing, the element of "shaiing haivest" is assumeu as a
factual element in that aumission.
.;/ :0%/ !%-0%$0 </ %2+*! !"/ )! 6,!>$,7
u.R. No. 1S2u48
Naich 6, 2uu2
8!)-*9
0n Nay 2S, 1972, then Secietaiy of Agiaiian Refoim issueu an "0iuei of Awaiu" in
favoi of }ose veiuillo ovei two (2) paicels of agiicultuial lanu in Buenavista Estate,
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
San Iluefonso, Bulacan, coveiing 14,496 anu 19,8u8 squaie meteis, iespectively,
unuei the following conuitions:
- Within 6 months, he shall peisonally cultivate at least of the aiea; oi
- 0ccupy anu constiuct hishei house in case of iesiuential lot anu pay at least
the fiist installment
In no case shall an agieement to sell oi ueeu of sale be issueu in favoi of the
coveiing the lots without a ceitification issueu by the Lanu Refoim Pioject Team
Leauei of Lanu Settlement Supeiintenuent that the awaiuee(s) hashave uevelopeu
oi uevoteu to some piouuctive enteipiise at least one-half of the aiea theieof, oi
constiucteu hisheitheii house theiein in case of iesiuential lanu.
Aftei twenty-one yeais, piivate iesponuent fileu an application with the Regional
0ffice of the Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim foi the puichase of saiu lots claiming
that he hau complieu with the conuitions set foith in the 0iuei. Restituto Riveia,
heiein petitionei, fileu a lettei of piotest against piivate iesponuent claiming that
contiaiy to the manifestation of piivate iesponuent, it is petitionei who hau been in
possession of the lanu anu hau been cultivating the same. Petitionei hau fileu his
own application foi saiu paicels in opposition to that of piivate iesponuent.
0n Becembei 27, 199S, a iepiesentative of the Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim
Regional 0ffice unueitook an investigation anu founu that the subject lots weie
pieviously tenanteu by othei peisons anu it is cleai that }ose veiuillo has culpably
violateu the teims anu conuitions of the 0iuei of Awaiu issueu in his favoi.
0n }anuaiy 24, 1994, petitionei, the Regional Biiectoi of BAR, Antonio N. Nuesa,
piomulgateu an 0iuei, cancelling 0iuei of Awaiu issueu in favoi of }ose veiuillo
anu giving Restituto Riveia the oppoitunity to puichase saiu lots.
$**2+9
Whethei oi not the Couit of Appeals eiieu in uenying petitioneis' claim that in this
case, the Boaiu (BARAB) acteu in giave abuse of uiscietion tantamount to lack oi
excess of its juiisuiction

:+',9
Yes the Couit of Appeals eiieu in holuing that the BARAB anu its officials have not
committeu giave abuse of uiscietion tantamount to excess oi lack of juiisuiction.
The case involves the stiict auministiative implementation anu awaiu of lots. The
mattei falls unuei the exclusive juiisuiction anu auministiative competence of the
BAR (Regional Biiectoi anu Bepaitment Secietaiy) anu not of the BARAB (incluuing
the Piovincial Aujuuicatoi anu the Piovincial Aujuuication Boaiu itself).

7"1!"1% 3<> 7"1!"1%, "the BAR is vesteu with the piimaiy juiisuiction to ueteimine
anu aujuuicate agiaiian iefoim matteis anu shall have the exclusive juiisuiction
ovei all matteis involving the implementation of the agiaiian iefoim piogiam." The
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
BARAB has piimaiy, oiiginal anu appellate juiisuiction "to ueteimine anu
aujuuicate all ',&'&('1 2(<$.!"<, cases, contioveisies, anu matteis oi inciuents
involving the implementation of the Compiehensive Agiaiian Refoim Piogiam
unuei R.A. 66S7, E.0. Nos. 229, 228 anu 129-A, R.A. S844 as amenueu by R.A. 6S89,
P.B. No. 27 anu othei agiaiian laws anu theii implementing iules anu iegulations."

0nuei Section S(u) of R.A. 66S7 (CARP Law), "agiaiian uispute" is uefineu to incluue
"(u) ...any contioveisy ielating to tenuiial aiiangements, whethei leaseholu,
tenancy, stewaiuship oi otheiwise ovei lanus uevoteu to agiicultuie, incluuing
uisputes conceining faimwoikeis associations oi iepiesentation of peisons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing oi seeking to aiiange teims oi conuitions
of such tenuiial aiiangements. It incluues any contioveisy ielating to compensation
of lanus acquiieu unuei this Act anu othei teims anu conuitions of tiansfei of
owneiship fiom lanuowneis to faimwoikeis, tenants anu othei agiaiian iefoim
beneficiaiies, whethei the uisputants stanu in the pioximate ielation of faim
opeiatoi anu beneficiaiy, lanuownei anu tenant, oi lessoi anu lessee."
.?/ !'<2+-+ 45/ )! 6,+'0* *!%-0*7
"/#/ %A/ .;;;LK
%A4QSTQU ;CI ;CC.

8!)-*9
Petitionei Rouiigo Almuete was awaiueu a 72,S87 squaie metei paicel of lanu
locateu at San vicente, Angauanan, Isabela by the then National Resettlement anu
Rehabilitation Auministiation (NARRA) on Naich 2S, 19S7. Since then, Almuete anu
his family faimeu the subject piopeity peacefully anu exclusively. Bowevei,
unknown to petitionei, an Agiaiian Refoim Technologist by the name of Leticia
uiagasin on August 17, 1979 fileu false iepoits making it appeai that Almuete has
waiveu his iight as awaiuee anu maue it appeai that one Naicelo Anuies was the
actual occupant of the lanu fiom 1967 to uate.
Consequently, BAR issueu 0CT No. P-S2S21 in the name of iesponuent who, in tuin,
accompanieu by ten peisons aimeu with bolos, immeuiately enteieu the subject
piopeity claiming exclusive iight of owneiship anu possession. Almuete complaineu
to the BAR anu wasteu no time in filing an action foi ieconveyance anu iecoveiy of
possession against Naicelo Anuies with the RTC of Cauayan, Isabela. The Tiial Couit
ienueieu a Becision in favoi of Almuete which became final anu executoiy upon
Naicelo Anuies's failuie to appeal. The lattei fileu a petition foi ceitioiaii to
pievent the implementation of the wiit of execution which was enteitaineu by the
Couit of Appeals. Bence, this Petition.
$**2+9
Whethei oi not this case is consiueieu an agiaiian uispute.

Whethei oi not iegulai couits have juiisuiction.
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
:+',9
The Supieme Couit ieveiseu the uecision of the Couit of Appeals anu saiu thatit
giavely eiieu when it gianteu the petition foi ceitioiaii anu helu that the tiial couit
hau no juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei of the action between petitioneis anu
iesponuent. The action fileu by petitioneis was cognizable by the iegulai couits.
The Supieme Couit helu that this case is not of an agiaiian uispute. An agiaiian
uispute is iefeis to any contioveisy ielating to tenuiial aiiangements, whethei
leaseholu, tenancy, stewaiuship oi otheiwise, ovei lanus uevoteu to agiicultuie,
incluuing uisputes conceining faim woikeis associations oi iepiesentation of
peisons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing oi seeking to aiiange teims oi
conuitions of such tenuiial aiiangements. It incluues any contioveisy ielating to
compensation of lanus acquiieu unuei this Act anu othei teims anu conuitions of
tiansfei of owneiship fiom lanuowneis to faimwoikeis, tenants anu othei agiaiian
iefoim beneficiaiies, whethei the uisputants stanu in the pioximate ielation of faim
opeiatoi anu beneficiaiy, lanuownei anu tenant, oi lessoi anu lessee.

In this case no juiiuical tie of lanuownei anu tenant was allegeu between petitioneis
anu iesponuent, let alone that which woulu so chaiacteiize the ielationship as an
agiaiian uispute. In fact, petitionei anu iesponuent weie contenuing paities foi the
owneiship of the same paicel of lanu. The action fileu by petitioneis befoie the tiial
couit was foi iecoveiy of possession anu ieconveyance of title: theie is no "agiaiian
uispute" involving tenancy ielationship between the paities that the issue shoulu
fall within the juiisuiction of the BARAB.

.J/ *102*+* !-2+' +- !' 45/ *102*+* >!',+3 6"!-!)+'07
u.R. No. 1S9S61
}une 1u, 2uuS

8!)-*9
Responuents fileu a complaint foi iecoveiy of possession with uamages with the
Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim Aujuuication Boaiu (BARAB) in Nalaybalay,
Bukiunon. They assaileu the uecision of the Nunicipal Agiaiian Refoim 0ffice
(NAR0) which oiueieu the segiegation of the subject lot fiom the lanu of
iesponuents anu awaiuing the same to petitioneis. The Couit of Appeals affiimeu
the uecision of the BARAB which ieveiseu the uecision of the NAR0. Aftei a ieview
of the issues iaiseu, the question is whethei the BARAB has juiisuiction to iesolve
the contioveisy.

$**2+9
W0N BARAB has juiisuiction to tiy anu heai this case.

:+',9
No. The Supieme Couit iuleu that the BARAB has no juiisuiction to take cognizance
of the iesponuents' complaint foi iecoveiy of possession of the subject lot. Though
the paities uiu not challenge the juiisuiction of the BARAB, the Couit may motu
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
piopiio consiuei the issue of juiisuiction. The couit has uiscietion to ueteimine
whethei the BARAB valiuly acquiieu juiisuiction ovei the case. }uiisuiction ovei the
subject mattei is confeiieu only by law. It may not be confeiieu on the couit by
consent oi waivei of the paities wheie the couit otheiwise woulu have no
juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei of the action. In the case at bai, the iesponuents
uiu not allege the existence of tenancy ielations, if any, between them anu the
petitioneis. The allegations in the complaint inuicate that the natuie anu subject
mattei of the instant case is foi iecoveiy of possession oi accion publiciana. Foi the
BARAB to acquiie juiisuiction ovei the case, theie must exist a tenancy ielations
between the paities. }uiisuiction ovei an accion publiciana is vesteu in a couit of
geneial juiisuiction.

.B/ 0)! 45/ )! 6$*<!+'7
u.R. No. 144817
Naich 7, 2uu2

8!)-*9
Petitioneis }ose 0ca anu Isabelo 0ca aie the co-owneis of a fishponu known in the
locality as the B:.&%1,B piopeity situateu in Bolosan, Bagupan City. The foui
petitioneis aie the civil law lessees of anothei calleu the BC')'*%,B piopeity.
Petitionei }ose 0ca is also the sole anu exclusive ownei of two fishponus commonly
calleu the B:"&"8B anu the BD';('1B piopeities. Responuent Seigio 0. Abalos claims
to be the B<9'&" !"1'1!E-'&"!'F"&B of the above fishponus, asseiting that he hau been
in peaceful possession, cultivation anu caie of the afoiesaiu fishponus fiom the time
he ieceiveu the same fiom the petitioneis 0ca biotheis until the fiist week of Nay
1992 when he iequesteu fiom them the shaie of the haivest anu insteau of acceuing,
petitioneis uemanueu that he vacate the lanus.

A complaint foi Peaceful Possession, Leaseholu anu Bamages with Notion foi the
Issuance of Inteilocutoiy 0iuei was fileu by the iesponuent against the petitionei
with the PARAB. Petitioneis in theii answei uenieu that the iesponuent is a
caietakeitenant of the lanu. They acknowleugeu that the iesponuent is meiely an
inuustiial paitnei who hau waiveu his iight as such, in consiueiation of the amount
of P14u,uuu.uu. Aftei uue pioceeuings, the PARAB ienueieu a Becision in favoi of
the iesponuent ueclaiing him as a bona fiue tenant of the subject fishponus.

The above Becision was appealeu by the petitioneis to the BARAB but the Boaiu
affiimeu (1 !%!% the Becision of the PARAB. Petitioneis sought ielief with the Couit
of Appeals anu fileu a Petition foi Review on Ceitioiaii. The Appellate Couit
mouifieu the Becision iuling that the piivate iesponuent cannot be a tenant of
the BC')'*%,B piopeity, he having solu his shaie anu inteiest anu hau consequently,
waiveu any inteiests he hau theieon. Bence, the instant petition, iaising as a new
aigument the supposeu lack of juiisuiction of the PARAB ovei the subject fishponus.

!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
$**2+9
Whethei oi not the petitioneis be peimitteu to impugn foi the fiist time the
juiisuiction of the Piovincial Aujuuicatoi at this stage of the case.

:+',9
The well-entiencheu iule is that juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei is ueteimineu
exclusively by the Constitution anu the law. It cannot be confeiieu by the voluntaiy
act oi agieement of the paities; it cannot be acquiieu thiough, oi waiveu oi
enlaigeu oi uiminisheu by, theii act oi omission; neithei is it confeiieu by
acquiescence of the couit. Well to emphasize, it is neithei foi the couits noi the
paities to violate oi uisiegaiu the iule, this mattei being legislative in chaiactei.
An eiioi in juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei can be objecteu to at any instance, as
the lack of it affects the veiy authoiity of the couit to take cognizance of the action.
This kinu of uefense can be invokeu even foi the fiist time on appeal oi aftei final
juugment. Such is unueistanuable as this kinu of juiisuiction, to stiess, is statutoiily
ueteimineu.This iule on timing, howevei, is not absolute. In highly meiitoiious anu
exceptional ciicumstances, estoppel oi waivei may opeiate as a shielu to pievent a
paity fiom belateuly iesoiting to this foim of uefense. Thus, we have helu in the
leauing case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy that a paity may be baiieu by estoppel by
laches fiom invoking this plea foi the fiist time on appeal foi the puipose of
annulling eveiything uone in the case with the active paiticipation of saiu paity
invoking the plea. We uefineu laches as B6'().&" %& 1",)"-! 6%& '1 .1&"'<%1';)" '12
.1"G$)'(1"2 )"1,!9 %6 !(#"@ !% 2% !9'! 89(-9@ ;* "G"&-(<(1, 2." 2()(,"1-"@ -%.)2 %&
<9%.)2 9'3" ;""1 2%1" "'&)("&> H! (< 1",)(,"1-" %& %#(<<(%1 !% '<<"&! ' &(,9! 8(!9(1 '
&"'<%1';)" !(#"@ 8'&&'1!(1, $&"<.#$!(%1 !9'! !9" $'&!* "1!(!)"2 !% '<<"&! (! 9'<
';'12%1"2 (! %& 9'< 2"-)(1"2 !% '<<"&! (!>BIn the case at bai, we finu the petitioneis
guilty of estoppel by laches. In the fiist place, they nevei uisputeu the juiisuiction of
the Piovincial Aujuuicatoi at any stage of the pioceeuing: whethei in the Piovincial
0ffice level, the BARAB, oi the Couit of Appeals. Notwithstanuing the piesence of
numeious oppoitunities in the vaiious stages of this case to contest the
aujuuicatoi's exeicise of juiisuiction, not once uiu they iegistei a hint of piotest.
Neithei can they claim that they weie pieventeu fiom contesting its juiisuiction
uuiing the eight yeais this case was unuei litigation.
The enus of justice anu equity iequiie that petitioneis shoulu not be alloweu to
uefeat the tenant's iight by belateuly iaising the issue of juiisuiction. Peimitting
petitioneis to assail the juiisuiction of the Piovincial Aujuuicatoi at this late stage of
the case woulu mean ienueiing useless all the pioceeuings helu below. A gieat ueal
of time, effoit anu iesouices woulu be put to waste both on the pait of the litigants
anu of the State. This is especially oppiessive foi the iesponuent, a tenant who
cannot affoiu the uiscomfoits of a piotiacteu litigation.

!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
.K/ #+<$"$0 $*$,#0 45 )! 6'!3!#07
u.R. No. 1uSS86
Becembei 1S, 199S

8!)-*9
Piivate iesponuent Nativiuau uutieiiez is the ownei of a paicel of lanu with an aiea
of 4.S hectaies locateu in Baiiio Sta. Ciuz, uapan, Nueva Ecija. In 198S, Aniceta
uaicia, sistei of piivate iesponuent anu also the oveiseei of the lattei, alloweu
petitionei Remigio Isiuio to occupy the swampy poition of the abovementioneu
lanu, consisting of one (1) hectaie, in oiuei to augment his (petitionei's) income to
meet his family's neeus. The occupancy of a poition of saiu lanu was subject to the
conuition that petitionei woulu vacate the lanu upon uemanu. Petitionei occupieu
the lanu 8(!9%.! $'*(1, '1* &"1!') anu conveiteu the same into a fishponu.

In 199u, piivate iesponuent thiough hei oveiseei uemanueu fiom petitionei the
ietuin of the lanu, but the lattei iefuseu to vacate anu ietuin possession of saiu
lanu, claiming that he hau spent effoit anu investeu capital in conveiting the same
into a fishponu.

Baseu on an oculai inspection of the subject lanu, the tiial couit founu that the lanu
in question is a fishponu anu, thus, in a uecision uateu Su Nay 1991, the saiu tiial
couit uismisseu the complaint, iuling that the lanu is agiicultuial anu theiefoie the
uispute ovei it is agiaiian which is unuei the oiiginal anu exclusive juiisuiction of
the couits of agiaiian ielations as pioviueu in Sec. 12(a) of Republic Act No. 946
(now embouieu in the Reviseu Rules of Pioceuuie of the Bepaitment of Agiaiian
Refoim Aujuuication Boaiu).

$**2+9
Whethei oi not the lanu involveu in this case is an agiicultuial lanu.

Whethei oi not BARAB has juiisuiction ovei the case.

:+',9
As to the fiist issue, the answei is yes. As to the seconu issue, the answei is no.

The NTC uismisseu the unlawful uetainei complaint piimaiily on the giounu that
the subject lanu is agiicultuial anu theiefoie the question at issue is agiaiian. In this
connection, it is well to iecall that Section 1, Rule II of the Reviseu Rules of
Pioceuuie, pioviues that the Agiaiian Refoim Aujuuication Boaiu shall have
piimaiy juiisuiction, both oiiginal anu appellate, to ueteimine anu aujuuicate all
agiaiian uisputes, cases, contioveisies, anu matteis oi inciuents involving the
implementation of the Compiehensive Agiaiian Refoim Piogiam unuei Republic
Act No. 66S7, Executive 0iuei Nos. 229, 228 anu 129-A, Republic Act No. S844 as
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
amenueu by Republic Act No. 6S89, Piesiuential Beciee No. 27 anu othei agiaiian
laws anu theii implementing iules anu iegulations.
An agiaiian uispute iefeis to any contioveisy ielating to tenuiial aiiangements,
whethei leaseholu, tenancy, stewaiuship oi otheiwise, ovei lanus uevoteu to
agiicultuie, incluuing uisputes conceining faimwoikeis associations oi
iepiesentation of peisons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing oi seeking to
aiiange teims oi conuitions of such tenuiial aiiangements. It incluues any
contioveisy ielating to compensation of lanus acquiieu unuei Republic Act No.
66S7 anu othei teims anu conuitions of tiansfei of owneiship fiom lanuowneis to
faimwoikeis, tenants anu othei agiaiian iefoim beneficiaiies, whethei the
uisputants stanu in the pioximate ielation of faim opeiatoi anu beneficiaiy,
lanuownei anu tenant, oi lessoi anu lessee.
It is iiiefutable (1 !9" -'<" '! ;'& that the subject lanu which useu to be an iule,
swampy lanu was conveiteu by the petitionei into a fishponu. Anu it is settleu that a
fishponu is an agiicultuial lanu. An agiicultuial lanu iefeis to lanu uevoteu to
agiicultuial activity as uefineu in Republic Act No. 66S7 anu not classifieu as
mineial, foiest, iesiuential, commeicial oi inuustiial lanu. Republic Act No. 66S7
uefines agiicultuial activity as the cultivation of the soil, planting of ciops, giowing
of fiuit tiees, iaising of livestock, poultiy oi fish, incluuing the haivesting of such
faim piouucts, anu othei faim activities, anu piactices peifoimeu by a faimei in
conjunction with such faiming opeiations uone by peisons whethei natuial oi
juiiuical.
But a case involving an agiicultuial lanu uoes not automatically make such case an
agiaiian uispute upon which the BARAB has juiisuiction. The meie fact that the lanu
is agiicultuial uoes not ($<% 6'-!% make the possessoi an agiicultuial lessee oi
tenant. The law pioviues foi conuitions oi iequisites befoie he can qualify as one
anu the lanu being agiicultuial is only one of them. The law states that an agiaiian
uispute must be a -%1!&%3"&<* &")'!(1, !% ' !"1.&(') '&&'1,"#"1! %3"& )'12< 2"3%!"2
!% ',&(-.)!.&". Anu as pieviously mentioneu, such aiiangement may be leaseholu,
tenancy oi stewaiuship.
The essential iequisites of a tenancy ielationship aie: (1) the paities aie the
lanuownei anu the tenant: (2) the subject mattei is agiicultuial lanu; (S) theie is
consent; (4) the puipose is agiicultuial piouuction; (S) theie is peisonal cultivation
by the tenant; anu (6) !9"&" (< ' <9'&(1, %6 9'&3"<!< ;"!8""1 !9" $'&!("<. All these
iequisites must concui in oiuei to cieate a tenancy ielationship between the
paities. The absence of one uoes not make an occupant of a paicel of lanu, oi a
cultivatoi theieof, oi a plantei theieon, a 2" A.&" tenant. 0nless a peison establishes
his status as a 2" A.&" tenant, he is not entitleu to secuiity of tenuie noi is he coveieu
by the Lanu Refoim Piogiam of the goveinment unuei existing tenancy laws.
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
Fuitheimoie, an agiicultuial lessee as uefineu in Sec. 116(2) of Republic Act No.
S844, is a peison who, by himself anu with the aiu available fiom within his
immeuiate faim householu, cultivates the lanu belonging to, oi possesseu by,
anothei with the lattei's consent foi puiposes of piouuction, 6%& ' $&(-" -"&!'(1 (1
#%1"* %& (1 $&%2.-" %& ;%!9. An agiicultuial lessoi, on the othei hanu, is a natuial oi
juiiuical peison who, eithei as ownei, civil law lessee, usufiuctuaiy, oi legal
possessoi lets oi giants to anothei the cultivation anu use of his lanu 6%& ' $&(-"
-"&!'(1.
Baseu on the statutoiy uefinitions of a tenant oi a lessee, it is cleai that theie is no
tenancy oi agiicultuialleaseholu ielationship existing between the petitionei anu
the piivate iesponuent. 09"&" 8'< 1% -%1!&'-! %& ',&""#"1! "1!"&"2 (1!% ;* !9"
$"!(!(%1"& 8(!9 !9" $&(3'!" &"<$%12"1! 1%& 8(!9 !9" %3"&<""& %6 !9" $&(3'!" &"<$%12"1!@
6%& $"!(!(%1"& !% -.)!(3'!" !9" )'12 6%& ' $&(-" -"&!'(1 %& !% <9'&" 9(< 9'&3"<!<.
Petitionei has faileu to substantiate his claim that he was paying ient foi the use of
the lanu.
.N/ 0%V2$- 45/ =$%!<$#!W1!#)$! 6<0%30%7
!/</ <-DWHKW.CNB
0RXATQU NI .HHN
8!)-*9
The chaige against iesponuent }uuge stems fiom a foicible entiy case with piayei
foi tempoiaiy iestiaining oiuei anu pieliminaiy injunction with uamages. Saiu case
was assigneu to hei sala. The complainant anu hei two biotheis weie theiein co-
uefenuants. Complainant iaiseu the issue of juiisuiction stating that saiu case falls
within the oiiginal anu exclusive juiisuiction of the Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim
(BAR) because it involves tenancy ovei an agiicultuial lanu. Theieaftei,
complainant anu hei co-uefenuants fileu with iesponuent }uuge, an IGE:'&!" Notion
foi Bisqualification, Request foi Bisqualification anu Request foi Resolution.
Basically, these motions weie founueu on the tiial couit's allegeu lack of
juiisuiction. In a single 0iuei, iesponuent }uuge uenieu all thiee motions iuling that
juiisuiction is ueteimineu by the allegations in the complaint anu not those iaiseu
by uefenuants. Noieovei, accoiuing to iesponuent }uuge , the claim iegaiuing the
natuie of the case at bai woulu not automatically uivest the couit of its juiisuiction.

Subsequently, plaintiff in the lowei couit fileu an injunction bonu which was
appioveu by iesponuent }uuge anu a wiit of pieliminaiy injunction was issueu
against the uefenuants, incluuing heiein complainant. A seizuie oiuei followeu
which uiiecteu iesponuent Sheiiff to seize the palay fiom the lanu in question.
$**2+*9
W0N the lowei couit has juiisuiction ovei the case.
!"#!#$!% '!( )!*+ ,$"+*-*
W0N that the plaintiff's injunction bonu was appioveu by iesponuent }uuge without
fiist seiving a copy to the complainant anu the motion of issuance of seizuie oiuei
was not seiveu iesulting in a violation of uue piocess.

W0N the complainants weie oiueieu to leave the lanu because they will ceitainly
lose the case

W0N the sheiiff seizeu all the palay haivesteu without issuing a ieceipt, uespite
uemanu theiefoi, anu ueliveieu the palay to the plaintiff.

:+',9
The case was uismisseu. The couit helu that it is a basic iule that the mateiial
aveiments in the complaint, which in this case is foi ejectment, ueteimine the
juiisuiction of the couit. Anu, juiispiuuence uictates that the couit uoes not lose its
juiisuiction ovei an ejectment case by the simple expeuient of a paity iaising as a
uefense theiein the allegeu existence of a tenancy ielationship between the paities."
It is the uuty of the couit to ieceive eviuence to ueteimine the veiacity of allegations
of tenancy. In an 0iuei of iesponuent }uuge uateu u9 Febiuaiy 1996, it was iuleu
that, consiueiing the eviuence piesenteu, the lanu in question is an iiiigateu
iicelanu, but not tenanteu.

The iecoius belie the claim of complainant that the Wiit of Pieliminaiy Injunction
was not seiveu to the uefenuants. Recoius show that saiu wiit was seiveu to the
uefenuants on Febiuaiy 16, 1996 at theii iesiuence but all iefuseu to acknowleuge
ieceipt theiefoie, neveitheless the executing Sheiiff left each a copy to the
uefenuants.

As to the allegation that the juuge was peisuaueu with money anu tolu the
complainants to leave the lanu weie not suppoiteu by eviuence apait fiom the self-
seiving statements maue by complainant. The couit is not peisuaueu by saiu
accusations huileu by complainant simply because theie is no eviuence theieon to
implicate the iesponuent }uuge.

Neithei aie we convinceu that iesponuent Sheiiff was iemiss in his uuty to issue a
ieceipt foi the palay he seizeu. Aumitteuly, he uiu not issue the ieceipt on the spot,
but we accept the ieason stateu eailiei foi issuing it when the palay was alieauy
cleaneu anu measuieu, next uay. Fiom the iecoiu, complainant maue no aveiment
that iesponuent Sheiiff ueiiveu pecuniaiy benefit in not immeuiately giving
complainant a ieceipt. It was ieasonable to biiefly wait until measuiement coulu be
maue as to the volume of the palay aftei being cleaneu anu thiesheu befoie issuance
of the ieceipt. In the absence of contiaiy eviuence, the piesumption pievails that
the sheiiff has iegulaily peifoimeu his official uuty.

Corpuz vs. Grospe (Cruz) : Agrarian Law Case Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpuz vs. Grospe (Cruz) : Agrarian Law Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

!"#!#$!% '!( )!

You might also like