ABUNDO vs. COMELEC ABUNDO vs.
- The fact that private respondent knew of, and
COMELEC ABUNDO vs. COMELEC ENDAYA vs
CA - FIDELI
LABOR LAWS; TENANCY; EFFECTS OF ABOLITION OF
SHARE TENANCY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD. — R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as
amended by R.A. No. 6839 (1971).
- abolished share tenancy throughout the
Philippines from 1971 and established the
agricultural leasehold system by operation of
law.
Section 7 of the said law gave agricultural lessees security
of tenure by providing the following:
1. The agricultural leasehold relation once
established shall confer upon the agricultural
lessee the right to continue working on the
landholding until such leasehold relation is
extinguished.
2. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to
security of tenure on his landholding and cannot
be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the
Court for causes herein provided.
CIVIL LEASE CONTRACT GRANTING AUTHORITY TO LESSEE
TO OVERSEE FARMING DOES NOT EXTINGUISH
LEASEHOLD RELATION.
- 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, is not among the causes
provided by law for the extinguishment of the
agricultural leasehold relation.
Sec. 8. Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation.
- The agricultural leasehold relation established
under this Code shall be extinguished by:
1. Abandonment of the landholding without
the knowledge of the agricultural lessor;
2. Voluntary surrender of the landholding by
the agricultural lessee, written notice of
which shall be served three months in
advance; or
3. Absence of the persons under Section nine
to succeed to the lessee in the event of
death or permanent incapacity of the
lessee.
Hence, transactions involving the agricultural land over
which an agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change
of ownership, e.g., sale, or transfer of legal possession,
such as lease, will not terminate the rights of the
agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by
making such rights enforceable against the transferee or
the landowner's successor in interest.
FACT THAT AGRICULTURAL LESSEE CONSENTED NOT A
WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT
consented to, the said lease contract by signing
as witness to the agreement may not be
construed as a waiver of his rights as an
agricultural lessee.
- On the contrary, it was his right to know about
the lease contract since, as a result of the
agreement, he had to deal with a new person
instead of with the owners directly as he used to.
- No provision may be found in the lease contract
and the renewal contract even intimating that
private respondent has waived his rights as an
agricultural lessee.
AGRICULTURAL LESSEE NOT CREATED WITHOUT
OWNER'S CONSENT; RULE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE
AT BAR
- It is true that the Court has ruled that
agricultural tenancy is not created where the
consent of the true and lawful owners is absent.
- But this doctrine contemplates a situation where
an untenanted farm land is cultivated without
the landowner's knowledge or against her will or
although permission to work on the farm was
given, there was no intention to constitute the
worker as the agricultural lessee of the farm
land.
- The rule finds no application in the case at bar
where the petitioners are successors-in-interest
to a tenanted land over which an agricultural
leasehold has long been established.
ENDAYA vs CA – FIDELIS
Sps. Natividad and San Diego owned an agricultural land at
Batangas devoted to rice and corn. Since 1934 Fideli has
been cultivating that land as tenant of sps. San Diego
under 50-50 sharing agreement.
On 1974 Spouses San Diego and Cassonova entered into a
lease contract for 4 yrs. Fideli signed as one of the two
witnesses of that contract.
The lease contract was renewed until May 1980 but the
rental was raised from 400 to 600php. Again, Fideli signed
the contract as witness.
During the entire duration of the lease contract, Fideli
continuously cultivated the land, sharing equally with
Cassanova the net produce of the harvests.
Sps. San Diego then sold the land to Spouses Endaya and
the sale was registered with Register of Deeds. Howver,
Fideli continued to farm even though Endaya told him to
vacate.
Fideli then filed at RTC Batangas saying that he be declared
the agricultural tenant of petitioner.
RTC – DENIED
CA reversed RTC decision - saying that Fideli is an
agricultural lessee.
Endaya appealed alleging that:
a. landowner cannot have a civil law lease contract
w/ one person then have an agricultural
leasehold agreement with another over the
same land
b. private respondent consented to the lease
agreement b/w Spouses San Diego and
Cassanova by signing the lease agreement and
renewal as a witness of such contract, hence,
Fideli waived his right as an agricultural lessee.
ISSUE: W/N Fideli is an agricultural tenant of petitioner?
HELD: YES,
RA 3844, established the agricultural leasehold system and
abolished the share tenancy.
Sec 8 gave agricultural lessees security of tenure "The
agricultural leasehold relation once established shall
confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue
working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is
extinguished.
The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of
tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected
therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes
herein provided"
The fact that the landowner entered into a civil lease
contract over the same land is not among the causes for
extinguished of agricultural leasehold relation.
Sec 10: Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished
by Expiration of Period, etc.
The agricultural leasehold relation under this code shall
not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or
period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or
transfer of the legal possession of the landholding.
In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers
the legal possession of the landhold-ing, the purchaser or
transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and
substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor.
Hence, transactions involving the agricultural land over
which an agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change
of ownership will not terminate the rights of the
agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by
making such rights enforceable against the transferee or
the landowners successor in interest.
The fact that private respondent knew of, and consented
to, the said lease contract by signing as witness to the
agreement may not be construed as a waiver of his rights
as an agricultural lessee. On the contrary, it was his right
to know about the lease contract since, as a result of the
agreement, he had to deal with a new person instead of
with the owners directly as he used to.
The consent given by the original owners to constitute
private respondent as the agricultural lessee of the subject
landholding binds private respondents who, as successors-
in-interest of the Spouses San Diego, step into the latter’s
shoes, acquiring not only their rights but also their
obligations
Fideli has unilaterally decided to pay only 25% of the net
harvests to petitioner but his agreement with the Spouses
San Diego, the original owners, was for a fifty-fifty (50-50)
sharing of the net produce of the land. The court held that
the same sharing agreement should be maintained
between Endaya and Fideli.
Hence, the Court ordered Fideli to pay the back rentals
from 190 -1992 + legal interest at legal rate. · (Doctrine:
Once a leasehold relationship is established, the
Agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure)
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRARIAN LAWS; R.A.
NO. 3844 (CODE OF AGRARIAN REFORMS); RULES ON
SUCCESSION TO TENANCY RIGHTS.
Sec 9 of RA 3844 is clear and unequivocal in providing for
the rules on succession to tenancy rights. A close
examination of the provision leaves no doubt as to its
rationale of providing for continuity in agricultural
leasehold relation in case of death or incapacity of a party.
To this end, it provides that in case of death or permanent
incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his
landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the
agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the
landholding personally.
In the same vein, the leasehold shall bind the legal heirs of
the agricultural lessor in case of death or permanent
incapacity of the latter.
It is to achieve this continuity of relationship that the
agricultural lessor is mandated by law to choose a
successor-tenant within one month from the death or
incapacity of the agricultural lessee from among the
following:
1. surviving spouse;
2. eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or
3. the next eldest direct descendant or
descendants in the order of their age.
Should the lessor fail to exercise his choice within one
month from the death of the tenant, the priority shall be in
accordance with the aforementioned order.

APPLIED IN CASE AT BAR.
Applying Section 9 of Republic Act 3844, in the light of
prevailing jurisprudence, it is undeniable that respondent
Delia Razon Peña, the surviving spouse of the original
tenant, Anacleto Peña, is the first in the order of
preference to succeed to the tenancy rights of her
husband because the lessor, Carolina Zacarias, failed to
exercise her right of choice within the one month period
from the time of Anacleto's death.
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRARIAN LAWS; R.A.
NO. 3844 (CODE OF AGRARIAN REFORMS); SALE OF
LANDHOLDING BY AGRICULTURAL LESSOR, ALLOWED;
CASE AT BAR.
As an owner, Carolina has the right to dispose of the
property without other limitations than those established
by law. This attribute of ownership is impliedly recognized
in Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, where
the law allows the agricultural lessor to sell the
landholding, with or without the knowledge of the
agricultural lessee and at the same time recognizes the
right of preemption and redemption of the agricultural
lessee.
The existence of tenancy rights of agricultural lessee
cannot affect nor derogate from the right of the
agricultural lessor as owner to dispose of the property. The
only right of the agricultural lessee or his successor in
interest is the right of preemption and/or redemption.
MILESTONE REALTY AND CO., INC. VS. CA – PENA AND
EUGENIO
FACTS: Carolina Zacarias became the absolute owner of
the subject landholding by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement and Affidavit of Settlement executed by the
other heirs of Alfonso Olympia and Spouses Claro and
Cristina Zacarias.
Anacleto Peña was a tenant of the property. He died
intestate and was survived by his second wife, Delia and
his children in his first marriage, including Emilio.
Emilio, Delia, and respondent Raymundo Eugenio,
continued tilling and cultivating the property. Later,
Carolina sold the subject property to William Perez and the
latter sold it to Milestone.
Private respondents Delia and Raymundo filed a complaint
with the PARAD praying, inter alia, to declare as null and
void the series of purchase and sale of the subject
property and to recognize and respect the tenancy of
private respondents Delia and Raymundo.
PARAD dismissed the complaint.
On appeal to the DARAB, the latter reversed the decision
of the PARAD.
The CA affirmed the DARAB's decision.
SC ruled that applying Section 9 of Republic Act 3844, in
the light of prevailing jurisprudence, it is undeniable that
respondent Delia Razon Peña, the surviving spouse of the
original tenant, Anacleto, is the first in the order of
preference to succeed to the tenancy rights of her
husband because the lessor, Carolina, failed to exercise
her right of choice within the one month period from the
time of Anacleto's death.
In addition, the sale of the land in question cannot be
declared null and void. As an owner, Carolina has the right
to dispose of the property without prejudice, however, to
the tenancy rights and the right of redemption of Delia
Razon Peña.
JURISPRUDENCE:
In Manuel vs. Court of Appeals, we ruled that:
Agricultural leasehold relationship is not extinguished by
the death or incapacity of the parties. In case the
agricultural lessee dies or is incapacitated, the leasehold
relation shall continue between the agricultural lessor and
any of the legal heirs of the agricultural lessee who can
cultivate the landholding personally, in the order of
preference provided under Section 9 of Republic Act 3844,
as chosen by the lessor within one month from such death
or permanent incapacity.
VILLAVIZA vs. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET. AL
AGRICULTURAL TENANCY; PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION FOR
VIOLATION OF SECURITY OF TENURE OF TENANT.
A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under
Republic Act 1199, as amended, is an obligation of the
landholder created by law, and an action for violation
thereof prescribes in ten years under No. 2 of Article 1144
of the Civil Code.
EJECTED TENANT'S EARNINGS ELSEWHERE NOT
DEDUCTED FROM DAMAGES. — Under section 27 (1) of
Republic Act 1199, as amended, an illegally ejected
tenant's earnings elsewhere may not be deducted from
but is to be added to the damages granted him upon
reinstatement.
FACTS:
The Court of Agrarian Relations, Cabanatuan City decided
that petitioners should be paid on the amount stated and
respondents should vacate the land in favor of the
petitioners.
LC found that respondents were tenants since 1944 owned
by D. Fajardo. Fajardo then gave the land through civil
lease to Q. Capalad starting year 1955 – 1956.
Fajardo installed new tenants on the land and cultivated
land thru machineries. However, when the old tenants
came as they yearly does, they were surprised that lands
were already cultivated and managed by different tenants.
They talked to Capalad for their reinstatement, Capalad
promised it to them but never did.
ISSUE: W/N Agrarian court erred in their decision to
reinstate the old tenants and to give them damages plus
their loss on time that they did not cultivate the land?
HELD: DENIED
A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under
Republic Act 1199, as amended, is an obligation of the
landholder created by law and an action for violation
hereof prescribes in ten years under No. 2 of Article 1144
of the Civil Code
The tenancy court found that the ejected tenants-
respondents have engaged in gainful occupations since
their illegal ejectment and had delayed the filing of the
case, and for these reasons the court made an award for
damages against Quirino Capalad equivalent to only two
harvests based on the landholder's share for the crop year
1954-1955.
The premises for the award are erroneous. Under section
27(1) of Republic Act 1199, as amended, a tenant's
earnings may not be deducted from the damages because
the said section positively provides that the tenant's
freedom to earn elsewhere is to be added
("in addition") to his right to damages in case of illegal
ejectment (Lustre, et al. vs. CAR, et al., L-19654, March 21,
1964).
The amount of the award to each respondent should not,
however be disturbed because the respondents non-
appeal from the decision indicates their satisfaction
therewith and a waiver of any amounts other than those
indicated in the decision (David v. de la Cruz, et al., L-
11656, 18 April 1958; Dy, et al. vs. Kuizon, L-16654, 30
Nov. 1961).
BASBAS vs ENTENA
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRICULTURAL LAND
REFORM CODE; RIGHT OF LEGAL REDEMPTION; TENDER
OR CONSIGNATION OF THE PRICE REQUIRED.
The timely exercise of the right of legal redemption
requires either tender of the price or valid consignation
thereof.
PAYMENT OF REASONABLE PRICE NOT OBSTACLE TO
REQUIREMENT OF TENDER.
The right of a redemptioner to pay a reasonable price
under Art. 1620 does not excuse him from the duly to
make proper tender of the price that can be honestly
deemed reasonable under the circumstances, without
prejudice to final arbitration by the courts; nor does it
authorize said redemptioner to demand that the vendee
accept payment by installments.
RIGHT TO BE EXERCISED WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME LIMITS.
Both under the Land Reform Act and Art. 1620 of the Civil
Code, the right of legal redemption must be exercised
within specified time limits: and the statutory periods
would be rendered meaningless and of easy evasion unless
the redemptioner is required to make an actual tender in
good faith of what he believed to be the reasonable price
of the land sought to be redeemed.
RUNNING OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD NOT DEPENDENT
UPON TENANT'S OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN FUNDS.
There is no expression in the law (R.A. 3844) which
indicates, or even hints, that the 2-year redemption period
will not commence to run until the tenant obtains
financing from the Land Bank, or stops the tenant from
securing redemption funds from some other source. The
considerations expressed in this decision on the
confiscatory result of requiring the landowner to wait an
indefinite time until the lessee acquires the means for
making the redemption militate against construing the
statement of purposes for which the Land Bank is created
(Sec. 74)
REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR TENDER OR CONSIGNATION
AFFORDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID LITIGATION. — It
may be added that unless tender or consignation is made
requisite to the valid exercise of the tenant's right to
redeem, everytime a redemption is attempted, a case
must be filed in court to ascertain the reasonable price. On
the other hand, a prior tender by the tenant of the price
that he considers reasonable affords an opportunity to
avoid litigation, for the landowner may well decide to
accept a really reasonable offer, considering that he would
thereby save the attorney's fees and the expense of
protracted litigation.ondition precedent to the alienation
of a landholding.
FACTS:
(P) Pablo Basbas is the leasehold tenant of a 1 1/2 hectare
parcel of riceland Sta. Rosa, Laguna, formerly owned by
defendant Rufino Entena and presently owned by spouses
Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena co defendants.
On April 11, 1964, (D) Rufino Entena executed a deed of
sale of the aforementioned lot in favor of (D) spouses
Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena.
On May 25, 1964, (D) Rufino Entena sent a letter, marked
Exhibit 'I', to (P), to which the latter sent a reply dated June
4, 1964, marked as Exhibit 'A'.
On June 4, 1964, (P) wrote a letter, marked Exhibit 'B', to
the Governor of the Land Authority, to which he received a
reply from the Acting Officer in Charge of the Land
Authority, dated June 22, 1964, which is marked as Exhibit
'C', of which reply (Exhibit 'C') (D) have not been given
copy or otherwise informed.
Deed of sale mentioned in paragraph 2, was registered in
the office of the register of deeds of Laguna on May 26,
1964. The certification of the Register of Deeds respecting
said sale is marked as Exhibit 'D'.
(D) Rufino Entena and his wife Aniceta Carapatan executed
an affidavit, dated April 11, 1964, marked as Exhibit 'I' —
defendant Register of Deeds.
(D) sps Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena are son-in-law
and daughter, of defendant Rufino Entena, and spouses
live separately from their father.
(P) has not deposited any sum of money in this Court to
cover the pre-emption or redemption price."
Exhibit "I" - letter sent by Rufino Entena to the tenant,
landholding put for sale at P13,000.00 /h and the tenant
being given 90 days to communicate his intention to
purchas: otherwise, the land would be offered to other
buyers.
Exhibit "A - tenant's reply to the landholder dated June 4,
1964, accepting the latter's offer to sell the land, although
disagreeing to the quoted price therefor.
- informed the landholder that he was enlisting
the aid of the government in purchasing the
land.
Exhibit "3" - tenant's letter of June 4, 1964 addressed to
the Governor of the Land Authority, asking the help of said
agency to acquire the land he was working on and which
was being offered for sale.
Exhibit "C" - answer of the Acting OIC of the Land
Authority, informing the tenant that his petition was
already being processed and definite action thereon will
be taken as soon as the Land Bank shall have been fully
organized.
Exhibit "I"- Register of Deeds" - sworn affidavit of the
spouses Rufino Entena and Aniceta Carapatan, dated April
11, 1964, attesting to the alleged fact that the tenant,
Pablo Basbas, was fully notified of the sale of their land 90
days before said conveyance, and that the tenant had
refused, or failed to exercise, the right of pre-emption
granted him under the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
AGRARIAN COURT – dismissed the case - aintiff failed to
make tender of payment and consignation of the purchase
price the landowner can not be compelled to sell the
property to him.
The appellant-tenant's claim to preference in purchasing
the land he is working on, in case the said land is to be
sold, or to his right to redeem it in 2 years should the land
be sold without his knowledge, is predicated upon
Sections 11 and 12 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code
(Republic Act 3844):
SEC. 11. Lessee's Right of Pre-emption.- In case the
agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the
agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy
the same under reasonable terms and conditions:
a. That the entire landholding offered for sale must
be pre-empted by the Land Authority if the
owner so desires unless the majority of the
lessees object to such acquisition:
b. That where there are two or more agricultural
lessees, each shall be entitled to said preferential
right only to the extent of the area actually
cultivated by him.
***The right of pre-emption under this section may be
exercised within ninety days from notice in writing, which
shall be served by the owner on all lessees affected."
SEC. 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption.—In case the
landholding is sold to a third person without the
knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have
the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and
consideration:
a. That the entire landholding sold must be
redeemed;
b. That where there are two or more agricultural
lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of
redemption only to the extent of the area
actually cultivated by him.
***The right of redemption under this Section may be
exercised within two years from the registration of the
sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal
redemption."
ISSUE:
W/N Court of Agrarian Relations erred in dismissing the
action for non-tender of the redemption price, since the
law nowhere requires such tender?
HELD: Denied
No evidence that LRC has proclaimed that the government
machineries and agencies in the region are already
operating, as required by Section 4 of Republic Act 3844.
Granting that Sections 11 and 12 are operative, yet in
Torres de Conejero, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-
21812, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 775, this SC ruled that the
timely exercise of the right of legal redemption requires
either tender of the price or valid consignation.

That the legal redemptioner is only required to pay a

reasonable price is no obstacle to the requirement of
tender, ruled in the Torres case.

Under Sections 11 and 12 of the Land Reform Act. under

Article 1620 of the Civil Code, the right of legal redemption
must be exercised within specified time limits: and the
statutory periods would be rendered meaningless and of
easy evasion unless the redemptioner is required to make
an actual tender in good faith of what he believed to be
reasonable price of the land sought to be redeemed.

Section 74 of the Land Reform Act (Republic Act No.

3844) "Land Bank of the Philippines" intended 'to finance
the acquisition by the Government of landed estates for
division and resale to small landholders

aAs well as the purchase of the landholding by the

agricultural lessee from the landowner.

No expression in this part of the law indicates, that the 2-

year redemption period will not commence to run until the
tenant obtains financing from the Land Bank.

Or stops the tenant from securing redemption funds from

some other source.

The considerations expressed in this decision on

the confiscatory result of requiring the landowner to wait
an indefinite time until the lessee acquires the means for
making the redemption militate against construing the
statement of purposes for which the Land Bank is created
(Section 74) as condition precedent to the alienation of a
landholding.