Cayetano vs Tiongson
Facts:
1946, Severino Manotok donated and
transferred to his 8 children and 2 grandchildren
a 34 hectare land in Quezon City. Severino
Manotok was appointed judicial guardian of his
minor children. There was no tenant occupying
the property at the time of the donation.
Later, Teodoro Macaya accompanied Vicente
Herrera, the overseer of the property, went to
the Manotok and pleaded that he be allowed to
live in the property to prevent theft and to guard
the property. Manotok allowed Macaya but
imposed the condition that any time the owners
needed to take the property, Macaya and his
family must vacate, and that he could raise
animals and plant according to his needs, and
that the owners have no responsibility to Macaya
and he will use only 3 hectares. These conditions
were not put in writing.
In 1950, the property owners organized
themselves as a corporation and transferred the
34 hectare land a capital contribution to the
capital stock of the corporation. Later, when the
owners demanded for payment of taxes, Macaya
agreed to help pay the taxes by remitting 10
cavans of palay every year as his contribution.
Later, owners requested Macaya to increase his
contribution to 20 cavans, Macaya agreed. Later,
Macaya pleaded that he will contribute 10 cavans
only, the owners said the "he might as well not
deliver anymore". Macaya did not deliver palays
from then on.
1974, the owners executed a Unilateral Deed of
Conveyance of the property to Patricia Tiongson,
etc. Macaya was informed that the land is needed
for house construction of the owners and was
asked to vacate, Macaya pleaded that he may be
allowed to harvest first before vacating.
However, after harvest, Macaya did not vacate
and even expand his cultivation to 6 hectares
without the consent of the owners.
Issue: Whether there is tenancy relationship
between the parties.
Ruling:
Real estate taxes of the property declare the land
as residential. The physical view of the property
also shows that the land was a rolling forestal
land without any flat portion except the one
tilled by Macaya.
As to the sharing, the decision of the petitioners
not to ask for anymore contributions from
Macaya reveals that there was no tenancy
relationship ever agreed upon by the parties.
Neither can such relationship be implied from
the facts as there was no agreed system of
sharing the produce of the property. Moreover,
from 1946 to 1956 at which time, Macaya was
also planting rice, there was no payment
whatsoever. At the most and during the limited
period when it was in force, the arrangement
was a civil lease where the lessee for a fixed
price leases the property while the lessor has no
responsibility whatsoever for the problems of
production and enters into no agreement as to
the sharing of the costs of fertilizers, irrigation,
seedlings, and other items.
As to consent, the lot was taxed as residential
land in a metropolitan area. There was clearly no
intention on the part of the owners to devote the
property for agricultural production but only for
residential purposes. Thus, together with the
third requisite, the fourth requisite which is the
purpose was also not present.
There was no agreement as to any system of
sharing the produce of the land. The petitioners
did not get anything from the harvest and private
respondent Macaya was using and cultivating the
land free from any charge or expense.
Caballes vs DAR
This is a petition for certiorari seeking the
annulment of an Order issued by public
respondent Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), through its then Secretary, the Hon.
Heherson Alvarez, finding the existence of a
tenancy relationship between the herein
petitioner and the private respondent. The
landholding subject of the controversy, which
consists of only sixty (60) square meters was
acquired by the spouses Arturo and Yolanda
Caballes (petitioner), by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated July 24, 1978 executed by
Andrea Alicaba Millenes. This landholding is part
of Lot No. 3109-C, which has a total area of about
500 square meters, situated at Lawa-an, Talisay,
Cebu. In 1975, before the sale in favor of the
Caballes spouses, private respondent Bienvenido
Abajon constructed his house on a portion of the
said landholding, paying a monthly rental of
2.00 to the owner, Andrea Millenes. The
landowner likewise allowed Abajon to plant on a
portion of the land, agreeing that the produce
thereof would be shared by both on a fifty-fifty
basis. Abajon planted corn and bananas on the
landholding. For four years, he paid the 2.00
rental for the lot occupied by his house, and
delivered 50% of the produce to the owner.
As the property was sold, the new owners asked
Abajon to vacate the premises, saying they
needed the property, but Abajon refused. On
April 1, 1982, Yolanda Caballes, executed an
Affidavit stating that immediately after she
reprimanded Abajon for harvesting bananas and
jackfruit from the property without her
knowledge, the latter, with malicious and ill
intent, cut down the banana plants on the
property worth about 50.00. A criminal case for
malicious mischief was filed against Abajon.
(Obviously, all the planting on the property,
including that of the banana plants, had been
done by Abajon). Upon motion of the respondent
in open court, the trial court ordered the referral
of the case to the Regional Office of the Public
Respondent for a preliminary determination of
the relationship between the parties. The
Regional Director of DAR held that there is the
existence of a tenancy relationship between the
parties. On appeal by the petitioner, the
Secretary of DAR, reversed the decision of the
Regional Director. Upon motion for
reconsideration filed by the private respondent,
the New DAR Secretary sets aside the previous
decision and finds the existence of a tenancy
relationship between the parties.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not there is an existence of a
tenancy relationship between the parties.
HELD There is none.
The Higher Court laid down the essential
requisites of a tenancy relationship. All
requisites must concur in order to create a
tenancy relationship between the parties. The
absence of one does not make an occupant of a
parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter
thereon, a de jure tenant. The fact of sharing
alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy
relationship. This does not automatically make
the tiller-sharer a tenant thereof especially when
the area tilled is only 60 square meters and
located in an urban area and in the heart of an
industrial or commercial zone. Tenancy status
arises only if an occupant of a parcel of land has
been given its possession for the primary
purpose of agricultural production. The
circumstances of this case indicate that the
private respondent's status is more of a
caretaker who was allowed by the owner out of
benevolence or compassion to live in the
premises and to have a garden of some sort
rather than a tenant. Agricultural production as
the primary purpose being absent in the
arrangement is a clear proof that the private
respondent was never a tenant.
Hilario vs IAC
Facts:
January 1981, Salvador Baltazar filed a verified
complaint with Courts of Agrarian Relation-
Bulacan alleging that since January 1955 he had
been continuous possession as a share tenant of
a parcel of land in Bulacan which was previously
owned by Socorro Vda. de Balagtas. Thereafter,
the spouses Hilario began to threaten him to
desist from entering and cultivating the land.
Baltazar claims that he became sa tenant of
Socorro by virtue of a kasunduan executed in
1979. After the death of Socorro, he allegedly
gave the share pertaining to the daughter of
Socorro Corazon Pengzon. It was only in
December 1980 that Baltazar knew that portion
of the land was already owned by the Hilarios.
The Hilarios, aver that they acquired the land
from the PNB after it had been foreclosed. CAR
ruled that the land in question is not an
agricultural land but a plain "bakuran". Hence,
Baltazar is not a tenant.
CA however remanded the case to the lower
court for further proceesings on the ground that
the findings of CAR were not supported by
substantial evidence. In compliance, CAR
admitted additional evidence.

Again, CAR declared Baltazar as non-tenant.

Baltazar appealed with IAC, IAC set aside the
decision of the CAR and entitling Baltazar
security of tenure on the land. Spouse Hilario
then petition for review.

Issue: Whether Baltazar is a tenant.

Held: No. The law accords the landholder the

right to initially choose his tenant to work on his
land. For this reason, tenancy relationship can
only be created with the consent of the true and
lawful landholder through lawful means and not
by imposition or usurpation. So the mere
cultivation of the land by usurper cannot confer
upon him any legal right to work the land as
tenant and enjoy the protection of security of
tenure of the law (Spouses Tiongson v. Court of
Appeals, 130 SCRA 482) (Ibid)
Baltazar is not a tenant because no consent was
given by Pengzon. Successors-in-interest of the
true and lawful landholder/owner who gave the
consent are bound to recognize the tenancy
established before they acquired the agricultural
land.

Talavera vs CA