any

controversy relating to tenurial

arrangements (leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship) over lands devoted to
agriculture
any controversy relating to compensation
of lands acquired under CARL and other
terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership.
tenancy relationship

ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES
landowner
1)

Parties
tenants

2)

3)
4)
5)
6)

Subject matter is agricultural land

Consent of parties
Purpose is agricultural production
Personal cultivation by tenant
Sharing of harvest between parties
All requisites must concur, absence of one does
not make one a tenant.

Isidro v. CA

Private resp is owner of land;

Sister of priv resp allowed Isidro to
occupy swampy portion subject to
condition to vacate upon demand
Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer
was filed against Isidro;
RTC dismissed bec land is
agricultural and so agrarian;

SC:
Jurisdiction over subject matter
determined from allegations of complaint
Court does not lose jurisdiction by
defense of tenancy relationship and only
after hearing that, if tenancy is shown,
the court should dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction
Case involving agri land does not
automatically make such case agrarian

Six requisites not present;

No contract to cultivate;
Petitioner failed to substantiate
claim that he was paying rent for
use of land

SUPLICO v. CA

Suplico is a lessee of rice land

Private respondent was allowed by Suplico to till
the land while Suplico will provide the farm
implements and thereafter Suplico was to receive
cavans from the palay by way of rental
years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv. resp.
from the property
So private respondent filed an action for damages
against Suplico in CAR
Resp. Owner intervened in case and alleged the
absence of contractual relationship
Trial court declared private respondent as
agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA.

SC:

i.

ii.
iii.
iv.

SC found no reasons to disturb findings

1. private respondent was in actual possession of
land with family in a farmhouse just like what a
farm tenant normally would
Private resp. and wife were personally plowing,
planting, weeding and harvesting.
Management was left entirely to private
respondent
Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico.

2. MONSANTO v. ZERNA:

tenancy relationship

may be
established
verbally
writing
Sps.or
Zerna
were charged with qualified theft for
the taking of coconuts owned by petitioner.
They were acquitted but required Zerna to return
P1,100 to Monsanto on the ground that Monsanto
did not consent to harvest of coconut.
Who is entitled to P1,100 proceeds of copra sale.
This falls under DARAB
There is Agrarian dispute:
1. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts
2. private respondents were overseers at time of
taking by virtue of Agreement .

Cont. of Monsanto v. Zerna

tenancy relationship may be established

verbally or writing, expressly or impliedly
- here there was agreement which
contradicts petitioners contention that private
respondents are mere overseers. Being
overseers does not foreclose their being
tenants.

3.

Petitioner allowed respondent to plant coconut,

etc.
Harvests: receipts of remittance by respondent

4.

Monsanto v. Zerna

Petitioner is claiming the amount of P1,100 as

balance from proceeds of copra sale.
Private respondents contend that this P1,100
is their compensation pursuant to tenurial
arrangements.
Since this amount is intertwined with the
resolution of agra dispute, CA correctly ruled
that DARAB has jurisdiction.
RTC has only jurisdiction over criminal and it
acted beyond when it ruled that agri tenancy
between parties. This belongs to DARAB.

BEJASA v. CA

FACTS:

Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she

leased to Malabanan.
Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and
clear it, with all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan.
Bejasas continued to stay on the land and did not give
any consideration for its use, be it in the form of rent or a
shared harvest

ISSUE:

SC:

Whether or not there is a tenancy

relationship in
favor of the Bejasas

Court found that there was no tenancy

relationship between the parties. There was no proof
that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests.
Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas
stay on the land . There was no proof that the
Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the
tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of
tenancy were met in this case

BEJASA v. CA :

No proof of sharing in harvest

- while Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasas word
was presented to prove this. Besides testimony was
suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa testified that he
agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owners share, yet at one
time, he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan and 50%
for owner.

- landowners never gave consent

citing Chico vs. CA , 284 534 self serving statement
are inadequate, proof must be adhered
-even assuming that landowner agreed to lease it for
P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove tenancy
. Consideration should be harvest sharing.

VALENCIA v. CA
FACTS:

Valencia, owner of land, leased the property for five

(5)years to Fr. Andres Flores under a civil law lease
concept;
lease with prohibition against subleasing or
encumbering the land without Valencias written
consent.
During the period of his lease, private respondents
were instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia
After lease, Valencia demanded vacate but refused;
Private respondents were later awarded with CLTs after
they filed application with DAR;
CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA.

ISSUE:

SC:

An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in

question does not make the case an agrarian dispute. The
elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the
claimant to security of tenure.
A tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. With respect to the
lease agreement between Valencia and Fr. Flores, the lessee did
not have any authority to sublease Valencia's property due to
the prohibition in their lease agreement
R.A. No. 3844, as amended, does not automatically authorize a
civil law lessee to employ a tenant without the consent of the
landowner. The lessee must be so specifically authorized;
A different interpretation would create a perverse and absurd
situation where a person who wants to be a tenant, and taking
advantage of this perceived ambiguity in the law, asks a third
person to become a civil law lessee of the landowner. Incredibly,
this tenant would technically have a better right over the
property than the landowner himself

Tenancy/Can a contract of civil law lease prohibit a

civil law lessee from employing a tenant on the land subject
matter of the lease agreement?

ALMUETE v. ANDRES (Issue on

Ownership)

Facts:
Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject
land
Unknown to Almuete, Andres was awarded
homestead patent due to investigation report
that Almuete was unknown and waived his
rights; Andres also represented that Almuete sold
the property to Masiglat for radiophone set and
that Masiglat sold to him for a carabao and P600.
Almuete filed an action for recovery of
possession and reconveyance before trial court.

Issue is who between 2 awardees of lot has

better right to property.

SC:
This is controversy relating to ownership of
farmland so, beyond the ambit of agrarian
dispute
No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was
alleged between petitioners and
respondent.
RTC was competent to try the case.

PASONG BAYABAS v. CA :

no

evidence

Development of land: converted from agricultural to

residential as approved by DAR.
Petitioners, claimed actual tillers of land, filed complaint
for damages alleging surreptitious conversion; priv resp
denied cultivation; waiver of rights was executed by some

SC : no tenancy
no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are
tenants; waiver of rights constitutes abandonment
no substantial evidence that private respondent is
landlord
No possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner.
Cultivation / possession not proven

Pasong Bayabas

As to the remaining twenty and more other

complainants, it is unfortunate that they
have not shown that their cultivation,
possession and enjoyment of the lands they
claim to till have been by authority of a valid
contract of agricultural tenancy.
On the contrary, as admitted in their
complaint a number of them have simply
occupied the premises in suit without any
specific area of tillage being primarily mere
farm helpers of their relatives

ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA : tenancy is not

presumed
Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent
Petitioner is claiming tenancy
DARAB considered petitioner a tenant; CA reversed
SC: Tenancy is not presumed.
No evidence to prove consent of parties and
sharing of harvest
SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on
record to prove the existence of the following
elements: (a) the consent of the parties and (b) the
sharing of harvests

HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA
FACTS:
Jugalbot was issued EP;
EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp
before DARAB and seek cancellation of title
and recovery possession; on appeal, DARAB
upheld but CA reversed

HEIRS OF JUGALBOT v. CA
SC:

Absence of tenancy relationship.

taking of property violated due process (CA was

correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied
due process because the DAR failed to send notice of
the impending land reform coverage to the proper
party); no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding
investigation and report to verify the truth of the
allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of
the property;
By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals
applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a
violation of due process

no concrete evidence of cultivation; No

proof was presented except for their selfserving statements
Independent evidence, aside from selfserving statements, is needed.
plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of
US Army and migrated to US and returned
only in 1998, wife and daughter were
residents of California
Land involved is residential and not
agricultural because of zoning ordinance

Coverage

Section 4:

All alienable and disposable public lands

All private lands devoted to or suitable to
agriculture

Schedule of implementation Sec. 5

The distribution xxx shall be implemented

immediately and completed within ten years
from effectivity hereof.
Sec. 63: The initial amount needed to
implement this Act for the period of ten years
upon approval hereof shall be funded from the
Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections
20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 299. xxx.
RA 8542: amended Sec. 63 as follows: The
amount needed to implement this Act until
2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian
Reform Fund.

RA 9700, Sec. 21:

The amount needed to further implement
the CARP as provided in this Act, until June
30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under
Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent
laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian
Reform Fund and other funding sources in
the amount of at least One hundred fifty
billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00)