Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

The application for conversion of Roxas & Co.

was the subject of the

above-stated Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals which the Court
remanded to the DAR for the observance of proper acquisition
ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW proceedings. As reflected in the above-quoted statement of facts
in... said case, during the pendency before the DAR of its application
GR No. 149548, 2009-12-04 for conversion following its remand to the DAR or on May 16, 2000,
Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an application for exemption from
the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

Facts: (CARP) of 1988 on the basis of PP 1520 and of DAR Administrative

Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1994[3] which states that all lands
Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before the
three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all effectivity of CARP no longer need conversion clearance... from the
located in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. DAR.

Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian It bears mentioning at this juncture that on April 18, 1982, the
Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu enacted Municipal Zoning Ordinance
No. 4 (Nasugbu MZO No. 4) which was approved on May 4, 1983 by
Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with
the Human Settlements Regulation Commission, now the Housing
respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda Caylaway
and Land Use
pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and
Banilad were later placed... under compulsory acquisition by ... DAR Regulatory Board (HLURB).
in accordance with the CARL.

Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its

President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of ...DAR Issues:
withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan
of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the... reclassification of 1520
Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result,
Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the Maragondon-
petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for
Ternate-Nasugbu tourism zone to non-agricultural use to exempt
conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses.
Roxas & Co.'s three haciendas in Nasugbu from CARP coverage
The petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543 nub on the
Whether Nasugbu MSO No. 4, Series of 1982 exempted certain lots
interpretation of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1520 which was
in Hacienda Palico from CARP coverage
issued on November 28, 1975 by then President Ferdinand Marcos.
Whether the partial and complete cancellations by the DAR of CLOA
The PP reads:
No. 6654 subject of G.R. No. 167505 is valid
WHEREAS, certain areas in the sector comprising the Municipalities
of Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbu in
Batangas have potential tourism value... hereby declare the area Ruling:
comprising the Municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite
Province and Nasugbu in Batangas Province as a... tourist zone under I. PP 1520 DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL
the administration and control of the Philippine Tourism Authority LANDS IN THE THREE MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDING NASUGBU TO

The PTA shall identify well-defined geographic areas within the zone Roxas & Co. contends that PP 1520 declared the three municipalities
with potential tourism value,... Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its as each constituting a tourism zone, reclassified all lands therein to
application for conversion of its three haciendas from argricultural tourism and, therefore, converted their use to non-agricultural
to non-agricultural on the assumption that the issuance of PP 1520 purposes.
which declared Nasugbu, Batangas as a tourism zone, reclassified
them to non-agricultural uses. The perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified only "certain areas
in the sector comprising the [three Municipalities that] have
Its pending application notwithstanding, the Department of Agrarian potential tourism value" and mandated the conduct of "necessary
Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) studies" and the segregation of "specific geographic areas" to
to the farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas including CLOA achieve its purpose.
No. 6654 which was issued on October 15, 1993 covering 513.983
hectares,... the subject of G.R. No. 167505. Which is why the PP directed the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA)
to identify what those potential tourism areas are.
In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA,[9] the Court made it similar to the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543. The only
clear that the "power to determine whether Haciendas Palico, time that these cases may find application to said petitions is... when
Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt from the the PTA actually identifies "well-defined geographic areas within the
coverage of the [Comprehensive zone with potential tourism value."

Agrarian Reform Law] lies with the [Department of Agrarian II. ROXAS & CO.'S APPLICATION IN DAR Administrative Case No. A-
Reform], not with this Court. 9999-142-97 FOR CARP EXEMPTION IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT
The DAR, an administrative body of special competence, denied, by DISCREPANCIES IN THE LOCATION AND IDENTITY OF THE SUBJECT
Order of October 22, 2001, the application for CARP exemption of PARCELS OF
Roxas & Co., it... finding that PP 1520 did not automatically reclassify
all the lands in the affected municipalities from their original uses. LAND.
I... t appears that the PTA had not yet, at that time, identified the
"specific geographic areas" for tourism development and had no Since PP 1520 did not automatically convert Haciendas Caylaway,
pending... tourism development projects in the areas. Further, Banilad and Palico into non-agricultural estates, can Roxas & Co.
report from the Center for Land Use Policy Planning and invoke in the alternative Nasugbu MZO No. 4,... which reclassified in
Implementation (CLUPPI) indicated that the areas were planted with 1982 the haciendas to... non-agricultural use to exclude six parcels of
sugar cane and other crops.[11] land in Hacienda Palico from CARP coverage?

Relatedly, the DAR, by Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 2004, By Roxas & Co.'s contention,... n, the affected six parcels of land
[12] came up with clarificatory guidelines and therein decreed that which are the subject of DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97
and nine parcels of land which... have been reclassified to non-
B. Proclamations declaring general areas such as whole provinces, agricultural uses via... n, the affected six parcels of land which are
municipalities, barangays, islands or peninsulas as tourist zones that the subject of DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 and nine
merely: parcels of land which are the subject of DAR Administrative Case No.
A-9999-008-98 involved in G.R. No. 167505, all in
(1) recognize certain still unidentified areas
Hacienda Palico, have been reclassified t... ural uses via Nasugbu
(2) recognize the potential value of identified spots located within MZO No. 4 which was approved by the forerunner of HLURB.
the general area declared as tourist zone... could not be regarded as
effecting an automatic reclassification of the entirety of the land Roxas & Co.'s contention fails.
area declared as tourist zone. This is so because "reclassification of
lands" denotes their allocation into some specific use and "providing To be sure, the Court had on several occasions decreed that a local
for the manner of... their utilization and disposition (Sec. 20, Local government unit has the power to classify and convert land from
Government Code) or the "act of specifying how agricultural lands agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL.
shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential,
The DAR Secretary[26] denied the application for exemption of
industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan."
Roxas & Co., however,... [A] review of the titles, however, shows
A proclamation that merely recognizes the potential tourism value that the origin of T-49946 is T-783 and not
of certain areas within the general area declared as tourist zone
T-985. On the other hand, the origin of T-60034 is listed as 59946,
clearly does not allocate, reserve, or intend the entirety of the land
and not T-49946. The discrepancies were attributed by [Roxas & Co.]
area of the zone for non-agricultural purposes. Neither does said...
to typographical errors which were "acknowledged and initialled"
proclamation direct that otherwise CARPable lands within the zone
[sic] by the ROD. Per verification..., the discrepancies . .
shall already be used for purposes other than agricultural.
. cannot be ascertained.
C. There being no reclassification, it is clear that said
proclamations/issuances, assuming [these] took effect before June
In denying Roxas & Co.'s motion for reconsideration, the DAR
15, 1988, could not supply a basis for exemption of the entirety of
Secretary held:
the lands embraced therein from CARP coverage x x x x.
The landholdings covered by the aforesaid titles do not correspond
The DAR's reading into these general proclamations of tourism zones
to the Certification dated February 11, 1998 of the [HLURB] , the
deserves utmost consideration, more especially in the present
Certification dated September 12, 1996 issued by the Municipal
petitions which involve vast tracts of agricultural land. To reiterate,
Planning and Development Coordinator, and the Certifications...
PP 1520 merely recognized the "potential tourism value" of certain
dated July 31, 1997 and May 27, 1997 issued by the National
areas... within the general area declared as tourism zones. It did not
Irrigation Authority. The certifications were issued for Lot Nos. 21,
reclassify the areas to non-agricultural use.
24, 28, 31, 32 and 34. Thus, it was not even possible to issue
exemption clearance over the lots covered by TCT Nos. 60019 to
Even so, Roxas & Co. turns to Natalia Realty v. DAR and NHA v.
Allarde to support its position. These cases are not even closely
Furthermore, we also note the discrepancies between the III. ROXAS & CO.'S APPLICATION FOR CARP EXEMPTION IN DAR
certifications issued by the HLURB and the Municipal Planning Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 FOR THE NINE PARCELS OF
Development Coordinator as to the area of the specific lots.[ LAND IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. NO. 167505 SHOULD BE
In affirming the DAR Secretary's denial of Roxas & Co.'s application
for exemption, the Court of Appeals The Court, however, takes a different stance with respect t... nine
parcels of land... in Hacienda Palico,... Location and vicinity maps of
But these certifications contain nothing to show that these lots are subject landholdings;
the same as Lots 125-A, 125-B, 125-C, 125-D and 125-E covered by
TCT Nos. 60019, 60020, 60021, 60022 and 60023, respetively. While Certification dated 10 July 1997 issued by Reynaldo Garcia,
[Roxas & Co.] claims that DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24 and Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) and
Zoning Administrator of Nasugbu, Batangas, stating that the subject
31 correspond to the aforementioned TCTs submitted to the DAR no parcels of land are within the Urban Core Zone as specified in Zone
evidence was presented to substantiate such allegation... oreo A. VII of

Moreover, [Roxas & Co.] failed to submit TCT 634 which it claims Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved by the
covers DAR Lot Nos. 28, 32 and 24. Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), now the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), under Resolution
....a... scrutiny of the said Ordinance shows that only Barangays
No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;
Talangan and Lumbangan of the said municipality were classified as
Industrial Zones...Barangay Cogunan was not include Two (2) Certifications both dated 31 August 1998, issued by Alfredo
Tan II, Director, HLURB, Region IV, stating that the subject parcels of
Its foregoing findings notwithstanding, the appellate court still
land appear to be within the Residential cluster Area as specified in
allowed Roxas & Co. to adduce additional evidence to support its
Zone VII of Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4,... By Order of
application for exemption under Nasugbu MZO No. 4.
November 6, 2002, the DAR Secretary granted the application for
exemption b
In granting the application, the DAR Secretary[30] examined anew
the evidence submitted by Roxas & Co. which consisted mainly of
DAMBA-NSFW moved for reconsideration but the DAR Secretary
certifications from various local and national government agencies.
denied the same
Even as the existence and validity of Nasugbu MZO No. 4 had
already been established, there remains in dispute the issue of
9999-008-98 SUBJECT OF G.R. No. 179650 TO THE FARMER-
whether the parcels of land involved in DAR Administrative Case No.
A-9999-142-97 subject of G.R. No. 179650 are actually within the
said zoning... ordinance.
Turning now to the validity of the issuance of CLOAs... ssuance of
The Court finds that the DAR Secretary indeed committed grave
CLOAs in Hacienda Palico vis-à-vis the present dispositions: It bears
abuse of discretion when he ignored the glaring inconsistencies in
recalling that in DAR Administrative Case Nos. A-9999-008-98 and A-
the certifications submitted early on by Roxas & Co.
9999-142-97 (G.R. No. 179650), the Court ruled for Roxas & Co.'s
grant of exemption... in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98
Notably, then DAR Secretary Horacio Morales, on one hand,
but denied the grant of exemption in DAR Administrative Case No. A-
observed that the "landholdings covered by the aforesaid titles do
9999-142-97 for reasons already discussed. It follows that the CLOAs
not correspond to the Certification dated February 11, 1998 of the
issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in DAR Administrative Case No. A-
[HLURB], the Certification dated September 12, 1996 issued by the
9999-008-98 must be... cancelled.
Municipal Planning... and Development Coordinator, and the
Certifications dated July 31, 1997 and May 27, 1997 issued by the
But first, the Court digresses. The assertion of DAMBA-NSFW that
National Irrigation Authority." On the other hand, then Secretary
the petitions for partial and complete cancellations of the CLOAs
Hernani Braganza relied on a different set of certifications which
subject of DARAB Case Nos. R-401-003-2001 to R-401-005-2001 and
were issued later or on September
No. 401-239-2001 violated the earlier order in Roxas v. Court of
Appeals does... not lie. Nowhere did the Court therein pronounce
19, 1996.
that the CLOAs issued "cannot and should not be cancelled," what
In this regard, the Court finds in order the observation of DAMBA- was involved therein being the legality of the acquisition
NFSW that Roxas & Co. should have submitted the comprehensive proceedings.
land use plan and pointed therein the exact locations of the
gs. The Court merely reiterated that it is the DAR which has primary
properties to prove that indeed they are within the area of coverage
jurisdiction to rule on the... validity of CLOAs.
of Nasugbu MZO
Unlike courts of justice, the DARAB, as a quasi-judicial body, is not
No. 4.
bound to strictly observe rules of procedure and evidence. To strictly
enforce rules on appeals in this case would render to naught the
Court's dispositions on the other issues in these consolidated...

In the main, there is no logical recourse except to cancel the CLOAs

issued for the nine parcels of land identified as Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37,
19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are portions of TCT No. 985
covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico

(or those covered by DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98).

As for the rest of the CLOAs, they should be respected since Roxas &
Co., as shown in the discussion in G.R. Nos. 167540, 167543 and
167505, failed to prove that the other lots in Hacienda Palico and
the... other two haciendas, aside from the above-mentioned nine
lots, are CARP-exempt.
compensation with an accessiblebank. Until then, title remains with
the landowner.The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of
Lubrica vs. Land Bank possession and ownership of the land to thegovernment on receipt
by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by
the DAR ofthe compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible
bank. Until then, title also remains with thelandowner. No outright
change of ownership is contemplated either.

G.R. No. 170220 November 20, 2006
Petitioners were deprived of their properties way back in 1972, yet
to date, they have not yet received just compensation. Thus, it
would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation
based on the guideline provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. 228
Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee of Federico C. Suntay considering the failure to determine just compensation for a
over certain parcels of agricultural land located at Sta. Lucia, considerable length of time. That just compensation should be
Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an area of 3,682.0285 hectares determined in accordance with R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 227
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT).In 1972, a portion of the or E.O. No. 228, is important considering that just compensation
said property with an area of 311.7682 hectares, was placed under should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its
the landreform program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial,
(1972) and Executive Order No. 228 (1987). full and ample.

 The land was thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer

beneficiaries. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP
fixed the value of the land at P5,056,833.54 which amount was
deposited incash and bonds in favor of Lubrica. Nenita Suntay-
Tañedo and Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico Suntay a
parcel of agricultural land consisting of two lots, namely, Lot 1 with
an area of 45.0760 hectares and Lot 2 containing an area of
165.1571 hectares or a total of 210.2331 hectares. Lot 2 was placed
under the coverage of P.D. No. 27but only 128.7161 hectares
was considered by LBP and valued the same at
P1,512,575.05.Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties,
hence the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD) conducted summary administrative proceedings for
determination of just compensation.


WON the determination of just compensation should be based on

the value of the expropriated properties at the time of payment.


Yes. Petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment

of just compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before
the property can be taken away from its owners.

 The transfer ofpossession and ownership of the land to the Land bank vs. CA and Yap
government are conditioned upon the receipt by thelandowner of
the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995

Yap and Santiago are landowners whose landholdings were acquired

by the DAR, subjecting it for transfer to qualified CARP beneficiaries.
Aggrieved by the compensation valuation of DAR and LBP,
respondents filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with a
preliminary mandatory injunction. The case was referred to CA for
proper determination and disposition.

Respondents argued that DAR and LBP committed grave abuse of

discretion and acted without jurisdiction when they opened trusts
accounts in lieu of the depositing in cash or bonds, before the lands
was taken and the titles are cancelled. Respondents claim that
before the taking of the property, the compensation must be
deposited in cash or bonds.

DAR, maintained that the certificate of deposit was a substantial

compliance with the rule on taking and compensation. LBP confirms
that the certificate of deposit expresses "reserved/deposited".

CA ruled in favor of Yap and Santiago. DAR filed a petition.  DAR,

maintain that the word "deposit" referred merely to the act of
depositing and in no way excluded the opening of a trust account as
form of deposit.


Whether the opening of trust account tantamount to deposit.


Contention of DAR is untenable.

Section 16 of RA 6657 provides: (e)        Upon receipt by the

landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or
no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an
accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash
or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take
immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper
Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines. . . . (emphasis supplied)

It is very explicit that the deposit must be made only in cash or LBP
bonds, there is no ambiguity.
Estribillo vs. Department of Agrarian Reform : On 27 November 1998, after petitioners failed to submit a Position
Paper, the RARADrendered a Decision declaring as void the TCTs and
G.R. No. 159674June 30, 2006 EPs awarded to petitioners because the land covered was not
devoted to rice and corn, and neither was there any established
tenancy relationsbetween HMI and petitioners when Presidential
Decree No. 27 took effect on 21 October 1972.
(a) Certificate of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are
as indefeasible asTCTs issued in registration proceedings; : Petitioners appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board(DARAB), which affirmed the RARAD Decision.
(b) The certificate of title becomes indefeasible andincontrovertible
upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the CA
order for theissuance of the patent;
: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for violation of Sec. 5,
(c) The Emancipation Patents themselves, like the Certificate of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rulesof Civil Procedure.Hence, this petition
LandOwnership Award (CLOAs) in Republic Act No. 6657 (the contending that there had been compliance with Rule 7, Section 5 of
Comprehensive Agrarian ReformLaw of 1988), are enrolled in the the 1997Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, reiterating that EPs are
Torrens system of registration. ordinary titles, which becomeindefeasible one year after the
: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, seekingthe review and reversal of the Resolutions of the : Whether or not the transfer certificates of title issued pursuant to
Court of Appeals.The petitioners are the recipients of Emancipation Emancipation Patentsacquire the same protection accorded to other
Patents (EPs) over parcels of land located atBarangay Angas, Sta. Transfer Certificates of Title.Rule:
Josefa, Agusan del Sur.The parcels of land in this case, were formerly
part of a forested area, which have been denudedas a result of the The Supreme Court granted the petitions. The resolutions of the
logging operations of respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI). Court of Appeals arereversed and set aside. The EPs and the
Petitioners,together with other persons, occupied and tilled these corresponding TCTs issued to petitioners or totheir successors-in-
areas.HMI acquired such forested area from the Republic of the interest are declared valid and subsisting.
Philippines through Sales Patent No.2683 in 1956 by virtue of which
it was issued OCT No. P30771661.On 21 October 1972, Presidential  
Decree No. 27 was issued mandating that tenanted rice andcorn
  Procedural  issue
lands be brought under Operation Land Transfer and awarded to
farmer-beneficiaries.HMI, through a certain Joaquin Colmenares,  
requested that 527.8308 hectares of its landholdingsbe placed under
the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving compensation (I included this because it’s important in the case and the Supreme
therefor, HMIallowed petitioners and other occupants to cultivate Courtreiterated the concept of Social Justice in determining the
the landholdings so that the same may becovered under said validity of the petition):
law.HMI, through its representatives, actively participated in all
relevant proceedings, including thedetermination of the Average  With the CAdismissing the petition for violation of Sec. 5, Rule 7 of
Gross Production per hectare at the Barangay Committee on the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, theSupreme Court ruled that the
LandProduction, and was a signatory of an undated Landowner and Petitioners have sufficiently complied with Rule 7, Section 5 of
Tenant Production Agreement(LTPA), covering the 527.8308 the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the Certification Against
hectares. The LTPA was submitted to the Land Bank of thePhilippines Forum Shopping. In the case,Petitioner Samuel A. Estribillo, in
(LBP) in 1977.In 1982, a final survey over the entire area was signing the Verification and Certification Against ForumShopping,
conducted and approved. From 1984 to 1988, thecorresponding falls within the phrase “plaintiff or principal party” who is required
TCTs and EPs covering the entire 527.8308 hectares were issued to to certify underoath the matters mentioned in Rule 7, Section 5 of
petitioners,among other persons.In December 1997, HMI filed with the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover,even if we assume for
the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) ofCARAGA, the sake of argument that there was violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of
Region XIII, petitions seeking the declaration of erroneous coverage the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a relaxation of such rule would be
underPresidential Decree No. 27 of 277.5008 hectares of its former justified for two compellingreasons: social justice considerations
landholdings. HMI claimed thatsaid area was not devoted to either and the apparent merit of the Petition.
rice or corn, that the area was untenanted, and that
Substantial issue
nocompensation was paid therefor.

: YES. Certificate of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents
are asindefeasible as TCTs issued in registration proceedings. After
complying with the procedure,therefore, in Section 105 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the
PropertyRegistration Decree (where the DAR is required to issue the
corresponding certificate of title aftergranting an EP to tenant-
farmers who have complied with Presidential Decree No. 27), the
TCTsissued 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,  x x  x.
Lands covered  bysuch title may no longer be the subject matter of a
cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed toanother person
(Ybañez v. Intermediate Appellate Court). ”

The EPs themselves, like the Certificates of Land Ownership Award

(CLOAs) in Republic ActNo. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988), are enrolled in the Torrens systemof
registration. The Property Registration Decree in fact devotes
Chapter IX on the subject ofEPs. Indeed, such EPs and CLOAs are, in
themselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as certificatesof title
issued in registration proceedings.


Caballes vs. DAR

6.            There is sharing of harvests.

G.R. No. 78214 Case Digest

All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy

relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not make
Facts: 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
The landholding subject of the controversy is consists of 60 sqm was
established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to
acquired by spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes by virute of a Deed
security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of
of Sale executed by Andrea Alicaba Millenes, this land is situated in
the Government under existing tenancy laws.
Lawaan Talisay, Cebu. Before the sale of the property to Caballes,
Bienvenido Abajon constructed his house on a protion of the land,
paying monthly rental to Andrea Millenes. Abjon was likewise
allowed to plant thereon, and they have agreed that the produce Therefore, the fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a
thereon would be shred by them 50-50. 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
When the property was sold, Caballes told Abajon that they will put
received. This, however, does not automatically make the tiller-
up a poultry on the land and they intended to build it close to
sharer a tenant thereof especially when the area tilled is only 60, or
Abajon's house and they pursuaded Abajon to transfer his dwelling
even 500, square meters and located in an urban area and in. the
to the opposite portion of the land. Abajon offered to pay renta; to
heart of an industrial or commercial zone at that. Tenancy status
the new owners, but they refuse and later demanded for Abajon to
arises only if an occupant of a parcel of land has been given its
vacate. Abajon refused to leave.
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
DAR concluded that Abajon was a tenant of the former owner, benevolence or compassion to live in the premises and to have a
Andrea. garden of some sort at its south western side rather than a tenant of
the said portion.


Whether Abajon is a tenant under the new owners.

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
Ruling: trial so that proceedings in the lower court can resume.

Abajon is not a tenant for it only occupied a miniscule portion of the

land which cannot be interpreted as economic-family size farm
under the definition of RA 3844.

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

protestations are less than convincing. His wife's testimony that he is
illiterate is belied by his own testimony to the contrary in another
Gelos vs. Court of Appeals proceeding. Her claim that they were tricked into signing the
agreement does not stand up against the testimony of Atty. Santos
Pampolina, who declared under his oath as a witness (and as an
attorney and officer of the court) that he explained the meaning of
the document to Gelos, who even read it himself before signing it. . .
. Gelos points to the specific tasks mentioned in the agreement and
Definition and nature of agricultural tenancy suggests that they are the work of a tenant and not of a mere hired
laborer. Not so. The work specified is not peculiar to tenancy. What
     Agricultural tenancy is defined as "the physical possession by a a tenant may do may also be done by a hired laborer working under
person of land devoted to agriculture, belonging to or legally the direction of the landowner, as in the case at bar. It is not the
possessed by another for the purpose of production through the nature of the work involved but the intention of the parties that
labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm determines the relationship between them. As this Court has
household in consideration of which the former agrees to share the stressed in a number of cases, "tenancy is not a purely factual
harvest with the latter or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the
whether in produce or in money, or both." (RA 1199 [1954], sec. 3) land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the
understanding when the farmer is installed, and as in this case, their
     In Gelos vs. CA,  208 SCRA 608 (1992), the Supreme Court held written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not
that agricultural tenancy is not a purely factual relationship. The contrary to law, are even more important."
written agreement of the parties is far more important as long it is
complied with and not contrary to law.

208 SCRA 608 (1992)


Rafael Gelos was employed by Ernesto Alzona and his parents as

their laborer on a 25,000-sq. m farmland. They executed a written
contract which stipulated that as hired laborer Gelos would receive a
daily wage of P5.00.

Three (3) years later, Gelos was informed of the termination of his
services and was asked to vacate the property. Gelos refused and
continued working on the land. Alzona filed a complaint for illegal
detainer. The lower court found Gelos as tenant of the property and
entitled to remain thereon as such. The decision was reversed by the
Court of Appeals.   


What is the nature of the contract between Gelos and Alzona?


The parties entered into a contract of employment, not a tenancy

agreement. The agreement is a lease of services, not of the land in
dispute. . . . The petitioner would disavow the agreement, but his
the defendant as defined by Republic Act No. 1199. Court is vested
with jurisdiction to try and decide this case.
Gabriel v. Pangilinan Reconsideration by the defendant was denied. He appealed to this


Gabriel filed a complaint against Pangilinan claiming she is the

owner of a 169,507 sqm fishpond in barrio ISSUES:

Sta. Ursula, Pampanga. An oral contract of lease with a yearly rental 1. Lower court erred in considering the relationship of appellee and
was entered between them. appellant as that of a civil lease and not a leasehold tenancy under
Rep. Act No. 1199 as amended.
Defendant was notified that the contract would be terminated, but
upon request was extended for another year. 2. The lower court erred in not holding that the Court of First
Instance is without jurisdiction, the cue beingthat of an agrarian
Defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint claiming that
relation in nature pursuant to Rep Act. No. 1199.
the trial court had no jurisdiction. It should properly pertain to the
Court of Agrarian Relations, there being an agricultural leasehold
tenancy relationship between the parties. Upon opposition by
plaintiff, the motion was denied. The defendant filed his answer that
the land was originally verbally leased to him by the plaintiff's father,
Potenciano for as long as the defendant wanted, subject to the HELD:
condition that he would convert the major portion into a fishpond
and that which was already a fishpond be improved at his expense, Important differences between a leasehold tenancy and a civil law
which would be reimbursed by Potenciano Gabriel or his heirs at the lease. The leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land; that of
termination of the lease. Plaintiff also assured him that he could civil law lease may be either rural or urban property. As to attention
continue leasing as long as he wanted since she was not in a position and cultivation, the law requires the leasehold tenant to personally
to attend to it personally. attend to, and cultivate the agricultural land, whereas the civil law
lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing leased. As to
Parties were ordered to adduce evidence for the purpose of purpose, the landholding in leasehold tenancy is devoted to
determining which Court shall take cognizance of the case. agriculture, whereas in civil law lease, the purpose may be for any
other lawful pursuits. As to the law that governs, the civil law lease is
It appears that the defendant ceased to work on planting fingerlings, governed by the Civil Code, whereas leasehold tenancy is governed
repairing dikes and such, personally with the aid of helpers since he by special laws.
became ill and incapacitated. His daughter, Pilar Pangilinan, took
over who said that she helps her father in administering the leased The requisites for leasehold tenancy under the Agricultural Tenancy
property, conveying his instructions to the workers. Excepting Pilar Act to exist:
who is residing near the fishpond, defendant’s other children are all
professionals; a lawyer, an engineer, and a priest all residing in 1. land worked by the tenant is an agricultural land;
Manila. None of these has been seen working on the fishpond.
2. land is susceptible of cultivation by a single person together with
Defendant: relationship between the parties is an agricultural members of his immediate farm household;
leasehold tenancy governed by Republic
3. must be cultivated by the tenant either personally or with the aid
Act No. 1199, as amended, pursuant to section 35 of Republic Act of labor available from members of his immediate farm household;
No. 3844, and the present case is within the original and exclusive
4. land belongs to another; and
jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
5. use of the land by the tenant is for a consideration of a fixed
Plaintiff: defendant ceased to work the fishpond personally or with
amount in money or in produce or in both
the aid of the members of his immediate farm household (Section 4,
Republic Act No. 1199) the tenancy relationship between the parties There is no doubt that the land is agricultural land. It is a fishpond
has been extinguished (Section 9, id.) and become of civil lease and and the Agricultural Tenancy Act, which refers to "agricultural land",
therefore the trial court properly assumed jurisdiction over the case. specifically mentions fishponds and prescribes the consideration for
the use thereof. The mere fact that a person works an agricultural
Trial Court: The lease contract is a civil lease governed by the New
land does not necessarily make him a leasehold tenant within the
Civil Code. No tenancy relationship exists between the plaintiff and
purview of Sec 4 of Republic Act No. 1199. He may still be a civil law
lessee unless the other requisites as above enumerated are
complied with.

The court doesn’t want to decide on the second requisite since it

wasn’t raised. For the third requisite, the tenancy agreement was
severed in 1956 when he ceased to work the fishpond personally
because he became ill and incapacitated. Not even did the members
of appellant's immediate farm household work the land. Only the
members of the family of the tenant and such other persons,
whether related to the tenant or not, who are dependent upon him
for support and who usually help him to operate the farm enterprise
are included in the term "immediate farm household".

Republic Act No. 1199 is explicit in requiring the tenant and his
immediate family to work the land. A person, in order to be
considered a tenant, must himself and with the aid available from
his immediate farm household cultivate the land. Persons, therefore,
who do not actually work the land cannot be considered tenants;
and he who hires others whom he pays for doing the cultivation of
the land, ceases to hold, and is considered as having abandoned the
land as tenant within the meaning of sections 5 and 8of Republic
Act. No. 1199, and ceases to enjoy the status, rights, and privileges
of one.

We are, therefore, constrained to agree with the court a quo that

the relationship between the appellee Trinidad Gabriel and
appellant Eusebio Pangilinan was not a leasehold tenancy under
Republic Act No. 1199. Hence, this case was not within the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Court of First

Instance of Pampanga in its Civil Case

No. 1823, appealed from, is affirmed, with costs against the