G.R. No.
78124 60 square meters whereon the house of the accused is
Caballes vs DAR, Alavarez and Abajon
December 5, 1988
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The spouses Arturo and Yolanda Cabelles acquired the
disputed landholding (60 sq.m) by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated July 24, 1978 executed by the owner
Andrea Millenes. In 1975, before the sale to spouses
Caballes, private respondent Bienvenido Abajon
constructed his house on a portion of the said
landholding. 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.
During those four years, he paid the P2.00 rental for the
lot occupied by his house, and delivered 50% of the
produce (camote, bananas, corn) to Andrea Millenes.
Sometime in March 1979, after the property was sold,
the new owners, Arturo and Yolanda Caballes, told
Abajon that the poultry they intended to build would be
close to his house and persuaded him to transfer his
dwelling to the opposite or southern portion of the
landholding. Abajon offered to pay the new owners
rental on the land occupied by his house, but his offer
was not accepted. Abajon refused to leave the premises.
On April 1, 1982, the landowner, 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 P50.00. A criminal case for
malicious mischief was filed against Abajon.
The trial court ordered the referral of the case to the
Regional Office No. VII of the then MAR for a preliminary
determination of the relationship between the parties.
The Regional Director issued a certification stating that
Abajon is a bona-fide tenant of the land owned by the
complainant, that the case was filed to harass and/or
eject the tenant from his farmholding, which act is
prohibited by law; and that this arose out of or is
connected with agrarian relations.
Petitioner appealed to MAR which reversed the previous
certification declaring the criminal case as proper for trial
as "the land involved is a residential lot consisting of only
constructed and within the industrial zone of the town as
evinced from the Certification issued by the Zoning
Administrator of Talisay, Cebu."
Upon motion for reconsideration filed by Abajon, the
respondent DAR, through its new Minister, herein
respondent Heherson Alvarez, issued two Orders: (1)
setting aside the previous Order, and (2) certifying said
criminal case as not proper for trial, finding the existence
of a tenancy relationship between the parties, and that
the case was designed to harass the accused into
vacating his tillage.
The DAR concluded that Abajon is a tenant of the new
owners (spouses Caballes), hence this petition for
certiorari.
ISSUE: whether or not Abajon is a tenant of the spouses
Caballes.
HELD:
No, Abajon is not a tenant of the spouses Caballes.
Sixty square meters of land planted to bananas, camote,
and corn cannot by any stretch of the imagination be
considered as an economic family-size farm. Surely,
planting camote, bananas, and corn on a sixty-square
meter piece of land cannot produce an income sufficient
to provide a modest standard of living to meet the farm
family's basic needs. The private respondent himself
admitted that he did not depend on the products of the
land because it was too small, and that he took on
carpentry jobs on the side.
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.

WHEREFORE, the Order of public respondents dated

November 15, 1986 is SET ASIDE and Criminal Case No.
4003, is hereby DISMISSED. Let a copy of this decision be
sent to the Municipal Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu for
appropriate action. This Decision is IMMEDIATELY
EXECUTORY.