THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

ELIAS ADILLO
G.R. No. L-23785. November 27, 1975
Facts:
On January 4, 1962, defendant-appellee, a share-tenant, was charged before the Court of First
Instance of Laguna with violation of Sec. 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act 1199,
enacted on August 30, 1954) in that he reaped and threshed a portion of palay planted on the land
of which he was a tenant without the knowledge and consent of the landlord and even before a
date had been fixed for the reaping and threshing of the palay. On August 24, 1964, defendant’s
counsel, moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the penal liability of a share-tenant for pre-
reaping or pre-threshing under the Agricultural Tenancy Act had been obliterated by the
Agricultural Land reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844, enacted on August 8, 1963). The trial
court favorably resolved the motion and ordered the dismissal of the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the penal liability of a share tenancy for pre-reaping or pre-threshing under the
Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act No. 1199) has been obliterated by the Agricultural Land
Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389) and the subsequent
Presidential Decrees and Proclamations.
Held:
In sharehold, the tenant may choose to shoulder, in addition to labor, any one or more of the items
of contributions (such as farm implements, work animals, final harrowing, transplanting), while in
leasehold, the tenant or lessee always shoulders all items of production except the land. Under the
sharehold system, the tenant and the landlord are comanagers, whereas in leasehold system the
tenant is the sole manager of the farmholding. Finally, in sharehold tenancy, the tenant or lessee
gets the whole produce with the mere obligation to pay a fixed rental.
Agricultural share tenancy was declared "to be contrary to public policy and shall be abolished"
by the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963 which amended the Tenancy Act of 1954.
Nonetheless, based on the transitory provision in the first proviso of Section 4 of the Code, existing
share tenancy contracts were allowed to continue temporarily in force and effect, notwithstanding
their express abolition, until whichever of the following events occurs earlier. (a) the end of the
agricultural year when the National Land Reform Council makes the proclamation declaring the
region or locality a land reform area; or (b) the shorter period provided in the share tenancy
contracts express; or (c) the share tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the leasehold system.

FELIPE GALEON vs. HON. EDELWINA PASTORAL

CA-G.R. SP No. 23168. October 22, 1990.
Facts:
Petitioner Felipe C. Galeon was originally the owner of 12.7463 hectares of riceland in Baan,
Butuan City, as evidenced by TCT No. 49 of the Register of Deeds of Butuan City. In 1976, the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform placed 4.8983 hectares of his land under Operation Land Transfer,
pursuant to P.D. No. 27 which decreed the emancipation of tenants in lands devoted to the
production of rice and corn. The portion of his land placed under Operation Land Transfer was
subsequently distributed to his tenants, Conrado Pablo, Arturo Medrano, and Maximino Heludo,
to whom emancipation patents were issued in February of 1987.
On January 5, 1989, the Department of Agrarian Reform fixed the compensation for the 4.8983
hectares of land taken from petitioner at P18,284.11, of which 10% was to be paid in cash and the
balance was to be paid in Land Bank bonds. The compensation was computed on the basis of 42.66
cavans of palay, as the average gross production per hectare, multiplied by 2.5 and the product
multiplied by P35.00, which was the government support price per cavan of rice as of October 21,
1972.
On May 17, 1989, petitioner filed a written protest against the compensation thus fixed for the
taking of his land on the ground that he had not been given an opportunity to participate in the
determination of such land value and that the amount offered by the government was not the fair
market value of his riceland.
Issue:
Whether or not the compensation for the land of petitioner was valid.
Held:
The Court holds that the final determination of compensation will have to be made by the courts
and that in applying the formula in question, account must be taken of factors as of the time of the
fixing of the compensation. Accordingly, this case should be remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings to determine the average gross production and the government support price
as of 1989 as well as the amounts of lease rentals which tenants may have paid to the landowner.