CARLAW

1) GONZALES v. CA
SUBDIVISION-LESSEE
Agcaoile sps- Maximo Cruz (tenant)- Fidel Cruz (son)- Pascual Gonzales- Felix
Gonzales (resp-son)-1954 ceased to be a tenant- 1955 converted to a residential
subdivision- rented a portion and requested to be allowed to plant palay
*Petitioners may not invoke Section 36(1) of Republic Act No. 3844 which provides
that
"when the lessor-owner fails to substantially carry out the conversion of his
agricultural
land into a subdivision within one year after the dispossession of the lessee, the
lessee
shall be entitled to reinstatement and damages," for the petitioners were not
agricultural
lessees or tenants of the land before its conversion into a residential subdivision
in 1955. Not having been dispossessed by the conversion of the land into a
residential subdivision, they may not claim a right to reinstatement. PETITION
DENIED.

2) HACIENDA LUISITA INC v. PARC

STOCK DISTRIBUTION PLAN
*SEC 5 of RA 9700 superseded SEC 31 of RA 6657 vis a vis the stock distribution
component of the said provision, where SEC 5 RA 9700 provides that- That after June
30,2009, the mode of acquisition shalll be limited to VOS and CA. Thus, stock
distribution is NO LONGER an available option under existing law. The issue has
become moot and academic.
*SEC 31 of RA 6657 is NOT inconsistent with the State's commitment to farmers and
farmworkers to advance their interests under the policy of social justice.
PETITION DENIED.

3) MORTA SR. v. OCCIDENTAL

JURISDICTION OF DARAB
gathered pilinuts, anahaw leaves, and coconuts from their respective land- filed
for damages with MTC- RTC reversed saying DARAB has jurisdiction and not MTC
*For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a TENANCY
RELATIONSHIP
between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute,
it would
be essential to 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 shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee.
The issue of ownership cannot be settled by the
DARAB since it is definitely outside its jurisdiction. The ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP shall
be resolved in a separate proceeding before the appropriate trial court between the
claimants thereof.

4) ASSOC of SMALL LANDOWNERS v. SEC of AGRARIAN REFORM

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RA 6657
*SEC 6 of RA 6657- RETENTION LIMITS
* it is NOT CORRECT to say that ONLY PUBLIC agricultural lands may be
covered by the CARP as the Constitution calls for "the just distribution of ALL
AGRICULTURAL
lands."
*The fundamental rule in expropriation matters is that the owner of the property
expropriated is entitled to a JUST COMPENSATION, which should be neither more nor
less, whenever it is possible to make the assessment, than the MONEY EQUIVALENT
of said property. Just compensation has always been understood to be the just and
complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to
suffer by reason of the expropriation. What we deal with here is a revolutionary
kind of expropriation.

5) NATALIA REALTY INC v. DAR

TOWNSITE AREA
including the undeveloped portions of its landholding within the coverage of CARP
*Sec. 4 of RA 6657 states that the CARL covers "regardless of tenurial arrangement
and commodity produced, all public and private and agricultural lands" and as per
the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission, "agricultural lands" covered by
agrarian reform refers only to those which are "arable and suitable lands" and "do
not include commercial, industrial and residential lands."

6) LUZ FARMS v. SEC of DAR

LIVESTOCK and POULTRY INDUSTRY
*The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on
the meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the
intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry
industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program
of the Government. Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 are
unconstitutional.

7) GELOS v. CA
HIRED LABORER
Respondents entered into a written contract with petitioner Rafael Gelos employing
him as their laborer on the land at the stipulated daily wage of P5.00.
* Tenancy is not a 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.

For this relationship to exist, it is necessary that: 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 harvest or payment
of rental.

8) TEODORO v. MACARAEG
LEASEHOLD TENANT
He received a letter from Teodoro and his wife advising him that the aforesaid
landholding will be given to ANOTHER tenant
*The Contract of Lease between the parties contains the essential elements of a
leasehold tenancy agreement. The landholding in dispute is unmistakably an
agricultural land devoted to agricultural production.

9)ZAMORA v. SU
OVERSEER
Zamoras was hired by Su as overseer of his coconut land in Dapitan City.
*As overseer, Zamoras hired the tenants and assigned their respective portions
which they cultivated under Zamoras' supervision. The tenants dealt directly with
Zamoras and received their one-third share of the copra produce from him. The
evidence also shows that Zamoras, aside from doing administrative work for Su,
regularly managed the sale of copra processed by the tenants. There is no evidence
that Zamoras cultivated any portion of Su's land personally or with the aid of his
immediate farm household.