Estrebilio vs DAR

- The petitioners, are the recipients of Emancipation Patents (EPs) over a parcels of land

with their respective Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and EP numbers

- Parcels of land, were formerly part of a forested area which have been denuded as a result of the logging
operations of respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI).

- HMI acquired such forested area from the Republic of the Philippines through Sales Patent

- On 21 October 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 , was issued mandating that tenanted rice and corn
lands be brought under Operation Land Transfer and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries.

- HMI, requested that 527.8308 hectares of its landholdings be placed under the coverage of Operation
Land Transfer

- HMI allowed petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the landholdings so that the same may be
covered under said law.

- corresponding TCTs and EPs covering the entire 527.8308 hectares were issued to petitioners, among
other persons.

- HMI

- 1. sought for the cancellation of the EPs covering the disputed 277.5008 hectares which had been
awarded to petitioners.

2. claimed that said area was not devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was
untenanted, and that no compensation was paid therefor.

- Petitioner

1. argued that EPs are ordinary titles which become indefeasible one year after their registration.

Held:

- Certificates of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as indefeasible as TCTs

issued in registration proceedings.

There is no specific provision in the Public Land law (C.A. No. 141, as amended) or the Land Registration
Act (Act 496), now P.D. 1529, fixing the one (1) year period within which the public land patent is open to
review on the ground of actual fraud as in Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Section 32 of P.D.
1529, and clothing a pubic land patent certificate of title with indefeasibility. Nevertheless, the pertinent
pronouncements in the aforecited cases clearly reveal that Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now
Section 32 of P.D. 1529 was applied by implication by this Court to the patent issued by the Director of Lands
duly approved by the Secretary of Natural Resources, under the signature of the President of the Philippines
in accordance with law. The date of issuance of the patent, therefore, corresponds to the date of the issuance
of the decree in ordinary registration cases because the decree finally awards the land applied for registration
to the party entitled to it, and the patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally grant, awards, and
conveys the land applied for to the applicant. This, to our minds, is in consonance with the intent and spirit of
the homestead laws, i.e. conservation of a family home, and to encourage the settlement, residence and
cultivation and improvement of the lands of the public domain. If the title to the land grant in favor of the
homesteader would be subject to inquiry, contents and decision after it has been given by the Government
through the process of proceedings in accordance with the Public Land Law, there would arise uncertainty,
confusion and suspicion on the government's system of distributing public agricultural lands pursuant to the
"Land for the Landless" policy of the State.
- After complying with the procedure, therefore, in Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise
known as the Property Registration Decree (where the DAR is required to issue the corresponding certificate
of title after granting an EP to tenant-farmers who have complied with Presidential Decree No. 27) (Presidential
Decree No. 1529, Section 105), the TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs acquire the same
protection accorded to other TCTs. "The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon
the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent, . . . . Lands
covered by such title may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be
decreed to another person.

Caballes vs DAR

- landholding subject of the controversy , was acquired by the spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes

-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 P2.00 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.

- the new owners asked Abajon to vacate the premises, saying that they needed the property. But Abajon
refused to leave.

- thereafter, 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 P50.00.

- Whether or not there was a tenancy relationship being established in the case
Held:

The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are:

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 harvests.

- All these 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. This is so because unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled
to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing
tenancy laws.

- Therefore, the fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. Certainly, it
is not unusual for a landowner to accept some of the produce of his land from someone who plants
certain crops thereon. This is a typical and laudable provinciano trait of sharing or patikim, a native way of
expressing gratitude for favor received. This, however, does not automatically make the tiller- sharer a
tenant thereof specially when the area tilled is only 60, or even 500, square meters and located in an
urban area and in the heart of an industrial or commercial zone at that.
- 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 at its southwestern side rather than a tenant of the said portion.

- Agricultural production as the primary purpose being absent in the arrangement, it is clear that the private
respondent was never a tenant of the former owner, Andrea Millenes.

- Consequently, Sec. 10 of RA of 3844, as amended, does not apply. Simply stated, the private respondent
is not a tenant of the herein petitioner.

- Anent the second assignment of error, the petitioner argues that since Abajon, is not an agricultural tenant,
the criminal case for malicious mischief filed against him should be declared as proper for trial so that
proceedings in the lower court can resume.

GELOS vs CA
- basically the case was all about : determine the real status of the petitioner, who claims
to be a tenant of the private respondent and entitled to the benefits of tenancy laws
- the subject land, was owned by the private respondent, who happens to have entered a
contract
- with petitioner Rafael Gelos employing him as their laborer on the land at the stipulated
daily wage of P5.00.

- inform Gelos of the termination of his services and to demand that he vacate the
property.
- Gelos refused and continued working on the land.
- Alzona filed a complaint for illegal detainer against Gelos in the Municipal Court of
Cabuyao, but this action was declared "not proper for trial" by the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform because of the existence of a tenancy relationship between
the parties
- Whether or not there was a tenancy relationship between the parties
- Held;

- it is noted from the agreement they have entered that: The Second Party makes
it known that he is not a farm tenant but only a hired laborer who is paid for every day
of work on the said farm.)
- These stipulations clearly indicate that the parties did not enter into a tenancy
agreement but only a contract of employment
- The work specified is not peculiar to tenancy. What a tenant may do may also be done
by a hired laborer working under the direction of the landowner, as in the case at bar.
- It is not the nature of the work involved but the intention of the parties that determines
the relationship between them.
A tenant is defined under Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 1199 as a person who
himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household cultivates the
land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent, for purposes of
production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or
paying to the landholder a price-certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both,
under the leasehold tenancy system
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. In the absence of any of these requisites, an occupant of a parcel of
land, or a cultivator thereof, or planter thereon, cannot qualify as a de jure tenant