JUSTICE MILAGROS A. GERMAN'S
INDEX OF SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN AGRARIAN CASES FROM JANUARY 1961 TO 2001
A
ABANDONMENT
Gavino Corpus vs. Sps. Geronimo Grospe
G.R. No. 135297, June 8, 2000
Abandonment requires a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property.
After the Trial Court found as per its decision that the tenant was not ejected by the landowner but that he voluntarily abandoned his landholding, it is incorrect for the Court to order his reinstatement
Tenant's offer to surrender leasehold on the condition that one named by him should be accepted as his successor does not constitute abandonment.
ACTIONS
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
All actions pursued under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DAR, in accordance with d50 of R.A. No. 6657, must be commenced in the PARAD of the province where the property is located and the DARAB only has appellate jurisdiction to review the PARAD's orders, decisions and other dispositions.
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
Under Section 11, R.A. No. 1199, an action for accounting may be filed by the tenant within three (3) years from the date of the threshing of the crop in question.
G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992
An action for violation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 816 falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations (Sec. 5, P.D. 816), now the Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 19, par. 7, B.P. 129).
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
Lucia Mapa vda. de la Cruz, et al. vs. Adjuto Abille
G.R. No. 130196, February 26, 2001
Where there is no showing, as in the case at bar, that there was fraud, collusion, arbitrariness, illegality, imposition or mistake on the part of a department head, in rendering his questioned decisions or of a total lack of substantial evidence to support the same, such administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be interfered with.
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
It applies "where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its review."
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
The DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be granted jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain and over criminal cases.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
Administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment for settled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law.
ADMISSION
Admission by party of voluntary surrender of landholding for a consideration in sworn affidavit has a considerable effect.
The party is bound by his voluntary admissions and declarations against his own interest appearing in his affidavit and this Court will not allow him to return his back to it.
AFFIDAVITS
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
Section 16 of P.D. No. 946 states that in the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy, affidavits and counter-affidavits may be allowed and are admissible in evidence.'
G.R. No. 107493, February 1, 1996
An affidavit that has not been formally offered during the proceedings in the trial court is not among the matters which the law mandatorily requires to be taken judicial notice of.
AGRARIAN DISPUTE
Heirs of the Late Hermon Rey Santos vs. CA, et al.
There is no agrarian dispute where both parties are contending for the ownership of the subject property.
AGRARIAN RELATIONS
Jaime Corpin vs. Amor S. Vivar
G.R. No. 137350, June 19, 2000
A Regional Trial Court's finding that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, which was based on the documents attached by a party to his memoranda in the RTC but not presented to the municipal trial court, must be set aside due to insufficiency of evidence.
Bicol Federation of Labor vs. Cuyugan
Term "agrarian relations" construed; the term embraces every situation where an individual provides his personal labor over a parcel of agricultural land belonging to another for the purpose principally of agricultural production, and where the former, for his labor input and other sundry contributions, is compensated either in wages or a share in the produce, or is obliged to pay lease rentals to the landowner.
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
De la Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
In the classification of Agricultural Lands, in order to fix the consideration for the use of ricelands in leasehold system, the use of the term "years" in Sec. 46 (a), R.A. No. 1199 is taken to mean "agricultural year" as the phrase is understood in Sections 32-33 of the same law.
Determination of classes of land; since Republic Act No. 1199 establishes a particular manner for determining whether land is first or second class, no other method is acceptable.
Philippine National Railways vs. Valle
Under Section 3 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and Section 166 (1) of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, agricultural land means land devoted to agriculture or to any growth.
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONS
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
The law is explicit on requiring the tenant and his immediate family to work the land (Bonifacio vs. Dizon, 177 SCRA 294), and the lessee cannot hire many persons to help him cultivate the land.
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
The agricultural lessee's rights are enforceable against the transferee or the landowner's successor-in-interest.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
The fact that a tenant or an agricultural lessee may have been assisted by farm laborers hired by the landowners, on occasional or temporary basis, does not preclude the element of "personal cultivation" essential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship.
G.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993
Whatever was the true nature of his designation, Benigno, was the LEGAL POSSESSOR of the property and the law expressly grants him, as legal possessor, authority and capacity to institute an agricultural leasehold lessee on the property he legally possessed.
G.R. No. 88113, October 23, 1992
The fact that the landowner entered into a civil lease contract over the subject landholding and gave the lessee the authority to oversee the farming of the land, as was done in this case, is not among the causes provided by law for the extinguishments of the agricultural leasehold relation.
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP
G.R. No. 134735; December 5, 2000
Pre-requisite conditions; a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; b) the subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land; c) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; d) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; e) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and f) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant of agricultural lessee.
AGRICULTURAL TENANCY
Private respondent Carmen Carillo is not entitled to be considered an agricultural tenant. Therefore, she may not be allowed the use of a homelot, a privilege granted by Section 35 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, in relation to Section 22(3) of R.A. No. 1199, as amended, only to persons satisfying the qualifications of agricultural tenants of coconut lands.
Tenants, as defined in Pres. Decree No. 1517 does not include those whose possession of the property is under litigation.
Agricultural tenancy defined; the physical possession by a person of land devoted to agriculture belonging to, or legally possessed by another for the purpose of production through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household in consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter, or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money or in both.
Definition of tenancy pursuant to Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199; a person who by himself, or with the aid available from within his immediate 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 or for a price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.
Definition of tenancy pursuant to Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199; a person who by himself, or with the aid available from within his immediate 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 or for a price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.
AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
In case of share tenancy, the sharing system on crops other than rice is provided in Sec. 41, R.A. No. 1199 otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act as amended by R.A. No. 2263.
Whether the sharing is in accordance with stipulations or customs of the place, the law provides that the tenant's share for his labor in the production shall not be less than 30% of the harvest after deducting the expenses for harvesting and/or initial processing.
AGRICULTURAL WORKER
Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
189 SCRA 758, September 21, 1990
Agricultural Worker, defined; An agricultural worker is an agricultural wage, salary or piece worker.
Private respondent is clearly an agricultural worker or farm laborer.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
An agricultural worker is not a whit different from a farm worker. From the definition of a "farm worker" thus fashioned, it is quite apparent that there should be an employer-employee.
A "farm worker" is any agricultural wage, salary or piece worker, but it is not limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless this Code explicitly states otherwise, and any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a current agrarian disputes or an unfair labor practice and who has not obtained substantially equivalent and regular employment.
"Farmhand" or "agricultural worker" defined; "any agricultural salary or piece worker but is not limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless this Code explicitly states otherwise, and any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a current agrarian disputes or an unfair labor practice and who has not obtained substantially equivalent and regular employment.
AGRICULTURAL YEAR
"Agricultural year" defined. — "Agricultural year" is the period of time necessary for the raising of seasonal agricultural products, including the preparation of the land, and the sowing, planting and harvesting the crop . . .".
Agricultural year: period covered; Each crop period is considered an independent agricultural year.
AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS
194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991
The lease rentals paid by the tenant-farmers prior to such full payment by the Land Bank to the old landowner would be credited no longer as rentals but rather as amortization payments of the price of the land.
194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991
Lot No. 2-C-A-3 having been declared part of the land reform area and subjected to Operation Land Transfer the payment made on and after 21 October 1972 by the private respondent tenants-farmers constituted amortization payments on the cost of the land.
APPEALS
Roberto Mito vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 126099, March 12, 2001
Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. An appeal is a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law.
De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
169 SCRA 289, January 20, 1989
Being an agricultural lessee, petitioner under Sec. 16 of PD 946 has the right to appeal as a pauper and should not have been required to pay the docket fee.
179 SCRA 188-189, November 8, 1989
The Court of Appeals has the discretion to require or not to require the parties to submit simultaneous memoranda. In case of non-requirement, neither party can rightfully claim that he has been deprived of his day in court, considering that the filing of a memorandum is not an indispensable part and considering further that no injustice is done, inasmuch as both parties stand on the same footing where no one enjoys any advantage over the other.
De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
169 SCRA 288, January 20, 1989
Fact that petitioner intentionally did not pay the docket fee because having been allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant he is not required to pay is in accord with Sec. 16 of PD 946.
De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
169 SCRA 288, January 20, 1989
An appeal cannot be perfected if the corresponding docket fee is not paid.
169 SCRA 129, January 13, 1989
The rule is that once appeal is perfected, the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the case and to issue the writ of execution.
De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
169 SCRA 288-280, January 20, 1989
Under PD 946, an agricultural lessee is entitled to the rights of a pauper and/or indigent litigant and to continue to enjoy such status in the appellate courts until the case is terminated.
De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
169 SCRA 289, January 20, 1989
The right to appeal is an essential part of the judicial system and litigants should not be deprived of their right to do so.
Appeal and error: court of agrarian relations: motion for reconsideration not required. – Neither Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, nor the Rules of Court of Agrarian Relations, which took effect on 1 January 1956, requires an aggrieved party to seek a reconsideration of its judgment or order before taking an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Extinctive prescription is a defense that is waived if not pleaded in due time and may not be invoked for the first time on appeal.
The special civil action of certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal even after the period of appeal has lapsed.
Puertollano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The appeal is not premature because the petitioner abandoned their motion for reconsideration and opted for the remedy of appeal by filing a notice of appeal.
Appeal: where original decision was incomplete, period for appeal is counted from receipt of supplemental decision.
Private respondent's only claim to justify continued occupancy of the premises in question refers to the right of petitioner to own the leased premises, claiming petitioner is not a Filipino citizen. This claim is based on a defense which is unavailable to him. His appeal may therefore be considered frivolous and made solely for delay.
Angliongto, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
As the Court of Appeals made a legal inference from a set of facts, its conclusion being one of law is reviewable by the Supreme Court.
Execution of decision of agrarian court pending appeal; this action of the appellate court is not in accord with the spirit of our agrarian laws.
Failure of public counsel to include material dates showing timeliness of the appeal interposed on behalf of an agricultural tenant may be excused where it would subserve the ends of justice and it was subsequently shown that appeal was actually filed on time.
Only final orders of agrarian court are appealable.
Respondent's argument that their appeal was perfected on time because it was made within ten (10) days from notice of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, is misconception of the applicable rule. The rule allowing a party a period of ten (10) days from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration was filed within the fifteen day period from notice of decision.
Teruñez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Whether or not person is a tenant is a question of fact. It is therefore reviewable on appeal to the Supreme Court from Intermediate Appellate Court.
Yabut vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
When appeal is deemed perfected; The appeal is not perfected on the date the notice of appeal was filed but on the expiration of the last day to appeal.
APPROPRIATION LAW
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
An appropriation law is one of the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize the release of public funds from the treasury. Proclamation No. 131 is not an appropriation measure. The creation of the fund is only incidental to the main objective of the proclamation, which is agrarian reform.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
Award of attorney's fees depends upon the circumstances of each case and lies within the discretion of the court.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
The matter of attorney's fees cannot be touched once and only in the dispositive portion of the decision, the text itself must expressly state the reason why attorney's fees are being awarded.
While the judicial discretion in the award of attorney's fees is not entirely left out, the same, as a rule, must have a factual legal or equitable justification, the matter cannot and should not be left to speculation and conjecture.
Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals
The award of attorney's fees by the trial court is unwarranted since the action appears to have been filed in good faith.
Magbanua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
137 SCRA 327-328
The petitioners are also entitled to attorney's fees but the size of fees as well as the damages is subject to the sound discretion of the court.
The imposition of attorney's fees lies in the discretion of the Court of Agrarian Relations under Article 2208, No. 11, of the New Civil Code, and is authorized under Section 55 of Republic Act No. 1199, that applies to tenancy relations those provisions of existing laws not consistent with said Act.
B
BANKS
Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The Land Bank cannot be ordered to pay DBP the loan obtained thereat by the landowner whose lands were expropriated under P.D. 27 as said loan has nothing to do with the PNB loan and DBP is not a party to the suit.
Vda. de Ortiz vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
The Land Bank is not obliged to pay interest from October 21, 1972 the date of effectivity of P.D. 27 up to the date the bank paid the acquisition price for lands bought under the Land Reform Program.
It is not necessary for the lessee to make a tender of payment and/or consignation of the amount of the redemption price. A certification issued by the Land Bank that it will finance the redemption of the property in question is sufficient.
C
CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The certificate of employment submitted by the petitioner does not indicate Roaring's hours of work in the said corporation so "as to establish that it is physically impossible for him to do the work of a tenant.
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER
201 SCRA 537, September 13, 1991
Mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein.
Actions for forfeiture of certificates of land transfer for failure to pay lease rentals for more than two years fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Certificate of land transfer; the nullification of said certificate may be had only in a case directly attacking its validity but never collaterally.
P.D. No. 816 imposed the sanction of forfeiture where the "agricultural lessee . . . deliberately refuses and/or continues to pay rentals or amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years." Petitioners cannot be said to have deliberately refused to pay the lease rentals. They acted in accordance with the MAR Circular, which implements P.D. 816, and in good faith.
CERTIORARI
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
Certiorari; Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot be a substitute for lost appeal.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
The Court of Appeals could direct, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to resolve an application for a writ of preliminary injunction within a specified period – a 10-day period, counted from receipt of a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, can by no means be considered arbitrary or hasty.
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
Settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
CHANGE OF TENANCY SYSTEM
De la Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The tenant shall have the right to change the tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from the crop sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy.
De Borja vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Section 14, R.A. No. 1199 which grants to the share tenant the right to convert the relationship to leasehold is constitutional.
Ilusorio vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Republic Act 1199 is a remedial legislation promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the Constitution and in the exercise of the police power of the State to promote the common wealth. It is a statute relating to public subjects within the domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it.
In a long line of decisions, this Court has already declared Section 14 of Republic Act 1199 providing for a change in tenancy relationship constitutional.
The petition of the new tenant for a change in the tenancy system cannot be defeated by a change in ownership with personal cultivation where the latter change is tainted with bad faith.
Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, giving the tenant the right to change the tenancy from share to leasehold, is constitutional
Where the parties in 1956 entered into a verbal tenancy relationship and as the law then existing gave the tenant the right to demand a leasehold arrangement in exchange for the share tenancy, that right should be deemed included in their contract of tenancy.
De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The right granted to a tenant to change the contract from share tenancy to leasehold cannot be considered unreasonable or oppressive.
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 authorizing tenant to change from share to leasehold tenancy is constitutional and valid.
The right of the tenant to change the tenancy contract from one share tenancy to the leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop-sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy, as provided in Section 14 of R.A. No. 1199 is a constitutional right that has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
The validity and constitutionality of the right of the tenant to change the tenancy system under Section 14 of the Rice Tenancy Act has already been passed upon and upheld by the Supreme Court in final decisions (Ramos vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-19555, May 29, 1964; Vda. de Macasaet, vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al., L-19750, July 17, 1964).
Section 14 of Agricultural Tenancy Law is constitutional.
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 is constitutional.
Vda. De Macasaet vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Section 14 of the Rice Share Tenancy Act, giving the tenant the right to change the tenancy system from share to leasehold is valid, being a privilege granted to the tenant under the exercise of the police power of the state in order to remedy an acute socio-economic problem existing in the country.
CIVIL LAW LEASE
Civil law lease distinguished from agricultural tenancy. — There are important differences between a leasehold tenancy and a civil law lease. The subject matter of the leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land; that of civil law lease may be either rural or urban property. As to attention and cultivation, the law required the leasehold tenant to personally attend to, and cultivate the agricultural land, whereas the civil law lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing leased. As to purpose, the landholding in leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture, while in civil lease, the purpose may be for any lawful pursuits. As to the law that governs, the civil law lease is governed by the Civil Code, whereas leasehold tenancy is governed by special laws.
CLASSIFICATION
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same particulars.
A compromise agreement is not valid and binding when a party in the case has not signed the same. If any person signs for and in behalf of such party without being duly authorized to do so, the said agreement is void and has no legal effect.
169 SCRA 280, January 20, 1989
Parties to a contract should abide in good faith with their contractual commitments.
Contracts solemnly and deliberately entered into may not be overturned by inconclusive proof or by reason of mistakes of one of the parties to which the other in no way has contributed.
Parties are to be placed in status quo which was the condition prevailing prior to the execution of the void contract.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Under the law on contracts, vitiated consent does not make a contract unenforceable but merely voidable.
Where the decision of the appellate court did not order the appellant where anything for or to pay any amount to the appellee, but merely specified the value of the contract between the parties and defined their rights thereunder, there was nothing to be executed under such decision, and it was error for the lower court to direct appellee to ask for execution thereof.
COCONUT LANDS
Coconut land is considered agricultural land under both the Agricultural Land Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
An agreement which states that the right and obligations of a person allowed by the landowner to cultivate and take care of his coconut farm, shall be governed by R.A. 1199, is not abrogated by the subsequent repeal of said law which does not include coconut lands, inasmuch as the vested rights of a share tenant to security of tenure would be adversely affected thereby.
Mere fact that a person was not the one who seeded the land with coconuts does not mean that he could not be a tenant thereof.
Nature of work performed by the respondents' father is that of a tenant on the land.
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals
Share tenants in coconut lands can redeem the same when landowner sells them.
COMMISSIONERS REPORT
Republic of the Philippines vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 139592; October 5, 2000
In the absence of any irregularity in the survey and inspection of the subject properties, and none is alleged, the report of the commissioners deserves full faith and credit.
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW
Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. Secretary, Department of Agrarian Reform
Provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn are excluded from the coverage of CARL.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
The CARL (Rep. Act 6657) was not intended to take away property without due process of law. Nor is it intended to impair the obligation of contracts. In the same manner must E.O. 407 be regarded. It was enacted two (2) months after private respondents had legally fulfilled the condition in the contract of conditional sale by the payment of all installments on their due dates. These laws cannot have retroactive effect unless there is an express provision in them to that effect.
Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 103302, August 12, 1993
Coverage; Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land"it is referred to as "land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."
Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
G.R. No. 100091, October 2, 1992
Private respondents, not being tenants nor proven to be landless peasants, cannot qualify as beneficiaries under the CARP.
Under Section 73 of R.A. No. 6657, persons guilty of committing prohibited acts of forcible entry or illegal detainer do not qualify as beneficiaries and may not avail themselves of the rights and benefits of agrarian reform.
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge Br. V, CFI of Bulacan
A judgment rendered upon a compromise "is in the nature of a contract and is in effect an admission by the parties that the judgment is a just determination of their rights on the facts of the case, had they been proved," and it has upon the parties "the effect and authority of res judicata."
A compromise agreement entered into in an ejectment case against an agricultural tenant based on non-payment of rentals, subleasing, and others, is valid where tenant agree to vacate, in consideration, among others, of condonation of his unpaid rentals.
Compromise agreement of August 21, 1972 not subject to resolutory term; occupancy of the land as tenant extinguished as of the end of December 1972. The end of December marked the end of the relation, not its continuation or resumption.
The Court of Agrarian Relations decisions on the matter are to the effect that by virtue of the power granted to it by Section 7 of Republic Act 1267, as amended by R.A. No. 1409 (creating the CAR), as well as by the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954 itself (Sec. 21, Rep. Act No. 1199 as amended by Rep. Act 2263), it had authority to approve Compromise Agreements although made out of court and without its intervention, the principal reason for this stand being that "the Court merely would be achieving the purposes for which it was created – to maintain harmonious relations between the parties and/or prevent future disputes between them, more effectively."
A court-approved compromise agreement to vacate an agricultural landholding entered into by the lessee in consideration of condonation of all his back rentals and his right to all crops harvested for the main crop, is valid and enforceable.
Osmeña vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Even more than a contract (which may be enforced by ordinary action for specific performance) the compromise agreement is part and parcel of the judgment, and may therefore, be enforced as such by a writ of execution (Serrano vs. Miave, L-14678, March 31, 1965).
Tenancy agreement between the tenant and a third party is not binding upon the landowner, and subsequently, the latter sued them to surrender the land pursuant to a compromise agreement entered into between the tenant and the landowner, the third party cannot invoke the provision on security of tenure of agricultural tenants.
Where the parties to an agrarian case decide to execute a compromise agreement the same is approved without need to resolved the jurisdictional issue raised.
CONCEPTS OF TENANCY
Tenancy is not purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the 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 written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even more important.
To fall under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, land must be worked by tenant or immediate farm household. Persons, therefore, who do not actually work the land cannot be considered tenants and a person who hires others to do work ceases to be a tenant.
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
One of the conclusive presumptions prohibits the tenant from denying the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
No contempt of court is committed by a party who plowed the land and destroyed the standing crops of one of the herein petitioners who is not a party-defendant in the ejectment case below. Petitioner's remedy is not contempt but a civil and/or criminal action.
Where respondent Court's writ of execution had been carried out by placing the respondent in possession of the land before the writ of preliminary injunction restraining the implementation of said writ of execution was issued by the appellate court, the respondent and the plaintiff may not be held in contempt of court.
CONSUMMATED SALE OF LAND
We hold that the sale contemplated under Sec. 12, Rep. Act 3844 must refer to a consummated sale, not a conditioned sale; it must be a sale that divests the title and ownership of the owner over the land and not merely a conditional sale as in the case at bar where the title and improvements on the land remained with DBP.
CONTRACTS
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95684, October 9, 1997
Nonpayment, at most, gives him only the right to sue for collection. Generally, in a contract of sale, payment of the price is a resolutory condition and the remedy of the seller is to exact fulfillment or, in case of a substantial breach, to rescind the contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code.
Payment of realty taxes does not necessarily prove ownership must less stimulation of said contracts.
Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
An offer must be clear and definite, while an acceptance must be unconditional and unbounded, in order that their concurrence can give rise to a perfected contract.
CONTRACTS, TENANCY
Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
A comparison between the provisions of Section 12 of Agricultural Tenancy Act (R.A. No. 1199) and those of Act No. 4054 leaves no room for doubt that the enumeration of the authorized acknowledging officers in section 12 of the prevailing statute is a deliberate legislative reform designed to exclude the intervention of Notaries Public in tenancy contracts that should be made fully effective.
Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1199, which provides that written contracts between landlords and tenants "shall be conclusive evidence of what has been agreed upon between the contracting parties, if not denounced or impugned within thirty days after its registration," does not apply to contracts violative of the law itself.
De Borja vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Under Section 6 of Act No. 4054, in the absence of a specific stipulation on the duration of a tenancy contract, the same shall be understood to last only during one agricultural year: said section 6 leaves no room for interpretation.
De Borja vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Ambiguous provision in a contract is adversely interpreted against the party responsible therefore.
Novesteras vs. Court of Appeals
The title, label or rubric given to a contract cannot be used to camouflage the real import of an agreement as evinced by its main provisions. Moreover, it is basic that a contract is what the law defines it to be.
Label of contract cannot be used to camouflage real import of an agreement.
A person who signed annually for three consecutive years a contract for hired labor cannot later be heard to claim that he is a tenant.
Contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties.
Evangelista vs. Court of Appeals
The fact that the lease contracts did not stipulate personal cultivation indicates the intent of the parties to establish only a civil lease relationship.
Where so-called labor contract was not really honored by the parties as respondent did not receive salaries but a share in the produce or the cash equivalent of his share in lump, his relationship is one of tenancy and not employment.
The court is aware of the practice of the landowners, by way of evading the provisions of tenancy laws, to have their tenants sign contracts or agreements intended to camouflage the real import of their relationship.
Estrada vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Crop other than rice is to be divided according to contract, or, in its absence, custom of the place.
Fact that tenant did not immediately vacate ½ portion of his landholding does not make the surrender thereof by means of contract less voluntary.
An implied contract of tenancy is created if a landholder, represented by his overseer, permits the tilling of the land by another for a period of six years.
Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware Co.
Label of contract cannot be used to camouflage real import of an agreement.
Ilusorio vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The prohibition contained in constitutional provisions against impairing the obligation of contracts is not an absolute one and is not to be read with literal exactness like a mathematical formula. Such provisions are restricted to contracts with respect to property, or some object of value, and confer rights which may be asserted in a court of justice, and have no application to statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the general legislative power of the state, and involving the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. They do not prevent a proper exercise by the State of its police powers.
De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 is legally justified in impairing the obligation of an existing contract between the tenant and the landlord. Obligations of contracts must yield to a proper exercise of the police power.
Any contract whereby the tenant is to receive less than the corresponding share for the different contributions he has to the production of the crop is contrary to law, morals and public policy (Sec. 11(a), Agricultural Tenancy Act).
To determine the nature of a contract, courts do not have or are not bound to rely upon the name or title given it by the contracting parties. Should there be a controversy as to what they really had intended to enter into, but the way the contracting parties do or perform their respective obligations, stipulated or agreed upon may be shown and inquired into, and should performance conflict with the name or title given the contract by the parties, the former must prevail over the latter.
The subleasing of the land without written consent of the landholder, although constituting a violation of the original contract of lease, cannot affect the security of tenure of the sub-lessees because it was committed by the lessee, not by the sub-lessee, who were not parties to the contract.
CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES
An agricultural leasehold cannot be established on land which has ceased to be devoted to cultivation or farming because of its conversion into a residential land.
174 SCRA 398-399, June 29, 1989
Petitioners may not invoke Section 36(1) of Republic Act No. 3844 which provides that "when the lessor-owner fails to substantially carry out the conversion of his agricultural land into a subdivision within one year after the dispossession of the lessee, the lessee shall be entitled to reinstatement and damages," for the petitioners were not agricultural lessees or tenants of the land before its conversion into a residential subdivision in 1955.
Davao Steel Corporation vs. Cabatuando
Conversion of agricultural land to industrial character does not deprive agrarian court of jurisdiction.
Private respondent has not shown that she complied with all the requisites for conversion of the land in question into residential subdivision. The trial court also found that there was some measure of bad faith on the part of private respondent in seeking the dispossession of petitioner, and that no substantial conversion had been undertaken by private respondent.
CROP SHARING
Agricultural tenancy act: Right of tenant to change from one crop-sharing arrangement to another should not be impaired to technicalities.
Estrada vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
A change in the crop sharing agreement between the landlord and the tenant under Section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, as amended from a 50-50 to a 70-30 basis, cannot be made by the tenant unless he uses his own farm implements and carabao, and spends for the last harrowing and transplanting without any contribution or help from the landlord.
Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The rejection by the tenant of the landholder's contribution to the cost of final harrowing and transplanting, if tendered in due time, cannot be justified by the tenant's right to change the crop sharing arrangement unless the tenant has served upon the landlord notice of his intention to change such arrangement at the advance end of the preceding agricultural year.
Pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, if the share tenancy contracts is in writing and is duly registered, the right to change the crop-sharing arrangement may be exercised at the expiration of the period of contract sought to be changed.
Section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law, regarding change of system, does not apply to the enforcement of the crop-sharing ratio in accordance with the actual contributions of the tenant and the landlord. In the case of a second class riceland, if the tenant contributed all except the land and one-half of the transplanting expenses, his share in the harvests would be 62.5% and the landlord's share would be 37.5%. Any change in the sharing ration is left to the initiative of the tenant.
CULTIVATION
175 SCRA 295, September 5, 1989
The term "personal cultivation" cannot be given a restricted connotation to mean a right personal and exclusive to either lessor or lessee. In either case, the right extends to the members of the lessor's or lessee's immediate family members.
A "caretaker" of an agricultural land is also considered "cultivator" of the land.
Camus vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, in defining the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, speaks not only of "cultivation" but also of "use" of agricultural land "where one of the parties work the land," and includes within such jurisdiction "all those relationships established by law" between said parties.
"Cultivation" is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land. It includes the various phases of farm labor described and provided by law, the maintenance, repair and weeding of dikes, paddies, and irrigation canals in the holding. Moreover, it covers attending to the care of the growing plants.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
The definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling, plowing or harrowing of the land. It includes the promotion to growth and the care of the plants, or husbanding the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry. The raising of coconuts is a unique agricultural enterprise.
Where the controversy involves a relationship which affects the rights of two litigants over the cultivation and use of any agricultural land, one of the parties agreeing to furnish the labor, such controversy comes within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, as provided for in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended.
The term "bona fide intention to cultivate" in Section 50(a) of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, has reference not only to the ability and firm decision of the landowner to mechanize but also to the motive behind his action in seeking the dispossession of his tenants.
Cultivation is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land alone. Among the various phases of farm labor provided by law, the maintenance, repair and weeding of dikes, paddies, and irrigation of canals in the holding, are included.
If a tenant is allowed to cultivate the land by himself or by the immediate members of his family or immediate farm household, there can be no plausible reason why the owner or landholder, if he cultivates the land himself, should not be permitted to do the same thing.
D
DAMAGES
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
Damages cannot be presumed or premised on conjecture or even logic. In making an award, courts must point specific facts which show a basis for the amount of compensatory or actual damages.
G.R. No. 80645, August 3, 1993
Under the Civil Code, private respondents are liable for damages to the injured party, the petitioners in this case. However, in lieu of actual payment of damages, and considering the fact that private respondents were in possession of the land during the entire period that this case was pending, private respondents are no longer entitled to the interest payments which would have been due from petitioners.
Agrarian court has jurisdiction over tenant's claim for damages.
Although the actual damages suffered exceeded the amount awarded by the trial court, this amount would not be increased if the award was not appealed.
Award of damages to tenant and payment of back shares correctly excluded by the Court of Appeals in instant agrarian case.
Magbanua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
137 SCRA 328-329
Award of moral damages, permitted by Article 21 of the Civil Code, where plaintiffs rights were violated when they were denied irrigation water for their farm lots to make them vacate their landholding.
The CAR is vested with authority to award moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Court sustains the award of damages against the petitioners.
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Court disagrees with the finding of the respondent court that respondent should be absolved from liability.
Since the heirs of tenant were unlawfully dispossessed of the landholding, upon the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, landholder was adjudged liable for damages "to the extent of the landholder's participation in the harvest."
Delfin vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Damages may not be awarded on the basis of speculation, conjecture or guess work.
Belmi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Inasmuch as the counter-plowing of the landholdings, to which the tenants did not object, redounded to the mutual benefit of the tenants and their landlords, and as the latter constructed at their own expense new dikes along the contour lines, of which the tenants made use in the subsequent farming years, and as the amount of harvest showed no diminution when compared to those before the contour-plowing, the said tenants are not entitled to damages for the destruction of the old dikes by reason of the contour-plowing.
Magbanua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
137 SCRA 327-328
The petitioners are also entitled to exemplary damages because the defendants acted in an oppressive manner.
Under Section 27(1) of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, an illegally ejected tenant's earnings elsewhere may not be deducted from but is to be added to the damages granted him upon reinstatement.
Whether arising from a breach of contract or whether the result of some provision of law judgment for damages suffered must rest upon satisfactory proof thereof.
Lustre vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The Court of Agrarian Relations should enjoy discretion in selecting the year of tenure that is to serve as basis for the award, so long as the harvest for that year is not an abnormal one.
Lacuesta vs. Barangay Casabaan, Municipality of Cabangan
Moral damages, not awarded to tenant, as the barangay who instituted the expropriation proceeding had not acted with malice and in bad faith.
DEMOLITION
No demolition of a party's house could be validly effected on the day of service of the order of execution. An order by a court for the removal of a party's house "before judgment becomes final and executory" is clearly in violation of Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Section 21 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB)
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
The DARAB was without authority to issue the SQO, much less the warrant of arrest.
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995
Executive Order No. 129-A created the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) to assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
The failure of tenants to pay back rentals pursuant to a leasehold contracts is an issue which is exclusively cognizable by the DARAB and is clearly beyond the legal competence of the Regional Trial Courts to resolve.
Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
DARAB has no power to try, head and adjudicate the case pending before it involving a portion of the CMU's titled school site.
Under Section 4 and Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 it is crystal clear that the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited only to matters involving the implementation of the CARP.
DEPOSIT
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
There is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to want an expanded construction of the term "deposit". – It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds".
DISPOSSESSION
174 SCRA 398-399, June 29, 1989
Furthermore, their admission that: (1) they leased from the respondents a lot (No. 1285-M) in the subdivision on which they built their house; (2) that as commission agents for the respondents, they were able to sell a subdivision lot to Clemente Bernabe and received a P300-commission on the sale; and (3) that "a number of other lots were sold by respondents to different buyers," (p. 51, Rollo) refutes the petitioners' contention that the development of the subdivision was a mere "scheme" to dispossess the previous tenant.
Dispossessed tenant is not entitled to the value of fruit trees, but only the value of labor and expenses for the improvement of crop raised.
Tomacruz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The act of a person in entering upon a parcel of land and appropriating to himself the landholder's share of the harvest for an agricultural year, is a dispossession by a third party of one's landholding and comes within the express provision of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199.
The dispossession of a tenant on the ground of personal cultivation is tainted with bad faith when the new owner in purchasing the land had conspired with the former owner to deprive the tenant of possession of the land after the tenant had sought the application of the 70-30 sharing basis between him and the former.
An agreement whereby the tenant was required to return to the landlord his landholding after one crop year cannot justify the tenant's dispossession after the said period because such agreement is expressly prescribed by law.
Pintacasi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Where the tenant is finally convicted of having killed the owner of the land he is tilling, his eviction as a tenant from the landholding is justified.
Under the Rice Tenancy Act, as amended section 50(a), the landowner, "at least one year prior to the date of his petition", must file notice with the "Court and inform the tenant in writing in a language or dialect known to the latter of his intention to cultivate the land."
Only landholder-owner may dispossess a tenant upon the ground that he wants to personally cultivate he land or through the employment of mechanical farm implements.
We are in full agreement with the holding of the Court of Appeals upholding the Court a quo that insofar as coconut lands are concerned, personal cultivation by the owner-lessor as a ground for dispossession of the tenant-lessee under Section 50 of Republic Act 1199, is still a valid ground for dispossession of a tenant.
We therefore, hold that the 65-year old petitioner, who is a government retiree may terminate the tenancy of the private respondent and till his own land as provided in Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, which was the applicable law when he filed his petition.
Where the implementation of the writ of execution dispossessing tenant was premature, the petitioner should be restored to the peaceful and undisturbed possession of the landholding, until his claim for the payment of improvements is settled by respondent court.
Pursuant to Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 and Sec. 1, Rule 15 of the Court of Agrarian Relations, the tenant's claim for one-half of the value of the improvements made by him must first be threshed out, determined and resolved before he can dispossessed the land by writ of execution.
Prohibition on pre-threshing; reaping of harvest one day ahead of the date agreed upon is a sufficient cause to dispossess tenant.
The leasehold system is mandated to prevail between the parties in agricultural lands planted to rice and/or corn.
Under R.A. No. 3844, a landlord can dispossess a tenant on the ground that his jobless son will personally till the land. There is no requirement that said child must first be an experienced farmer.
R.A. No. 6389 which abolished personal cultivation as a ground for dispossession of a tenant cannot be given retroactive effect as to those who already exercised their rights under R.A. 3844.
De Lamera vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Dispossession of the tenant of his landholding may be allowed, in case of the bona fide intention, either of the landowner or of his relative within the first degree of consanguinity, to cultivate the land personally or through employment of farm machinery and implements (Sec. 50, Rep. Act No. 1199).
Feliciano vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
While Section 50(a) Republic Act No. 1199 provides that the bonafide intention of the landholder to cultivate the land personally, or thru the employment of farm machinery or implements, is a sufficient case for dispossession of a tenant from his holding, this provision should not be taken literally.
Lustre vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Under Sec. 27 of Rep. Act No. 1199, the earnings of the tenant during the period of unlawful ejectment are not deductible from the award of damages.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations to order the reinstatement of tenants unlawfully dispossessed of their landholdings does not depend on whether or not at the time of the filing of the proper action there was tenancy relation nor does it amount to a waiver of the right to reinstatement, for Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, does not provide for a prescriptive period within which to file a complaint for unlawful dispossession.
The appellants failed "to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to preserve the improvements existing in their holdings", and, therefore, they are guilty of a violation of Section 43 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, which is a statutory ground for dispossession under Section 50(b) thereof.
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
Ernesto Bunye vs. Lourdes Aquino, et al.
G.R. No. 138979; October 9, 2000
Tenant is entitled thereof in the event that tenanted land is converted pursuant to Section 36, R.A. No. 3844 equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years.
A cause of action for disturbance compensation arose from the time the tenants were ejected.
Tanpingco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Court rules that the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports as the owner cannot oust the petitioner from the subject Riceland and build a public high school thereon until after there is payment of the disturbance compensation in accordance with Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended.
DOCKET FEES
Conrado Colarina vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 117439, February 25, 1999
If the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeal, et al.
G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999
The Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. Respondent DAR is in a better position to resolve petitioner's application for conversion, being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.
DOUBTS RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF TENANT
A literal interpretation of Sec. 39 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263, which makes it unlawful for the tenant or the landlord, without mutual consent, to reap the crop before the date set for its threshing, can warrant the ejectment of the tenant in the case at bar, who contrary to said provision, reaped his crop of about two cavans of palay involving P7.70 at the most, as the landowner's share.
Viewed within the context of the constitutional mandate and obvious legislative intent, the provisions of the law should be construed to further their purpose of redeeming the tenant from his bondage of misery, want and oppression arising from the onerous terms of his tenancy and to uplift social and financial status.
In the interpretation of Republic Act No. 1199, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the tenant (Sec. 56).
The punitive or disabling provisions of Rep. Act No. 1199 cannot be given retroactive effect, and doubts must be resolved in favor of the tenant.
In applying Section 50 of the law, the court is enjoined by Section 56 of the same law to resolve all doubts in favor of the tenant.
DUE PROCESS
Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula Inc., vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 103953, March 25, 1999
In cases of denial of due process, exhaustion of available administrative remedies is unnecessary. The aggrieved party may seek judicial relief outright.
It has already been settled that what due process abhors is not lack of previous notice but absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. To satisfy due process, official action must be responsive to the supremacy of reason and the dictates of justice. There is no denial of due process where petitioner was afforded every opportunity to present its case.
The essence of due process is the requirement of notice and hearing. Surely, when both parties who could be potential adversaries come together to the court and seek the imprimatur thereof of a written agreement signed by them, the need for notice and hearing loses completely its significance.
Where existence of agricultural relationship is raised in an ejectment suit, court of first instance (or municipal court) should hold a preliminary hearing to determine existence or non-existence of alleged tenancy relationship.
If procedural deficiency were taken into account, it appears that respondent Judge had much to answer for. Nor is it a matter of proceeding according to doctrinal requirements alone that vitiated his actuation. The due process mandate was likewise paid scant respect, considering the circumstances of the case, more specifically, petitioner being a pauper litigant.
Lack of notice to the defendant throughout the proceedings in the lower court is violative of procedural due process and showed poor court management.
E
EARNEST MONEY
Sps. Lacson and Basilio vs. Pineda
The condition that if the vendees fail or refuse to pay the amount (P7,676.00) within the period ending December 31, 1963, then the whole amount of P9,000.00 paid at the time of the execution of the deed shall be deemed forfeited in favor of the vendors is not a characteristic of a sale on installments, but it is one usually found in agreements or promises to sell with "earnest money" to guarantee the vendor from any loss or damage arising from the non-fulfillment of the obligation of the vendee.
EJECTMENT
It serves no useful purpose of the Supreme Court to withhold verdict and to remand a case to the MCTC, only for it to order the dismissal of the ejectment case, where the issue can now be resolved since there is nothing more that the parties can offer on the issue of jurisdiction of the MCTC.
Vda. de Salazar vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995
Ejectment being an action involving recovery of real property is a real action which is not extinguished by the defendant's death. An ejectment case survives the death of a party which death did not extinguish the deceased's civil personality
The primary and only issue in an ejectment suit is material possession.
186 SCRA 517-518, June 14, 1990
No plausible reason exists why respondent would agree to transfer to adjoining lot if land where his house stands belongs to him as agricultural homelot.
177 SCRA 605-606, September 15, 1989
Private respondents' continued stay in the property without having paid a single monthly rental is a sufficient cause for ejectment.
177 SCRA 294-295, September 5, 1989
Ejectment of an agricultural lessee was authorized not only when the landowner-lessor desired to cultivate the landholding, but also when a member of his immediate family so desired.
Castro v. Castro Diga v. Adriano
128 SCRA 519 [1984] 133 SCRA 421 [1984]
Gallardo v. Borromeo Bonifacio v. Dizon
161 SCRA 500 [1988] 175 SCRA 294 [1989]
It is well-settled that R.A. 6389, which removed personal cultivation as a ground for ejectment of tenant/lessee, cannot be given retroactive effect in the absence of a statutory provision for retroactivity or a clear implication of the law to that effect.
It is definite and unmistakable as to the spirit, intent and purpose of the lawmakers that under no circumstances may a tenant or lessee be deprived or dispossessed of his landholding without a final and executory judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations rendered after proper hearing where, understandably, the tenant or lessee has been given an opportunity to be heard.
Under Sec. 49 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, the tenant shall be dispossessed of his holding for any of the causes enumerated in Section 50 "only after the same has been proved before and the dispossession is authorized by, the court".
Where the conviction of a tenant is for a minor offense involving only the taking of a few bamboo shoots from the land under cultivation without prior consent of the landholder (theft) for which only a small fine was imposed and duly paid, the tenant may not be ejected.
The alleged tenant's theory that he was "constructively ejected" and his claim for damages are baseless.
Under Memorandum Circular No. 29 issued by the Minister of Agrarian Reform on December 6, 1973 to implement P.D. 316, referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform after judgment is still mandatory where the execution of the decision would result in the ejectment of the actual tiller or the tenant farmer.
A tenant's failure to apply the "Masagana" system in the cultivation of Riceland will not justify his ejectment in the absence of showing that the land is suited to that method of cultivation.
Ejectment for violation of contract for failure to notify change of contract; Although the late request to have such change affected was a mistake sufficient to deprive them of the right to change the sharing ratio for that agricultural year, yet it was not sufficient to constitute a violation of their contracts of tenancy as would justify their ejectment as tenants under Sec. 50, paragraph (b), of Republic Act No. 1199.
The ejectment of tenants of an agricultural land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, pursuant to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199, which provides that the same "shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of such court as may now or hereafter be authorized by law to take cognizance of tenancy relations and disputes", and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, under which jurisdiction over the same is vested in the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Ejectment of tenants is justified if failure to pay rentals is not attributable to extraordinary event.
Ejectment; There is no agrarian relationship of landlord and tenant where respondent was allowed to stay and cultivate a portion of land only as a caretaker.
Where the tenant has been working under tenancy in another landholding without the petitioning landholder's consent, but the latter had not done anything to assert her right under the law, it is held that petitioner cannot now be heard on that charge because she has slept on her right and cannot now invoke the protection of the law.
Ejectment of tenants by the landlord from an agricultural land held by the former under a system of leasehold tenancy is exclusively cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Under Sec. 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court, the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
The Supreme Court had time and again held that the fact of lease and the expiration of its terms are the only elements of an action for ejectment.
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
Grant of Petitioner's motion for issuance of a writ of execution covering the ejectment of private respondent Domantay was not violative either of PD No. 316 nor of PD No. 1038.
Almarinez vs. Manabat-Potenciano
The deliberate acts of a tenant in excavating the land by means of a bulldozer without the knowledge and consent of the landholder, thereby inflicting damage to the land, are held to be sufficient justification for this ejectment, under Section 50 (b) in relations with Sec. 23, par. 1, and Sec. 38, par. 3 of Republic Act No. 1199.
Since Congress failed to express an intention to make Republic Act No. 6389 retroactive, it may not apply to ejectment cases then already pending adjudication by the courts.
P.D. No. 316 in relation to P.D. No. 583 prohibiting and penalizing the ejectment of agricultural tenants do not apply to the petitioner who was no longer in possession of the land when said decrees took effect.
Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes
125 SCRA 223
Presidential Decree No. 583 which penalizes forcible ejectment of agricultural tenants has nothing to do with and does not cover expropriation cases instituted by the government.
Promise to exchange land with another belonging to same landlord is not one of the means provided for ejectment of tenant.
Republic Act No. 6389, which removed personal cultivation as a ground for ejectment of tenant, cannot be given retroactive effect, absent a statutory provision for retroactivity.
The vendee a retro of a landholding has the right to eject the tenant on the ground of personal cultivation.
Sale of Land, not included as one of just causes for removal of tenants from the landholding under P.D. No. 1038.
Telling a tenant to leave because the term has expired is not illegal ejectment.
Roxas Y Cia vs. Cabatuando, et al.
Tenant entitled to indemnity for dwelling only if ejectment is without cause.
The mere failure of a tenant to pay he landlord's share does not necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former when there is lack of deliberate intent on the part of the tenant to pay, or there is failure of crop due to fortuitous event.
Tenant may not be ejected except by final judgment.
Where the alleged landholder was a squatter who was ejected from the landholding by virtue of writ of execution in a forcible entry case, the legal possessors of the landholding cannot be compelled to retain the tenants of the said squatter.
EMINENT DOMAIN
Panes vs. Visayas State College of Agriculture
G.R. Nos. 56219-56220; G.R. Nos. 56393-56394, November 27, 1996
P.D. 1107 has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality that is not easily eroded by a mere allegation of its illegality. Hence, respondent VISCA is entitled to prosecute its expropriation case and be heard on the merits as to the rights that is claims under P.D. 1107.
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals
Local government units can expropriate agricultural lands without prior authority from the Department of Agrarian Reform as the determination of the public use of the property subject for expropriation is considered an expression of legislative policy.
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals
Although local governments possess merely delegated, not inherent, power of eminent domain, limitations in the exercise thereof must be clearly expressed, either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations.
The exclusive authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to reclassify agricultural lands is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the landowners or tenant beneficiaries and does not include the determination of the "public purpose" requirement of the expropriating authority.
The expropriation of property intended for the establishment of a pilot development center and housing project of the Province of Camarines Sur held valid in consonance with the public purpose requirement of the Constitution.
Association of Small Landowners in the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner.
Association of Small Landowners in the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 347-348, July 14, 1989
Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed.
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
In determining the existence of an employee-employer relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. It is this last element that constitutes the most important index of the existence of the relationship.
EMPLOYMENT OF HELPERS
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Transplanting and harvesting are not among those required by law to be personally performed by the tenant-farmer; the law expressly allows the employment of helpers.
ESTOPPEL
Defendant is in estoppel to deny receipt of copy of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration by (a) his failure to call the judge's attention to that fact; (b) his receipt without protest of the copy of the motion sent to him by the clerk of court by order of the judge; (c) his failure to set up this particular claim after receipt of court's resolution reconsidering and revoking the decision in his favor; (d) his failure to perfect the appeal from the revocatory resolution of the court; and (e) silence and inaction of defendant for almost four years.
Attack on timeliness of appeal not barred by estoppel.
The circumstances outlining estoppel must be unequivocal and intentional, for it is an exception to standard legal norms and is generally applied only in highly exceptional and justifiable cases.
G.R. No. 97929, October 22, 1993
Petitioners having invoked the jurisdiction of the DAR are now estopped from assailing such lack of jurisdiction.
While lack of jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a party's active participation in the proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing such lack of jurisdiction.
181 SCRA 160-161, January 19, 1990
An estoppel may arise from the making of a promise even though without consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact it was relied upon and if a refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice.
EVIDENCE
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
Factual findings of administrative agency must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
Certifications issued by administrative agencies or officers that a certain person is a tenant are merely provisional and not conclusive on courts.
G.R. No. 107493, February 1, 1996
A document; or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for identification – it must be formally offered.
The determination that a person is a tenant is a factual finding made by the trial court which will not be reversed on appeal except for the most compelling reasons.
Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
In agrarian cases, all that is required is mere substantial evidence.
G.R. No. 100894, January 26, 1993
The finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the waivers were not tainted with fraud or deceit is a factual finding that binds the Court.
G.R. No. 55318, February 9, 1993
In appeals in agrarian cases, the only function required of the Court of Appeals is to determine whether the findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations are supported by substantial evidence. And substantial evidence has been defined as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, and where the findings of fact of the agrarian court are supported by substantial evidence, such findings are conclusive and binding on the appellate court.
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
In agrarian cases, the quantum of evidence required is no more than substantial evidence.
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
As mandated by the Rules of Court, each party must prove his own affirmative allegation. Court agrees with petitioners that the claim of private respondent has not been established by preponderance of evidence.
Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
Under the terms of the written agreement signed by Obrique, et al., pursuant to the livelihood program called "Kilusand Sariling Sikap Program", it was expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU and the faculty and staff (participants in the project). The CMU did not receive any share from the harvest/fruits of the land tilled by the participants. What the CMU collected was a nominal service fee and land use participant's fee in consideration of all the kinds of assistance given to the participants by the CMU.
G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992
Substantial Evidence; In agrarian cases, substantial evidence will suffice to support factual findings.
The review sought by petitioners does not fall under any of the grounds warranting the exercise of this Court's discretionary power. The matter of what is the reasonable redemption price being factual, precludes this Court from reviewing the factual findings of the appellate court.
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.
205 SCRA 529, January 27, 1992
The agrarian court's findings of fact which went beyond the minimum evidentiary support demanded by law, that is supported by substantial evidence, are final and conclusive and cannot be reversed by the appellate tribunal.
200 SCRA 407-408, August 9, 1991
While petitioner correctly points out that a presumption of bona fide intention is inherent in the filing of an action for personal cultivation under Sec. 36(1) of the Agrarian Reform Code, still like other disputable presumptions, the same can be overcome by evidence to the contrary, such as the facts brought out during the trial, showing bad faith and malice.
The findings and conclusions of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform being preliminary in nature are not in any way binding on the trial courts.
Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
189 SCRA 758-759, September 21, 1990
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
In agrarian cases, all that is required is submission of "substantial evidence," not preponderance of evidence.
This Court ordinarily accords respect, if not finality to factual findings of administrative tribunals by reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained from handling of specific matters falling under their respective jurisdiction. The exceptions to this rule where judicial power asserts itself are: [1] The factual findings are not supported by evidence; (2) the findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition, or collusion; (3) the procedure which led to the factual findings is irregular; (4) palpable errors are committed, or when a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifested.
169 SCRA 129, January 13, 1989
The nature and importance of the legal question raised in the petition makes it necessary to discuss and resolve the same with finality.
Heirs of E.B. Roxas, Inc. vs. Tolentino
167 SCRA 335, November 14, 1988
Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderant evidence; it is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Heirs of E.B. Roxas, Inc. vs. Tolentino
167 SCRA 334, November 14, 1988
In agrarian cases, all that is required is mere substantial evidence. All that the Appellate Court has to do is to find out if the decision of the CAR is supported by substantial evidence.
Macaraeg v. CA Anderson Co., et al. v. IAC
G.R. No. 48008, January 20, 1989 G.R. No. L-65928, January 21, 1988
134 SCRA 414 (1985) 18 SCRA 992 (1966)
Chavez v. CAR Salen vs. Dinglasan
9 SCRA 412 (1963) 198 SCRA 623, June 28, 1991
Whether a person is a tenant or not is basically a question of fact and the findings of the respondent court and the trial court are generally entitled to respect and non-disturbance except for unusual reasons.
Courts of Agrarian Relations are not bound strictly by the technical rules of evidence.
Lustre vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Substantial evidence has been defined to be "such relevant evidence as reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635, 642), and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record direct or circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the Agrarian Court in determining wherein lies the weight of the evidence, or what evidence is entitled to belief.
It is not sufficient to dismiss the case on the ground that the ejectment of tenant farmers on rice and corn lands is prohibited, considering that should private respondent be declared a tenant, then the right to eventually own the land would be subject to the obligations imposed on him by P.D. No. 27 and the Rules and regulations implementing the same.
Tomacruz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The Court of Agrarian Relations may, in the course of proceedings, admit evidence of ownership for the purpose of determining who, as between two persons claiming to be the owners of a parcel of land, is the landholder to whom the landholder's share in the produce should be delivered by the tenant.
Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals
Concerning the nature of the lease, we uphold the factual conclusions of the trial court, it appearing that they are based on substantial evidence and are not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Findings of trial court that plaintiff below is a tenant on the land in question is supported by substantial evidence.
Belmi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The issue of lack of instructions from the landlord for the tenant to plant a second crop is primarily one of fact, and may not, therefore, be considered for the first time on appeal.
Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
The findings of fact of the court of agrarian relations are final and conclusive if they are based on substantial evidence.
Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Considering that substantial evidence does not only entail the presence of a mere scintilla of evidence (See Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, supra) in order that the fact of sharing can be established, we are constrained to rule that there is no concrete evidence on record adequate enough to prove that the element of sharing is present.
Delfin vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
If the failure to present evidence on certain matters was not due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and said evidence is merely forgotten evidence, the reopening of the trial or the holding of a new trial is not warranted.
In agrarian cases, all that is required is submission of "substantial evidence", not "preponderant evidence."
Section 155 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, which provides that "in the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy pending before them, the Court without impairing substantial rights, shall not be bound strictly by the technical rules of evidence and procedure, except in expropriation cases."
De Lamera vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof, as is required in an ordinary civil action, but such kind of relevant evidence as is reasonable and may be accepted as adequate in support of a conclusion.
While the evidence showed that petitioner had really entered the land, it did not prove that he did so as tenant of the owners; that it was precisely by reason of that entry that he was used for ejectment in the Justice of the Peace Court, wherein he did not allege in his written answer that it was only after he lost said case that he filed as action with the Court of Agrarian Relations to take away the dispute from the jurisdiction of the regular courts, there is insufficient evidence to support the findings that the petitioner was, in fact, a tenant of the landowner.
A receipt prepared by landowner and signed voluntarily by adverse party is not necessarily self-serving.
Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderant evidence, as is required in an ordinary civil case. It has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criteria for that of the trial court in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
Substantial evidence is all that is required in agrarian cases.
Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Whether or not the circumstantial evidence of fraud is or is not sufficient to overcome the testimony and evidence for the landowner is not a question for the Supreme Court to decide; so long as the findings of fact of the Agrarian Court attain the minimum evidentiary support demanded by the law, such findings can not be revised or altered by the appellate tribunals.
Substantial evidence is not preponderance of evidence, and only requires that the finding be predicated upon relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Where findings of court of appeals and trial court are contrary to each other, Supreme Court may scrutinize the evidence on record.
Angliongton, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
The withdrawal during pendency of agrarian case of other persons claiming to be tenant is an evidence of lack of tenancy relationship.
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
Sps. Felipe Buñag and Irma Buñag vs. CA
G.R. No. 107364, February 25, 1999
A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is essentially an order to place the prevailing party in possession of the property. If the defendant refuses to surrender possession of the property to the prevailing party, the sheriff or other proper officer should oust him.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is fatal to a party's cause of action and a dismissal based on that ground is tantamount to a dismissal based on lack of cause of action.
G.R. No. 96882, March 12, 1996
The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one; or (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him; or (4) where the circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, - Gonzales vs. Hechanova, L-21897, October 22, 1963, 9 SCRA 230; Abaya vs. Villageas, L-25641, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 1034; Mitra vs. Subido, L-21691, September 15, 1967, 21 SCRA 127. Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, (Cipriano vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291), when there is no due process observed (Villanos vs. Subido, 45 SCRA 299), or where the protestant has no other recourse (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637).
EXPENSES
Agricultural tenant should be reimbursed for value of improvements he introduced in the landholding.
Expenses for the improvement of crop, case arising from tenant's debt from landlord for purchase of carabao is within jurisdiction of court of agrarian relations.
Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Under Section 34 of Republic Act No. 1199, reimbursements for either parties contribution are not allowed. Acceptance, therefore by the tenant of the landlord's belated contribution should be considered as loans payable upon liquidation of the crop.
Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Section 22 of R.A. No. 1199 does not provide for indemnity for the value of permanent improvements existing on the land, other than the tenant's dwelling, or for the expenses in clearing the same upon taking possession thereof originally by the tenant. Any award therefore, that may be made with regard to the value of said permanent improvements, or the expenses for the clearing of the land is improper and unauthorized.
In the absence of specific figures, the division of the irrigation charges in proportion to the benefits derived from the harvest is in accord with justice and equity.
The expenses incurred by a tenant for the leveling of the land and the construction of dikes or in making the landholding fit for cultivation or farming cannot be considered as necessary expenses. At most they can be considered as useful because necessary expenses are those made for the preservation of the property or thing upon which they have been expended.
Useful expenses are to be refunded only to a possessor in good faith, and a tenant whose possession is necessarily of a precarious character, cannot be considered a possession in good faith in relation to his landlord. The tenant's only right with respect to such improvements is to take them away if it can be done without injury or damage to the property or thing rented or leased.
Expenditures, which include the cost of seed, fertilizer, pest or weed control, reaping and threshing, are deducted from the gross produce and are not shared but reimbursed to the one who paid for the same. Considering that the 10-1/3 cavans taken by the landowner were found by the Agrarian Court to cover the reaping and insecticide expenses incurred by the tenant, the latter's right to recover the palay from his landlord (who carried them away in violation of law) is indubitable.
F
FARM PRACTICES
Belmi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The mere fact that the expected quantity of harvest, as visualized and calculated by agricultural experts, is not actually realized, or that the harvest did not increase, is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the tenants failed to follow proven farm practices.
FINAL JUDGMENT
Domingo Celendro vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 131099, July 20, 1999
It is " a vested interest which it is right and equitable that the government should recognize and protect, and of which the individual could not be deprived, arbitrarily without injustice." In the present case, the winning party must not be deprived through a mere subterfuge, of the fruits of a final verdict.
FINDING OF FACTS
That fact that respondent did not observe regular working hours indicates that respondent is a tenant not a hired laborer.
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The determination that a person is a tenant-farmer is a factual conclusion made by the trial court on the basis of evidence directly available to it and will not be reversed on appeal except for the most compelling reasons. As we do not see any such reason in the instant case, we are not justified in rejecting such findings, more so since they have been affirmed in toto by the respondent court in the exercise of its own powers of review.
Chavez vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
A factual finding by the Court of Agrarian Relations, when supported by substantial evidence, may no longer be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The conclusion reached by the respondent agrarian court regarding the timeliness and validity of the tenant's exercise of his right to change tenancy system between him and the landowner, being a question of fact, should not be disturbed on appeal.
Finding of the Court of Appeals on a question of fact – whether or not petitioner voluntarily surrendered his landholding by means of a document entitled "Kasulatan ng pagsasauli ng karapatan" – will not generally be disturbed.
The findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence is not binding.
The findings of facts of Court of Agrarian Relations, supported by substantial evidence, is conclusive and binding upon Supreme Court.
The findings of facts of agrarian court, if supported by substantial evidence, is binding on the Supreme Court.
Whether or not there was such a bona fide intention of the landowner is largely a question of fact into which the Supreme Court cannot inquire unless the Agrarian Court's finding in that respect should lack substantial basis in the evidence on record.
Vda. De Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals that plaintiff was not a bona fide tenant-farmer on the land is final and conclusive.
Toledo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations are subject to review by the Supreme Court only when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
Vda. De Donato vs. Court of Appeals
This Court has consistently held that the findings of facts of the Court of Agrarian Relations will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support them and all that this Court is called upon to do insofar as the evidence is concerned, in agrarian cases, is to find out if the conclusion of the lower court is supported by "substantial evidence."
The findings of facts of the Court of Agrarian Relations will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support them.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the findings of the Court of Agrarian Relations will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support them (Picardel vs. Lladas, L-21309, December 29, 1967).
Where all the facts are stated in the decision and the issue is the correctness of the conclusions drawn therefrom, the question is one of law.
FISHPONDS
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
It is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land.
It is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land. In Gabriel vs. Pangilinan, 58 SCRA 590, 597, this Court rules that land in which fish is produced is classified as agricultural land and the mere fact that a person works in an agricultural land does not necessarily make him a leasehold tenant within the purview of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1199.
Where a fishpond is covered by a civil law lease the rights of persons hired by the lessee cannot rise higher than the lessee.
Under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, "agricultural land" specifically mentions fishponds and prescribes the considerations for the use thereof.
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 226 is applicable to fishponds.
Camus vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The conversion of fishponds into saltbeds does not change their character as agricultural into mineral lands.
FORCIBLE ENTRY
Right of occupant of public land may be protected by possessory action of forcible entry.
The case, involving as it did the use and cultivation of agricultural land, could have come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
FORUM SHOPPING
G.R. No. 127623, June 19, 1997
Forum Shopping; Circular No. 28-91; The requirement of Circular No. 28-91 for a certification against forum shopping does not apply to a motion for extension since the same is not the petition spoken of in said Circular.
FRAUD
In the instant case, the unconscionable failure of a party's lawyer to inform such client of receipt of the court order and the motion for execution and to take the appropriate action against either or both to protect his client's rights amounted to connivance with the prevailing party which constituted extrinsic fraud.
H
HABEAS CORPUS
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
Although it is well-accepted that a court should always strive to settle the controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation, this rule cannot apply if the result would negate the rational application of the Rules of Court.
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
Once the person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention by a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus – his remedy then is the quashal of the information and/or the warrant of arrest duly issued.
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
In all petitions for habeas corpus, the court must inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner's detention – from the moment petitioner was taken into custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the petition and "only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution has been satisfied."
HARVEST SHARING
Reynaldo Bejasa and Erlinda Bejasa vs. CA, et al.
Harvest sharing is not proven since no receipt, or any other evidence was presented.
HARVESTING OF CROPS
Permission of the landlord before a tenant to harvest the crops is required only if the reaping or threshing take place "at any time previous to the date set" therefore.
HOMESTEADS
170 SCRA 706-707, February 27, 1989
Both the Philippine Constitution and the CARL respect the superiority of the homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statue.
205 SCRA, 515-517, January 27, 1992
Petitioners' proposed repurchase of the property does not fall within the purpose, spirit and meaning of section 119 of the Public Land Act, authorizing redemption of the homestead from any vendee thereof.
The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens to their homes and to the things necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. They have a right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human beings, and the State which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness is under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right.
Right of homesteader or his heirs to own a piece of land for their residence and livelihood prevail over the right of tenants to security of tenure over the landholding.
I
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
Section 49 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that the judgment, with respect to the matter directly adjudged therein, is conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action.
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-588, December 6, 1996
Knowledge of existing agrarian legislation and prevailing jurisprudence on the subject, together with an ordinary degree of prudence, would have prompted respondent Judge to refer the case to the DAR for preliminary determination of the real nature of the parties' relationship, as required by law.
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996
Ignorance of land, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one – certainly not judges.
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996
Judge committing his second infraction meted the maximum penalty of P20,000.00 fine.
Bio vs. Valera
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-96-1074, June 20, 1996
Those who wield the judicial gavel have the duty to study our laws and their latest wrinkles – they owe it to the public to be legally knowledgeable for ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice.
It is a settled rule that a final and executory judgment may be set aside in three ways, viz., (1) by a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38; (2) when the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction, by direct action, as certiorari, or by collateral attack; and (3) when the judgment was obtained by fraud and Rule 38 cannot be applied, by civil action under Article 1114 of the Civil Code.
IMMEDIATE FARM HOUSEHOLD
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The mere fact that the land is an agricultural land does not ipso facto make petitioner an agricultural lessee. The law is explicit in requiring the tenant and his immediate family to work the land.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Small farmer is oblige to work on the land by himself or with the aid of his immediate farm household.
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 operate the farm enterprise are included in the term "immediate farm household."
There is no evidence that Cruz is a member of the tenant's immediate farm household; or that he had helped Fabros in the cultivation thereof during the latter's tenure as tenant, and at the same time was dependent on him for support, so as to make him a member of the tenants "immediate farm household", in accordance with the law at the time, which is the status he claims to have.
INCAPACITY
The requirement that the landholder must work the land himself personally does not preclude him from entrusting the cultivation of the holding to another person or persons in case of illness or temporary incapacity, or to avail himself of the labor of the members of his farm household, or the use of the Filipino practice of exchange of labor system, commonly known as the "amuyo" or "Tagnawa" in the Ilocos regions, "palusong" or "bayanihan" to the Tagalogs and "salibot" or "ayon-ayon" in the Western Visayas.
The admission by the tenant that he was unable to plow the land for the second crop of an agricultural year did not establish the fact of permanent incapacity but merely his incapacity for that specific period. Consequently, the applicable law is not section 9 but section 24, paragraph (b) of the Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act No. 1199).
INDISPENSABLE PARTY
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
An indispensable party is one without whom the action cannot be finally determined, whose interests in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so bound up with that of the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.
INJUNCTION
168 SCRA 439, December 14, 1988
The CAR judge can issue a restraining order which is to last for only twenty (20) days.
181 SCRA 160, January 19, 1990
The doctrine is undisputed that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgment or orders of another court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by injunction.
In no instance may a court of first instance legally enjoin the execution of the final judgments of the courts of agrarian relations which is a court of special jurisdiction. Any question in relation to its judgments should be sought in the same court.
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals
Whether a restraining order should be issued or not is a matter largely addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent any manifest of grave abuse, the intervention of an appellate court is officious and unjustified.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
Del Rosario vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Section 17 of P.D. 946 refers to interlocutory orders issued by the CAR which cannot be elevated for review while trial is pending, not to orders or decisions rendered after trial, which are appealable.
INTERVENORS
Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al.
G.R. No. 131457, August 19, 1999
Intervenors, who are admittedly not regular but seasonal farmworkers, have no legal or actual and substantive interest over the subject land inasmuch as they have no right to own the land. Rather, their right is limited only to a just share of the fruits of the land.
Absent any definitive finding of the Department of Agrarian Reform, intervenors cannot as yet be deemed vested with sufficient interest in the controversy as to be qualified to intervene in this case.
INTERVENTION
Toledo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Persons having interest in the subject matter of the litigation may be allowed to intervene in the action in order to avoid multiplicity of suits.
J
JUDGMENT
Tanpingco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
An action must be brought against the real party-in-interest or against a party which may be bound by the judgment to be reversed therein.
173 SCRA 635-636, May 30, 1989
Court will not normally substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body in the absence of any important cause therefor.
Tenants of the Estate of Dr. Jose Sison vs. Court of Appeals
The orders for the issuance of Certificates of Land Transfer to the petitioners had not become final and executory because the certificates had been marked "under protest" on orders of Secretary Estrella.
An agreement already declared null and void by a competent court in once case can no longer be relitigated.
There is no legal impediment whatsoever to the agrarian court setting aside its decision and reopening the case for the sole purpose of enabling said court to render a new judgment identifying specifically the lands to which the petitioners should be reinstated.
A court judgment is enforceable against a person not actually a party to the case where he was instituted as tenant by the defendant therein who was declared not a tenant and was ejected from the landholding in question.
Where the decision of the trial court is not appealed and allowed to become final, the same becomes the law of the case and cannot anymore be set aside by the judge.
A judgment cannot be enforced against petitioners who are not defendants in the case of ejectment below.
A judgment of the court of appeals that become final by reason of the mistake of the herein petitioner's lawyer may still be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court. Particularly where the Supreme Court already gave due course to the petition for review.
Laborers should not be made to suffer due to mistake of their lawyer and the Court of Appeals that led to the judgment becoming final otherwise the constitutional mandate of protecting labor will not be serve.
Once a judgment has become final, the issues therein should be laid to rest.
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict.
Del Rosario vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The dispositive part does not always constitute a judgment and the judicial pronouncements in the body of the decision must be considered.
Under Section 4, Rule 43, in relation to Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court, judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations becomes final and executory upon the expiration of 15 days from notice of the order, ruling or decision.
There is no abuse of discretion committed by agrarian court in declaring petitioner-defendant in default.
JUDGES
Remark by judge that complainant is troublesome does not constitute interference with farmer's right to self-organization.
It is the duty and responsibility of judges to refrain from making remarks about tenancy problems that could be misunderstood by tenants present.
A judge of the agrarian court who has fully heard a case may render a decision thereon even after he has been transferred to another station.
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Under the rules, judicial admission cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been made by palpable mistake.
JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
It has been established that this Court will assume jurisdiction over a constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential requisites of a judicial inquiry into such a question are first satisfied.
JURISDICTION
Cipriano Centeno vs. Ignacia Centeno
G.R. No. 140825; October 13, 2000
Under Section 50, R.A. No. 6657, the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program.
Laguna Estates Devt. Corp. vs. CA, et al.
G.R. Nos. 119357 and 119375; July 5, 2000
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties.
Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000
Nothing contradictory between the provision of Sec. 50 granting the DAR primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform" which includes the determination of questions of just compensation, and the provision of Sec. 57 granting RTC "original and exclusive jurisdiction" over (1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowner, and (2) prosecutions of criminal offenses under R.A. No. 6657.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 128557, December 29, 1999
Although it is true that Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the Special Agrarian Courts shall have jurisdiction over the final determination of just compensation cases, it must be noted that petitioner never contested the valuation of the PARAD. Thus, the land valuation stated in its decision became final and executory.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 126332, November 16, 1999
It is clear from Section 57 that the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court has "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowner". This "original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.
Jaime Morta, Sr., et al. vs. Jaime Occidental, et al.
G.R. No. 123417, June 10, 1999
In Vda. de Tangub vs. Court of appeals, we held that the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the following:
a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;
b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and
c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial and other non-agricultural uses.
Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula Inc., vs. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 103953, March 25, 1999
DARAB may only entertain appeals from decisions or orders of DAR officials other than the Secretary.
Domingo Celendro vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 131099, July 20, 1999
The jurisdiction of the DARAB is merely to "determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters." Nothing in its charter confers upon it the power to review findings of court.
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
The rule has always been to the effect that the jurisdiction of a Court, as well as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the averments in the complaint and not by the defenses contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it would not be too difficult to have a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple stratagem.
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
The rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application in this case, since the questions on the identity of the land in dispute and the factual qualification of private respondent as an awardee of a sales application require a technical determination by the Bureau of Lands as the administrative agency with the expertise to determine such matters.
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
Under 50 of R.A. No. 6657, it is the DAR which is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under, the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
The DAR's exclusive original jurisdiction is exercised through hierarchically arranged agencies, namely, the DARAB, RARAD and PARAD, the latter two exercising "delegated authority" while the first exercising appellate jurisdiction over resolutions, orders, decisions and other dispositions of the RARAD and the PARAD, and "functional supervision" over the RARAD and the PARAD.
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies.
Thus Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial Courts, are given original and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]." The provision of 50 must be construed in harmony with this provision by considering cases involving the determination of just compensation and criminal cases for violations of R.A. No. 6657 as expected from the plenitude of power conferred on the DAR.
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
Section 56 and 57 of R.A. No. 6657 vest upon the Regional Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian Court, with jurisdiction over the two classes of agrarian related cases: (1) "petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2) "prosecution of all criminal offenses" under the same law.
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
What agrarian adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide the question.
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
It would subvert the "original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC for the DAR to vest original jurisdiction in compensation cases in administrative officials and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein.
Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation.
There is nothing in Section 36 of B.P. Blg. 129 which bars the MCTC from taking cognizance of a belatedly filed answer; The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as well as it predecessor, do not provide that an answer filed after the reglementary period should be expunged from the records – as a matter of fact, there is no provision for an entry of default if a defendant fails to file his answer.
Where the answer filed asserts agricultural tenancy relationship between the parties, which is clearly evidenced by their Agricultural Leasehold Contract and the Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold, and even if this assertion per se does not automatically divest the MCTC of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case, in view of the defense asserted, the MCTC should hear and receive the evidence for the precise purpose of determining whether or not it possesses jurisdiction over the case.
G.R. No. 96882, March 12, 1996
The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. 129) vested on RTC exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions and special proceedings theretofore falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995
The resolution by the DAR of the agrarian dispute is to the best advantage of the parties since it is in a better position to resolve agrarian disputes, being the administrative agency – presumably possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995
Section 17 of E.O. 229 vested the DAR with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters as well as exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in accordance with law.
An error in jurisdiction can be raised at any time and even for the first time on appeal. Barring highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances, neither estoppel nor waiver may be raised as defenses to such an error.
Where the issues of the case extend beyond those commonly involved in unlawful detainer suits, the case is converted from a mere detainer suit to one "incapable of pecuniary estimation" thereby placing it under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
A land registration court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the existence or non-existence of a tenancy relationship.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
Whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined from the allegations of the complaint.
G.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993
The long settled rule in this jurisdiction is that a party is not allowed to change his theory of the case or his cause of action on appeal.
Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267 (as amended by Republic Act 1409) creating said Court of Agrarian Relations it is given jurisdiction to consider, investigate, decide and settle all questions x x x involving those relationships established by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land. The Court is thus empowered to act where there is a legal relationship between the parties fighting before it. Such relationship must necessarily be that of agricultural tenancy.
Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 confers to the DAR quasi-judicial powers as follows: The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform.
G.R. Nos. 85403-06, September 23, 1992
The rule is settled that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action.
Quismundo vs. Court of Appeals
201 SCRA 609-610, September 13, 1991
Executive Order No. 229 vests in the Department of Agrarian Reform quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters.
Quismundo vs. Court of Appeals
201 SCRA 610, September 13, 1991
Republic Act No. 6657 contains provisions which evince and support the intention of the legislature to vest in the Department of Agrarian Reform exclusive jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters.
201 SCRA 537, September 13, 1991
Determination of just compensation by the DAR is by no means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party.
201 SCRA 536, September 13, 1991
The constitutionality of P.D. No. 27 from which Letter of Instructions No. 474 and Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 1978 are derived, is now well settled.
Leasehold relation cannot be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract or by the sale, alienation or transfer or conveyance of the legal possession of the landholding.
Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals
191 SCRA 880, December 3, 1990
Leasehold relationship continues until terminated for cause.
Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals
191 SCRA 886, December 3, 1990
The Regional Trial Courts have not, however, been completely divested of jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand, confers "special jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are Regional Trial Courts designated by the Supreme Court.
Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals
191 SCRA 885, December 3, 1990
The DAR has original, exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, except on the aspects of (a) just compensation; and (b) criminal jurisdiction over which regular courts have jurisdiction.
189 SCRA 106-107, August 27, 1990
Once a Certificate of Land Transfer has been issued to a tenant, he is deemed to be the owner of the agricultural land in question.
Presidential Decree 442 transferred to the Bureau of Labor Relations the power of the Court of Agrarian Relations to hear and decide representation cases in relation to agricultural workers.
Presidential Decree No. 27 was signed into law in view of the fact that the old concept of land ownership by a few has spawned valid and legitimate grievances that gave rise to violent conflict and social tension.
Court is not divested of jurisdiction over a case on account of defenses raised by the answer. The court is then merely authorized to receive evidence thereon.
184 SCRA 248-249, April 6, 1990
It is the NLRC, not the Court of Agrarian Relations, that has jurisdiction to try and decide Zamora's complaint for illegal dismissal.
181 SCRA 161-162, January 19, 1990
There is no leasehold tenancy where alleged lessee never intended to cultivate the land personally.
181 SCRA 159-160, January 19, 1990
It is a settled rule that on purely legal question the aggrieved party need not exhaust administrative remedies.
177 SCRA 606, September 15, 1989
Mere allegation of ownership by the defendant in an ejectment case or the pendency of an action for reconveyance does not divest the inferior court of jurisdiction over the ejectment suit.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
175 SCRA 560-561, July 24, 1989
There is nothing in the records to show that petitioner committed a palpable mistake in making the above disclosures.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Regional Trial Court now has jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
175 SCRA 559-560, July 24, 1989
The Agricultural Land Reform Code was enacted to help the small farmers and to uplift their economic status by providing them a modest standard of living sufficient to meet a farm family's needs for food, clothing, shelter, education and other basic necessities.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The Agricultural Land Reform Code was enacted by Congress to institute land reforms in the Philippines. It was passed to establish ownership-cultivatorship and the family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture; to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious industrial restraints and practices; to make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens and a source of a genuine strength in our democratic society.
JURISDICTION, COURTS
169 SCRA 129-130, January 13, 1989
Perfection of appeal does not necessarily mean that the lower court loses jurisdiction over the case since the rules of procedure defined under P.D. 946 apply.
Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
168 SCRA 248, December 5, 1988
The remand of the case to the lower court would not serve the ends of justice at all.
Service of summons is not always indispensable to the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the parties. Such jurisdiction may be acquired by virtue of voluntary appearance of both parties when they jointly submitted for approval of the court the compromise.
Under Section 156 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Act No. 3844), an appeal from a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations raising mixed factual and legal issues, there being no question of jurisdiction or constitutionality involved, should be forwarded to the Court of Appeals.
Courts under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong and injustice would result.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Formoso
Case at bar should now be returned to CAR for further proceedings in view of recent statutes vesting to it jurisdiction over foreclosures of tenanted agricultural lands.
Fleischer vs. Pamplona Plantation Co. Inc.
Section 154, paragraph 1 of Agricultural Land Reform Code provides that the Court of Agrarian Relations shall have jurisdiction over "all cases of actions involving matters, controversies, disputes or money claims arising from agrarian relations."
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge BR. V. CFI Bulacan
A CFI does not lose jurisdiction by interposition of defense of tenancy but must proceed to receive evidence to determine if it has jurisdiction.
Sps. Lacson and Basilio vs. Pineda
Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction over controversy arising from agrarian relations.
Court of Agrarian Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving agricultural relationships.
Court of Agrarian Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving agricultural relationship.
The Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction to rule on issue of ownership in ejectment cases filed by the landholder.
The Agrarian Court has no jurisdiction in a case where there exists no tenancy relation between the parties.
Since the tenant of an unlawful possessor, who was judicially ejected from the landholding has no tenancy relationship with the lawful owner or possessor of the land, the Agrarian Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the tenant against the latter.
The Court of Agrarian Relations, not the municipal court, has exclusive and original jurisdiction to take cognizance of and try the forcible entry and detainer case involving agricultural tenants.
Ignacio vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan
While it is true that jurisdiction of the court in a suit for ejectment or forcible entry is determined by the allegations in the complaint, yet where tenancy is averred as a defense and, upon hearing, is shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
Courts have no jurisdiction to try and convict persons charged with pre-reaping or pre-threshing under agricultural tenancy Act of 1954.
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1409, approved on the date above-stated, provides that "actions pending in the Court of Industrial Relations upon the approval of the Act which are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, shall be transferred to and the proceedings therein continued in the latter court.
Courts of first instance may take cognizance of criminal violation of R.A. No. 3844; courts may take notice of Proclaimed land reform areas.
The effect of certification that the case is proper for trial or hearing is that the Judge or Fiscal shall assume jurisdiction over the controversy or dispute. The Court does not lose not is it deprived of its jurisdiction by a defense of tenancy but has the authority to hear the evidence for the purpose of determining whether or not it has jurisdiction.
On August 14, 1981, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 took effect. This law converted the Courts of First Instance into Regional Trial Courts which shall, among others, exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations (See Sec. 19(7), B.P. 129).
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
It is axiomatic that jurisdiction once validly acquired is supposed to be retained despite subsequent laws transferring it elsewhere unless the contrary is indicated.
Bicol Federation of Labor vs. Cuyugan
Absence of Judicial declaration of non-payment of landowner of cash value of labor input of complainants does not remove the action from the jurisdictional competence of the agrarian court.
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over both agrarian and non-agrarian litigations.
Lacuesta vs. Barangay Casabaan, Municipality of Cabangan
The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the expropriation of a tenanted landholding instituted in 1975 before the effectivity of P.D. 946 in 1976.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by law and cannot be conferred by the will of the parties.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform is empowered to review upon appeal the findings of the regional director that a case is not proper for trial.
Bicol Federation of Labor vs. Cuyugan
Money claim arising from performance of agricultural labor for agricultural production is within jurisdiction of agrarian court.
No certification of triability from the Ministry of Agrarian Reform is necessary because when the complaints were filed said requirement was not yet imposed.
Whether the real issue laid before a Justice of the Peace Court was the ejectment of the tenant or ownership over the land they were cultivating, said Court had no jurisdiction. If it was the first issue that was involved, jurisdiction was with the Court of Agrarian Relations, while it was the Court of First Instance which had jurisdiction over the question of title.
Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
A party who voluntarily participated in the trial cannot later on raise the issue of the Court's lack of jurisdiction.
Fleischer vs. Pamplona Plantation Co. Inc.
It was not within the contemplation of the legislature in approving the tenancy laws that persons occupying positions of general managerial character in agricultural enterprises should be considered in the same category as farm laborers and other farm hands as to put claims for salaries and other forms of emolument and compensation for personal services of such general managers within the jurisdiction of the agrarian courts.
The stipulation agreed upon between the plaintiffs and the defendants allowing the latter to work and share on the land, converted the detainer case into a tenancy matter, the termination of which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Violations of Agrarian Law is within jurisdiction of agrarian courts.
JUST COMPENSATION
Panes vs. Visayas State College of Agriculture
G.R. Nos. 56219-20; G.R. Nos. 56393-94, November 27, 1996
P.D. No. 1533 determines the just compensation in expropriation cases to be the fair and current market value declared by the owner of the property sought to be expropriated or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. As such, the determination of just compensation, by virtue of the enactment of P.D. No. 1533, was converted from being a judicial prerogative to an executive decision. Because the executive determination of just compensation is eminent domain proceedings renders the court inutile in a matter which under the Constitution is reserved to them for final determination, we declared P.D. No. 1533 to be unconstitutional and void in the case of Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay.
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals
The fixing of just compensation in expropriation proceedings shall be made in accordance with Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and not on the basis of the valuation declared in the tax declaration of the subject property by the owner or assessor which has been declared unconstitutional.
Association of Small Landowners of the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, ample.
Association of Small Landowners of the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
The Court declares that the content and manner of the just compensation provided for in the CARP Law is not violative of the Constitution.
Determination of Just Compensation, addressed to the courts of justice and may not be usurped by any other branch.
National Housing Authority vs. Reyes
There being no question raised as to the validity of P.D. 757, P.D. 42, P.D. 464 and P.D. 1224. The respondent judge should have followed the rule of valuation therein stated on matters of just compensation in expropriation cases, that the lower value made by the landowner should be the basis for fixing said just price.
Philippine National Bank vs. Amores
Preamble of PD 251 eloquently articulates government intent to implement the state policy of "diverting landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development," PNB is one of the government resources contemplated in the preamble.
Association of Rice & Corn Producers of the Philippines Inc. vs. The National Land Reform Council
The provision on the compensation of the landholder affected by the operation of the land Reform Code is considered a judicial question.
Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay
The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determination but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. No statute, decree or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.
L
LAND BANK BONDS
Maddumba vs. Government Service Insurance System
Land Bank bond shall be accepted as payment of pre-existing obligations to government financial institutions at their face or par value, not at discounted value.
Philippine National Bank vs. Amores
Land Bank Bonds are deemed contracts and fall within the purview of the non-impairment clause of the constitution.
Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Land Bank Bonds used to pay indebtedness of owner of lands distributed to tenants shall be accepted at their face value whether the expropriation was or was not under P.D. 27.
LAND REFORM LAWS
The Agricultural Land Reform Code has prospective, not retroactive effect.
Association of Rice & Corn Producers of the Philippines Inc. vs. The National Land Reform Council
The Agricultural Land Reform Code R.A. No. 3844 is constitutional even under the 1935 constitution.
Brief summary of recent series of land reform laws.
The very essence of the Agricultural Land Reform Code is the abolition of agricultural share tenancy as proclaimed in its title.
Vda. De Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
Like P.D. 27, P.D. 316 applies and operates only in favor of bona-fide tenant farmers.
Omission in R.A. No. 3844 of provision in Section 39 of R.A. No. 1191 penalizing the reaping or threshing of produce previous to date set therefore operates as an implied repeal of said provision.
One of the objectives of P.D. 946 is speedy disposition of cases.
Pre-reaping and pre-threshing of palay by rice tenant is no longer a crime under the agricultural reform code whereby it superseded the agricultural tenancy law.
P.D. No. 27 cannot be applied retroactively, there being no express nor clearly implied authorization.
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
P.D. No. 1038 applies specifically to private agricultural lands devoted to crops other than rice or corn.
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals
P.D. Nos. 27 and 316 proclaimed emancipation of rice and corn tenants.
P.D. No. 27; emancipation of the farmers from the bondage of the soil; the decree is part of the law of the land.
Philippine National Bank vs. Amores
P.D. 27 effects emancipation of the tenant-farmer from the bondage of the soil while Section 80 provides the mode of bankrolling the emancipation measure.
The Agricultural Land Reform Code has been designed to promote economic and social stability. Being a social legislation, it must be interpreted liberally to give full force and effect to its clear intent, which is "to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers" and to make them "more independent, self reliant, and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society.
Quilantang vs. Court of Appeals
Section 36 R.A. 3844 is a substantive provision and cannot be amended by R.A. No. 5434, a mere procedural law.
LAND TITLES
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
The annotation in the Transfer Certificate of Title, stating that the land covered thereby is not tenanted, cannot be regarded as conclusive upon the courts of justice as to the legal nature and incidents of the relationship between the landowner and the persons therein.
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence not only of ownership of the land referred but also its location.
LAND TRANSFER
Stipulation in Deed of Sale limiting disposition of land within five years binds vendee's heirs.
Transferee of agricultural land could be asked to sell land to lessee.
Sale of agricultural land is valid even if not accompanied by affidavit of non-tenancy where sale authorized by court nor lack of notice to lessee affect its validity.
LANDHOLDER
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
A landholder shall mean a person, natural or juridical, who either as owner, lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor lets or grants to another the use or cultivation of his land for a consideration either in shares under the share tenancy system, or a price certain or ascertainable under the leasehold system.
LAND USE
Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeal, et al.
G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999
Land Use refers to the manner of utilization of land, including its allocation, development and management.
LAND USE CONVERSION
Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeal, et al.
G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999
Land Use Conversion refers to the act or process of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR.
LAW OF THE CASE
The dictum therein laid down became the law of the case and what was once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be binding upon them so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to the facts of the case before the Court.
LEASEHOLD TENANCY SYSTEM
Action for recognition as a lessee and to fix rentals not similar to action to determine if lessee had not been given his full share of harvest.
In determination of annual lease rental, if direct evidence on normal harvest of one of three preceding agricultural years prior to establishment of leasehold is not available, circumstantial evidence may be considered.
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Fact that the DZBB was not much interested in the share and that its board of directors had not adopted a resolution recognizing the agricultural lessee in favor of Roaring should not signify that the lease does not exist.
Evangelista vs. Court of Appeals
Finding that petitioners was not a bona fide tenant-farmer on the land based on evidence is final and conclusive; personal cultivation by petitioner and the immediate members of his farm household, which is salient characteristic of agricultural leasehold, is absent in case at bar.
Notice of reaping or threshing is not required under a leasehold system.
The reason for the absence of advance 3-day notice of the date of threshing and reaping in the Tenancy Act is that the lessee's obligation is to pay the rental, which is to deliver a generic thing in the absence of any specific agreement to the contrary, and that the rental is supposed to be specific amount, as fixed and limited in section 46 of the Act; and that consequently, in the absence of any legal obligation imposed on the lessee to give such notice, the lessor should it upon himself to verify from the tenant-lessee the date of reaping and threshing.
Section 43 enjoins the tenant-lessee to make proper use of the land and improvements thereon.
Tenant of agricultural lessee has the right to remain in the land being tilled by him notwithstanding surrender of lease.
Novesteras vs. Court of Appeals
There is no leasehold tenancy where alleged lessee never intended to cultivate the land personally.
De Borja vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Under the leasehold tenancy system, the lessee shoulders the cost of irrigation which, therefore, is not deductible from the gross harvest.
M
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
168 SCRA 240, December 5, 1988
The elements of the crime of malicious mischief are: 1. The offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another; 2. The damage caused did not constitute arson or crimes involving destruction; 3. The damage was caused maliciously by the offender.
MANGO TREES
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
P.D. No. 316 referred only to agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn.
MECHANIZATION OF FARMS
While managerial discretion should be conceded to the landowner, and it would ordinarily be his prerogative to decide what portion of his land should be mechanized, the bona fide exercise thereof can be tested to determine if it conforms to legislative measures enacted pursuant to the police power of the State, one of which is Section 50(a) of R.A. No. 1199, as amended.
MEMORANDA IN AGRARIAN CASES
It is evident that P.D. No. 946 in the interest of the expeditious administration of justice empowers the Court of Appeals to dispense with memoranda in deciding agrarian cases.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we hold that, as a matter of orderly procedure and to dispel the impression that a litigant in an agrarian case has been denied due process or was not accorded a hearing in the Court of Appeals, it is advisable that if the Appellate Court finds that memoranda are not necessary, it should at least issue a notice to the parties that the case is submitted for decision without any memoranda.
MODE OF COMPENSATION
Edgardo Santos vs. LBP, et al.
G.R. No. 137431; September 7, 2000
Must be paid in the manner provided by R.A. No. 6657, that is, in cash and bonds.
MOOT AND ACADEMIC
169 SCRA 129, January 13, 1989
When a decision on the merits in a case is rendered and the same has become final and executory, action on procedural matters or issues is rendered moot and academic.
MORTGAGES
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
The land being an agricultural one, and considering the ocular inspection conducted in 1978 when P.D. No. 27 had been effect for some time, the mortgagee's suspicion that the land was tenanted should have been aroused by the existence of a farmer on the land other than the mortgagors themselves.
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
Even if the title of a buyer at an extrajudicial foreclosures has been consolidated or confirmed in its favor, it may be entitled to a writ of possession only if the debtor is in possession and no third person had intervened.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
The remedy of the mortgagee is not against the land nor the agricultural lessees but against the mortgagors.
The Court gave much weight to the finding of the trial court that what was entered into by the parties was a contract of mortgage.
Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Even if only one of three mortgaged lots were subjected to operation land transfer under P.D. 27, all the lots shall be deemed covered thereunder due to the rule that a mortgage obligation is indivisible.
Stipulation in the deed of mortgage that the mortgagee is the one transplant on the landholding, which is tantamount to a prohibition against the institution of a tenant, means that the mortgagee himself was to cultivate the landholding personally.
Philippine National Bank vs. Amores
Explicit is the law that a mortgage obligation is one and indivisible ever any portion of the property mortgaged is answerable for the whole obligation as soon as the latter falls due. The mortgagor cannot opt, much less compel the mortgagee to apply any payment made by him on a specific portion of the mortgaged property to effect release. Neither may the mortgagee apply payments made to it on, and consequently release, a portion of the mortgaged property and effect foreclosure on the rest. From the foregoing, it is clear that petitioner PNB cannot be allowed to do precisely what it had done in the case at bar.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Formoso
Prior to enactment of P.D. 946, reorganizing the courts of agrarian relations, on June 17, 1976, said courts have no jurisdiction over foreclosures of mortgages involving tenanted agricultural lands.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Formoso
The additional jurisdiction in cases involving foreclosure of mortgage of tenanted lands, inter alia, was precisely added to the original, competence of the CAR . . . in order to protect the security of tenure and such other rights of tenant-farmers that may be involved.
MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT
Amante vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Motions for postponement are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al.
There are exceptional cases when this Court may entertain a second motion for reconsideration, such as where there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons. Even then, we have ruled that such second motions for reconsideration must be filed with express leave of court first obtained.
In agrarian cases no motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be allowed in the Court of Appeals.
A judge of the agrarian court who fully heard an agrarian case may act on a motion for reconsideration thereon even after his transfer to another station.
An Agrarian Court judge does not commit an abuse of discretion where he opted to refer a motion for reconsideration of a decision on a case in his sala to be resolved by his predecessor thereto who had fully heard the case and rendered the question decision thereon.
Section 1 of the Rules of Court of Agrarian Relations requires that motions for reconsideration be accompanied by proof of service of one copy thereof upon the adverse party. However, the defect is cured if a subsequent motion attaches photostat copies of registry receipt showing that original motion was received by adverse counsel and this is denied or disapproved.
Filing of notice of appeal does not constitute abandonment of motion for reconsideration where said motion was actually acted upon by the court.
N
NEW TRIAL
Motion for new trial should be supported by affidavit of merits.
Failure to receive notice of hearing is not a ground for new trial because if negligence that is not excusable, considering the antecedents of the case.
NOMINAL OR PRO FORMA PARTY
Antonio Samaniego, et al. vs. Vic Alvarez Aguila
G.R. No. 125567; June 27, 2000
The Office of the President is merely a pro forma party. A nominal or pro forma party is one who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party has any real interest in the subject matter or because any relief is demanded, but merely because the technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such party on record.
NON-TENANTED LANDS
Agricultural lands which are non-tenanted lands are not covered by P.D. No. 27.
NOTICES
Notice to counsel is notice to parties and the client is bound by the negligence of his own Attorney who failed to notify him of the decision rendered in the case.
Under Section 8, Rule 13 Rules of Court, service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within five days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster, service shall take effect at the expiration of such time.
The failure of the tenant to give the advance 3-day notice of the date of harvesting as required by the Land Reform Code is not a ground of eviction if the failure to give notice is done in good faith and the belief that the provisions of the Tenancy Act continued to govern his leasehold relationship.
Nothing in Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 requires that the change of system must be made by notice independent of the petition. The petition itself, served on the landlord, is effective as a notification, and since the Agrarian Court made the change effective on the crop year 1963-1964, the year after the filing of the petition no prejudice was caused to the landlord.
Notice of proposed sale of agricultural land to the tenant should contain the principal terms of the sale, otherwise it is insufficient. Defense of giving notice to tenant of proposed sale cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
In connection with the dispossession of the tenant on he ground that the landowner will employ farm machinery and equipment, two notices should be made: (1) to the Court of Agrarian Relations and (2) to the tenant.
Where the tenant's petition asking for a change in tenancy relationship beginning with the agricultural year 1960-1961was filed on October 20, 1960 but in the decision of the respondent court of Agrarian Relations, the change in the tenancy system was made effective only beginning with the agricultural year 1963-1964, the requirement of the law regarding at least one month notice by the tenant to the landlord regarding the change of tenancy system had, therefore, been duly complied with.
O
OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
Neither Section 6 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. 6657) nor Sec. 1 of E.O. 407 was intended to impair the obligation of contracts earlier concluded.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishments or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition.
G.R. No. 80645, August 3, 1993
Rescission on ground of "impossible condition" is not proper absent proof of status of "encargado" as tenant.
Intestate of Estate of the late Ricardo P. Presbitero Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102432, January 21, 1993
The validity or compliance of a contract cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties.
Intestate of Estate of the late Ricardo P. Presbitero Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102432, January 21, 1993
In the interpretation of contracts, it is the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of the stipulations that shall control. Furthermore, subsequent or contemporaneous acts of the contracting parties shall be considered in judging their intention.
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
Rescission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach but only for such substantial and fundamental breach as would defeat the very object of the parties in making the agreement.
When the obligee accepts the performance knowing its incompleteness or irregularity and without expressing any protest or obligation, the obligation is deemed fully complied with.
OBLIGATIONS TO HEIRS
Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court applies to the obligations of a decedent transmissible to his heirs in general, not to obligations of the decedent with particular reference to land or properties under tenancy.
ORDER OF EXECUTION
Sps. Felipe Buñag and Irma Buñag vs. CA
G.R. No. 107364, February 25, 1999
Generally, an order of execution is not appealable because otherwise a case would never end. If the order of execution cannot be appealed, neither can the order of demolition issued in pursuance thereof be appealable.
OVERSEER
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
The act of an overseer in hiring agricultural lessees with the knowledge and acquiescence of the landholder validated the relationship thereby created.
OWNERSHIP
Tanpingco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The owner has the right to dispose of a thing without other limitations than those established by law.
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
The exercise of the rights of ownership are subject to limitations that may be imposed by law, such as the Tenancy Act and P.D. 27.
Panes vs. Visayas State College of Agriculture
G.R. Nos. 56393-94, G.R. Nos. 56219-20, November 27, 1996
It is imperative that any right to the immediate possession of property sought to be expropriated must be firmly grounded on a valid compliance with Section 2 of Rule 67, i.e., there must be a deposit with the National or Provincial Treasurer of the value of the subject property as provisionally and promptly ascertained and fixed by the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings.
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
There is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights, a stranger to succession cannot conclusively claim ownership over a lot on the sole basis of a waiver document which does not recite the elements of either a sale, or a donation, or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership.
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
An asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising from a juridical act, however justified, is not per se sufficient to give rise to ownership over the res. That right or title must be completed by fulfilling certain conditions imposed by law; While title is the juridical justification, mode is the actual process of acquisition or transfer of ownership over a thing in question.
Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
A lessee cannot have a right superior to that of his lessor over the premises in a dispute between the lessor and a third party regarding the ownership or possession of the said premises.
P
PARI DELICTO
Pari delicto doctrine is not applicable to a homestead which has been illegally sold in violation of the homestead law.
PARTIES
Antonio Samaniego, et al. vs. Vic Alvarez Aguila
It is clear that petitioners' failure to implead the Office of the President does not warrant the dismissal of the case as it is in accordance with this Circular. It is not true that the Office of the President is not included within the scope of this circular.
PETITION FOR RELIEF
Grant of relief is not erroneous where it will enable court to correct jurisdictional error.
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge, BR. V, CFI Bulacan
In a judgment based on a compromise the period to file petition for relief commences to run from the rendition of judgment.
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge, BR. V, CFI Bulacan
Petition for relief must be supported by affidavits of merit.
The Court of Agrarian Relations is not restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the dispute, but may include to the order or decision any matter or determination which may be deemed necessary and expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or preventing further disputes, provided said matter for determination has been established by competent evidence during the hearing.
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
The absence of an affidavit of merit is not fatal where the petition itself, which is under oath, recites the circumstances or facts which constitute the grounds for the petition. The oath elevates the petition of the same category as the affidavit.
In view of the unusual and peculiar circumstances of the instant case, where unless some form of relief is made available to the aggrieved party, the grave injustice and irreparable injury that visited him through no fault or negligence on his part will only be perpetuated, the petition for relief from judgment which he filed may be allowed or treated, pro hac vice, either as an exeption to the rule, or a regular appeal to the RTC, or even an action to annul the order (decision) of the MCTC.
Section 2 of Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court does not only refer to judgments but also to orders, or any other proceedings.
PETITION FOR REVIEW
G.R. No. 127623, June 19, 1997
The Court of Appeals acts hastily when it concludes that a party is going to file a petition for certiorari instead of a petition for review solely on the basis of such party's allegation that he was going to file a petition for certiorari.
G.R. No. 127623, June 19, 1997
The fact that an administrative agency is made a respondent a feature of a petition for certiorari, should be treated merely as innocuous and should not be allowed to detract from the true consideration of the petition as a petition for review.
G.R. No. 96882, March 12, 1996
The DARAB is made a respondent a feature of a petition for certiorari, but this fact should have been treated merely as innocuous and should not have been allowed to detract from the true consideration of the petition as a petition for review.
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
Settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
In petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are deemed conclusive on the Supreme Court.
The 30-day reglementary period under PD 946 to file petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of appeals is non-extendible.
PLEADINGS AND PRACTICES
A notice to a lawyer who appears to have been unconscionably irresponsible cannot be considered as notice to his client.
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverse to the registered owner, the validity of which is yet to be established in court at some future date, and is no better than a notice of lis pendens which is a notice of a case already pending in court.
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
Where a person's right or interest in a lot in question remains an adverse claim, the same cannot by itself be sufficient to cancel the OCT to the land.
B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80223, February 5, 1993
Under the rules, even assuming the validity of the extension, the motion should have been denied outright for tardiness as the order sought to be reconsidered had already long become final.
Intestate Estate of the Late Ricardo P. Presbitero, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102432, January 21, 1993
A motion for postponement is not a matter of right, it is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
POLICE POWER
Philippine National Bank vs. Remigio
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
Police power subordinates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.
Philippine National Bank vs. Remigio
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
The Constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the state; The reason being that public welfare is superior to private rights.
Association of Small Landowners in the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Property condemned under Police Power is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose is not compensable.
Association of Small Landowners in the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is a concurrence of the lawful subject method.
Laws enacted in the exercise of police power, to which Republic Act No. 1199 belongs, may constitutionally affect tenancy relations created before the enactment of effectivity thereof.
Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 1199 is a valid exercise of police power.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion rep. By Demetria Durolfo Asuncion vs. Jesus Santiago, et al.
G.R. No. 115741, March 9, 1999
The writ of preliminary injunction is issued by the court to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole objective is to prevent the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully.
PRESCRIPTION
Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals
191 SCRA 880-881, December 3, 1990
Section 38 of Republic Act No. 3844 provides that "an action to enforce any cause of action under this code shall be barred if not commenced within three (3) years after such cause of action accrued." The law does not specifically require a judicial action, hence, it can be an administrative action.
PROCEDURE
177 SCRA 295, September 5, 1989
It is the duty of the attorney to inform the court promptly of his client's death, incapacity or incompetency during the pendency of the action and to give the name and residence of his executor, administrator, guardian or other legal representative.
169 SCRA 130, January 13, 1989
PD 946 being a special law, it shall have precedence over the Rules of Court which is of general applicability.
169 SCRA 130, January 13, 1989
Rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid technical sense.
Absence of verification is a formal, not jurisdictional defect.
The change in procedure does not affect the nature of the proceeding as an appeal by way of certiorari.
Parties to action must be real party in interest, not mere apoderado.
The CAR should have sent its decision to the "MAR Office, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte" rather than to BALA, MAR, Diliman, Quezon City.
Court is not bound by technical rules of evidence and procedure.
Ex-parte hearing is allowed under PD 946 provided both parties and counsel duly notified.
De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The mere fact that the constitutionality of a law is raised in another case pending in the Supreme Court is not a valid reason for suspending the proceedings in a present case. Laws are considered valid until declared unconstitutional, and until then courts are duty bound to enforce them.
Procedural requirements of R.A. 5440, on appeals from the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice.
The remand of a case to the lower courts for reception of evidence is not necessary if this Court could resolve the dispute on the records before it (See Hechanova v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 550). In the case of Origas & Co., Ltd. Partnership v. Hon. Ruiz, et al. (148 SCRA 326, 341), this Court further holds that: "x x x such time consuming procedure may be properly dispensed with to resolve the issue (Quisumbing v. Court of appeals, L-60364, June 23, 1983, 122 SCRA 709-710) where there is enough basis to end the basic controversy between the parties here and now, dispensing with procedural steps which would not anyway affect substantially the merits of their respective claims.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
Section 155 of R.A. No. 3844 provides that, except in expropriation cases, the Court of Agrarian Relations shall not be bound strictly by technical rules.
Under R.A. No. 3844, the CAR may deviate from the usual norms of procedure.
PUBLIC AUCTION
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
A purchaser at a public auction is only substituted to and acquired the right, title, interest and claim of the judgment debtor or mortgagor to the property as of the time of the levy.
R
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
Ejectment, accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria make up the three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.
REDEMPTION
Gerardo Rupa, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
G. R. No. 80129, January 25, 2000
The right of redemption is validly exercised upon compliance with the following requirements: (a) the redemptioner must be an agricultural lessee or share tenant; (b) the land must have been sold by the owner to a third party without prior written notice of the sale given to the lessee or lessees and the DAR in accordance with Section 11, RA 3844, as amended; (c) only the area cultivated by the agricultural lessee may be redeemed; (d) the right of redemption must be exercised within 180 days from notice; and e) there must be an actual tender or valid consignation of the entire amount which is the reasonable price of the land sought to be redeemed.
REFERRAL TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM
169 SCRA 279, January 20, 1989
The purpose for referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) under the aforesaid decree it to enable said Ministry to determine if the case is intended to harass tenant and farmers.
169 SCRA 279, January 20, 1989
Even if referral was required, there was a referral of the case to the district officer of the MAR.
Preliminary certification by the DAR of a case under P.D. 316 may be reversed by the courts after a hearing.
Valles vs. CFI of Samar, Branch I
Referral of a case for preliminary determination to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform refers to pending agrarian or civil cases or those pending decision or execution where the issue of actual tenancy is raised.
There being a ministry certification that the land at bar is not tenanted the CFI validly assumed jurisdiction.
A case filed in the Court of Agrarian Relations by persons claiming to be tenants does not need to be previously referred to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
A case which involves the ejectment of persons claiming to be agricultural tenants should first be referred to the Sec. of Agrarian Reform or his representative in the locality.
The dismissal of the cases on January 6, 1976 by the CAR on the basis of the Certification of the Regional Director that they were not proper for trial, was, therefore, premature and in clear violation of the Circular No. 29, series of 1973 implementing P.D. No. 316 in relation to P.D. No. 27.
Mandatory requirement of a certification of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform on whether or not an ejectment case involving the removal of a tenant of agricultural land is property for trial by the agrarian court.
Secretary's determination of the relationship between the parties cannot be final and conclusive on the lower court.
Puertollano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Said order settles the issue of whether the case should be referred to the MAR pursuant to P.D. 316 and 1038 and concludes the right of private respondent to such referral, hence, it is a final order, that is appealable.
Presidential Decree No. 1038 is not an undue encroachment on the independence of the judiciary.
The referral of a case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not "terminate" but merely suspends a proceeding.
Referral of preliminary determination of rights of tenant-farmers and the landowner to Ministry of Land Reform is not necessary, where tenancy relationship between the parties is admitted in the pleading.
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
Requirements of P.D. 1038 is not applicable to the instant case.
De Venecia vs. Court of Appeals
Under Section 3 of P.D. 1038, a case already submitted for decision before any court was exempted from the requirement of referral to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for certification purposes.
Referral even after judgment, still mandatory where execution of the decision would result in the ejectment of the actual tiller or the tenant farmer.
REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF DECIDING CASES
Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations was not lost after the lapse of the reglementary period prescribed under the constitution.
REINSTATEMENT OF TENANT
An agreement limiting agrarian tenancy to two years is against the law. Tenant was correctly reinstated.
Expiration of tenancy contract does not terminate outright relationship.
Yusay vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
In case reinstatement would be ordered, there is need of establishing the identity and the area of the lands and the respective portions to which the tenants would be entitled to be reinstated, as well as of determining the qualification to succeed thereto of the surviving spouse or next of kin in case the original tenant is no longer living.
Should the vendor a retro repurchase the landholding from which the tenant had been ejected by the vendee a retro, said tenant would be entitled to be reinstated in the landholding.
In sale with right to repurchase; a tenant has a right to reinstatement after repurchase.
The fixing of leasehold rentals and damages is not barred, as the three-year period under the code within which to enforce any cause of action has not yet elapsed.
RELIQUIDATION
An accounting between a landowner and an agricultural tenant is a statement made by the former of the contributions made by both, the expenses incurred, the amount harvested, the sharing system followed by the parties and the share actually received by each. A reliquidation, on the other hand, involves the determination bases either upon the accounting made by the landholder, or upon the facts as determined by the court, of the share to which each party is entitled.
An accounting between a landowner and an agricultural tenant is a statement made by the former of the contributions made by both, the expenses incurred, the amount harvested, the sharing system followed by the parties and the share actually received by each. A reliquidation, on the other hand, involves the determination bases either upon the accounting made by the landholder, or upon the facts as determined by the court.
Respondent Judge did not err in not considering petitioner's special defense of ownership of only one-half of the land.
Where the tenant received less than his rightful share of the harvests for certain crop-years, he is entitled to a reliquidation thereof.
RENTALS
Petitioner's agreement to the rentals stated in the amicable settlement did not make him a judgment debtor, since he did not agree to have the judgment executed against him in case he defaults in the payment thereof.
Petitioner-lessee was denied due process because he was not given an opportunity to be heard on his side of the controversy relating to the non-payment of rentals.
177 SCRA 605, September 15, 1989
Private respondent's belief that the subject property should have been sold to them, does not justify the unilateral withholding of rental payments due the new owner.
Maddumba vs. Government Service Insurance System
182 SCRA 281-283, February 15, 1990
Implied repeals are not favored in law, and will not be so declared unless the intent of the legislature is manifest.
As there was yet no statute fixing a ceiling on rentals when the tenancy contracts were executed, the landowner has the right to demand an increase thereof.
Leasehold rental rates in agricultural leases can be re-determined so as to increase the same to the limit authorized by law.
Ilusorio vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
In leasehold tenancy of ricelands the rentals are based on whether the land is first class or second class. The classification is in turn based on the normal average harvest of the three preceding years.
Delay in payment of rentals does not justify the drastic remedy of ejectment under Section 50 (b) of Republic Act No. 1199, which states that while violation by the tenant of any of the terms and conditions of tenancy contract shall be a ground to eject him, where there is substantial compliance such as when the rentals for the agricultural years 1958-1961 in question had all been fully satisfied although not in advance as agreed upon.
Vda. De Ortiz vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
Land Bank may deduct from acquisition price the rents paid by tenant-farmer to landowner from October 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect.
Petitioner-agricultural lessee cannot be compelled to pay rentals for land he is deemed by law to be the owner-cultivator from the time he consigned the redemption price in court.
Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals
Use of the land by the tenant for a fixed amount in money or in produce or in both as consideration is an element of tenancy under the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
REPEAL OF PENAL LAW
Repeal of penal law deprives courts of jurisdiction to punish violation of old penal law prior to its repeal.
RES JUDICATA
Ramon D. Ocho vs. Bernardino Calos, et al.
G.R. No. 137908; November 22, 2000
Applies to both judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings; embraces two (2) concepts: the first is "bar by prior judgment" under paragraph (b) of Rule 39, Section 47, and the second is "conclusiveness of judgment" under paragraph (c) thereof.
Greenfield Realty Corp. vs. Loreto Cardama, et al.
G. R. No. 129246, January 25, 2000
It is true that judgment upon a compromise has the effect of res judicata. But any cause of action that arises from the application or violation of the compromise agreement cannot be said to have been settled in the first case. Thus, petitioners' claim that respondents' action is barred by res judicata is untenable.
Valles vs. CFI of Samar, Branch I
The question of ownership and possession of the contested land can not be reopened where the same issue has been terminated by a decision that has become final and executory, and which in fact has been duly executed.
Pursuant to Article 2037 of Our Civil Code, a compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res adjudicata, even if not judicially approved (Meneses v. De la Rosa, 77 Phil. 34).
Defense of res judicata unavailing when judgment is a nullity.
Weight given to previous decision although not res adjudicata.
RESIDENTIAL LAND
P.D. 316 on prior DAR certification of a case to the courts refers only to land devoted to rice and corn, not to residential lots.
Fact that respondent was giving the landowners 20 cavans of palay every harvest not sufficient basis for formation of landlord tenant relationship where the landowners never intended to devote part of their metropolitan property to agriculture.
Hilario vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The land in question was purchased at a foreclosure proceeding as "residential" and tax assessments show that it is "residential", not agricultural.
Hilario vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Where land is within the poblacion, the presumption is it is residential, not agricultural.
RETENTION
Eudosia Daez vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000
Landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27 are entitled to the new retention rights under R.A. No. 6657.
RETENTION RIGHTS
Tenants of the Estate of Dr. Jose Sison vs. Court of Appeals
An heir does not have to cultivate personally the 7-hectare retention area.
Tenants of the Estate of Dr. Jose Sison vs. Court of Appeals
Secretary of Agrarian Reform may recall Certificates of Land Transfer which violate the law on retention scheme.
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF LAW
205 SCRA 516, January 27, 1992
The retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract and hence, is unconstitutional.
205 SCRA 419-420, January 27, 1992
Congress failed to express an intention to make RA 6389 retroactive and to cover ejectment cases on the ground of personal cultivation then pending adjudication by the courts.
RETROACTIVITY
P.D. No. 27 cannot be applied retroactively, there being no express nor clearly implied authorization.
P.D. No. 27 does not apply retroactively. In the case at bar the Court of Appeals already rendered judgment finding that tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent was extinguished and said judgment was rendered prior to the effectivity of P.D. 27 on October 21, 1972.
P.D. No. 27 does not apply retroactively.
The provision of the 1973 Constitution that no private corporation may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease cannot be given retroactive effect so as to adversely affect rights vested already prior to its effectivity.
Republic Act No. 6389 cannot be given retroactive effect in the absence of a statutory provision for retroactivity or a clear implication of the law to that effect.
The provisions of Rep. Act No. 2263, amending Rep. Act No. 1199, are applicable to cases pending in court at the time of the enactment of the said amendatory act.
Laws shall have no retroactive application, unless the contrary is provided.
R.A. No. 6389 which removed "personal cultivation" as a ground for ejectment of a tenant cannot be given retroactive effect on the absence of a statutory statement for retroactivity.
RICE AND CORN LANDS
Puertollano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Under Section 2 of P.D. Nos. 316 and 1038, the trial court cannot take cognizance of any "ejectment case or any other case to harass or remove a tenant in an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn" without first referring the same to the secretary of agrarian reform for preliminary determination.
Where the land held by the same tenant in another barrio, taken as a unit of area, produced a normal average of more than forty cavans during said period, it was correctly classified as first class land.
Section 46(a) of Rep. Act No. 1199 fixes the rentals in case of leasehold tenancy of riceland not on the basis of the net but of the gross produce thereof.
Where there is no showing at all as to the gross produce of a riceland, the trial court is not justified in concluding that the rentals agreed upon by the parties are excessive and illegal; consequently, the presumption of legality of said rentals should stand under the circumstances.
LOI 474 which decreed the land transfer program of the government of agricultural lands planted to rice and corn is not unconstitutional. It is neither a class legislation nor does it deprive a person of property without the due process of law or just compensation.
Persons who are not tenants on the property are not covered by PD 315 which prohibits the ejectment of tenant-farmers in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn.
The only criterion for classification of land under Republic Act No. 1199 is its PRODUCTIVITY. If the normal harvest of three preceding years is not over 40 cavans per hectare the riceland is considered second class.
RIGHTS OF PRE-EMPTION AND REDEMPTION
Right of redemption by tenant has yet prescribed where there was no notice in writing of the sale of the property given by the vendee upon the tenants.
Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, prescribed the period within which the right of redemption must be exercised by the agricultural lessees, which is one hundred eighty days from written notice from the vendee of the property upon registration of the sale. But certainly there is nothing in the law which provides that without such written notice, the agricultural lessees can not exercise their right of redemption.
Sps. Lacson and Basilio vs. Pineda
The major premise to the effect that the Agricultural Land Reform Code "is not in full force and effect" in the absence of said proclamation-does not necessarily negate the effectivity of some or part of the provisions of said Code.
Failure of tenant to exercise his right of pre-emption does not bring him under Art. 1620 of the Civil Code on redemption. The matter is governed by the law on agricultural land reform.
The Land Reform Code does not require prior tender of payment for tenant to exercise the right of redemption. Immediate deposit of money in court is sufficient.
The Land Reform Code forges by operation of law the farmer's pre-emptive right to buy the land he cultivates under Section 11 of the Code as well as the right to redeem the land, if sold to a third person without his knowledge, under Section 12 of the Code.
Under Rep. Act No. 3844, the right of redemption should be exercised by the lessee of agricultural land within 2 years from the registration of the sale.
Redemption should be allowed if the land is not considered by the appropriate government authorities to be suitable as a residential subdivision.
Law mandates that the two-year period to redeem landholdings granted to tenants or lessees must be counted from date of registration of sale, not from knowledge of intended sale of property.
The redemption of property rendered case moot and academic because of merger of leasehold tenant's tenancy rights and ownership over disputed land.
Real Monasterio, etc. vs. Fabian
The tenant's right of redemption under Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844 may be exercised within two years from the registration of the sale of the landholding to a third person and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption at a reasonable price and consideration to be agreed upon between the parties or to be determined by the court in case the parties cannot agree on the reasonable price.
Real Monasterio, etc. vs. Fabian
Redemption must cover the entire landholding sold but the lessee is entitled only to redeem the portion he actually cultivates.
Rights of redemption is available to tenants of sugar and coconut lands.
Right of redemption by a tenant of agricultural land must be exercised in accordance with law.
Sps. Lacson and Basilio vs. Pineda
Tenant can exercise right of redemption and pre-emption with his own resources.
Under R.A. No. 3844, the tenant's right of redemption is 2 years from registration of the sale and not from tenant's knowledge thereof.
Where sale has not been reduced to writing, the price of the land should be determined by the CAR or the MAR for purposes of fixing redemption price.
RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS
Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
The policy of social justice, we reiterate, is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. "Compassion for the poor," as we said in Galay et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al. "is an imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege."
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
Social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection.
RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
The right of redemption vested in agricultural lessees is superior to the right of the mortgagee of the land.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
The right of lessees to redeem the land they have been working on that has been disposed of without their knowledge is statutory in character and attaches to a particular landholding by operation of law.
Philippine National Bank vs. Remigio
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
Right of redemption by the mortgagor could be exercised by paying to the creditor bank all the amounts owing to the latter, "on the date of the sale, with interest on the total indebtedness at the rate agreed upon in the obligation from said date.
Philippine National Bank vs. Remigio
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
Right of Redemption; In the foreclosure of real property by banking institutions as well as in the extrajudicial foreclosure by any other mortgagee, the mortgagor could redeem the property within one year from date of registration of the deed of sale in the appropriate Registry of Deeds.
RIGHT OF REMOVAL
177 SCRA 607, September 15, 1989
Private respondents have the right to remove their house and other useful improvements should petitioner refuse to reimburse the amount thereof. Ornamental objects may be removed if no damage shall be cause to the principal and that the owner of the principal do not choose to retain them by paying their value.
RIGHT OF SUCCESSION TO TENANCY
Agricultural leasehold relationship is not extinguished by the death or incapacity of the parties. In case the agricultural lessee dies or incapacitated, the leasehold relations shall continue between the agricultural lessor and any of the legal heirs of the agricultural lessee who can cultivate the landholding personally, in the order of preference provided under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3344.
Chavez vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 2263 provides an exception to the right of succession by a relative of the tenant within the second degree, namely if the landholder shall cultivate the land himself personally or through the employment of mechanical farm implements.
The respondent who is the only heir interested in succeeding the father who had died, had the right to take over as agricultural tenant in petitioner's land.
RULES OF COURT
Inasmuch as the rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations do not provide for the time when the hearing should be scheduled nor the method of determining when the issues may be considered as joined, where the petition has been amended, the Rules which govern proceedings in the Court of First Instance should be applied in a suppletory character (Sec. 1, Rules of Court of Agrarian Relations).
Sec. 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court does not apply to cases covered by the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
With the enactment of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, the Court of Agrarian Relations ceased to have the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure and became subject instead to the present Rules of Court.
The Rules of Court would apply to agrarian cases brought on and after August 8, 1963, when the Land Reform Code took effect, and also to pending cases, except when their application would not be feasible or would work injustice in which case the former procedure would apply (Rule 133, Old Rules of Court).
RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
It is a fundamental principle that once the policy or purpose of the law has been ascertained, effect should be given to it by the judiciary.
Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
Where the law is unambiguous and clear, it must be applied according to its plain and obvious meaning, according to its express terms.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
Egregious error in the interpretation of a provision of a law is not equivalent to gross and evident bad faith.
Judges are expected to keep abreast of and be conversant with the rules and circulars adopted by the Supreme Court which affect the conduct of cases before them.
In proceedings covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure,affidavits are entitled to great respect in the absence of anything to show the contrary.
B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80223, February 5, 1993
Court sees no error in the opinion of the National Housing Authority that tenant families who should benefit from this Urban Land Reform Program are those who have been residing in the area for ten years or more prior to the issuance of P.D. 1517. The interpretation would give more right to the intended beneficiaries of the decree and thus make more meaningful the constitutional objective of decent housing for all persons, in the cities and in the farms.
B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80223, February 5, 1993
P.D. 1517; Court agrees that in reckoning the ten-year period under Section 2 of P.D. 2016, the trial court should count backward from 1978, the year P.D. 1517 was issued instead of waiting until the lapse of ten years after 1978.
S
SALTBEDS
The evidence in this case shows that respondents were performing all phases of salt-making, the court below's finding being back up by substantial evidence will not be overturned.
Camus vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
A reading of the pertinent provision of the Agricultural Tenancy Act (R.A. No. 1199) and the Agricultural Reform Code (R.A. No. 3844) shows the clear intention of Congress to include saltbeds within the purview of tenancy laws, concerning disputes which come under the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
SECURITY OF TENURE
168 SCRA 440, December 14, 1988
Security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life and deprivation of their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood.
168 SCRA 440, December 14, 1988
The purchaser of the landholding is subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor (Sec. 10, Rep. Act No. 3844), hence, the agricultural leasehold relationship continues between the agricultural lessee and the purchaser automatically by operation of law and the latter, an agricultural lessor, is bound to respect the agricultural lessee's possession and cultivation of the land." (Motion for Reconsideration, p. 79, Rollo) This being the case, Tropical is bound to respect the possession of the petitioners as leasehold tenants over the land in question pursuant to the latter's right to Security of tenure as enshrined in Sections 9, 10 and 36 of R.A. 3844 to hold otherwise would render nugatory one of the primary reasons for the enactment of said law.
Don Pepe Henson Enterprises vs. Pangilinan
Alleged agreements executed by respondents purportedly relinquishing possession of their landholding are not enforceable, as it would violate the Code of Agrarian Reforms on security of tenure of tenants.
Evangelista vs. Court of Appeals
A share tenant (under Rep. Act No. 1199) or an agricultural lessee (under Rep. Act No. 3844) is entitled to security of tenure over the landholding he works at. Not even the expiration of any term or period fixed in the leasehold contract, in the case of an agricultural lessee will cause the lessee's ejectment from the land. On the other hand, a civil lessee, under a contract of civil lease, does not enjoy security of tenure over the land object of the contract. A civil lease can be ejected from the land after the expiration of the term provided for in the contract.
Tenants are guaranteed security of tenure, meaning the continued enjoyment and possession of their landholding except when their dispossession had been authorized by virtue of a final and executory judgment, which is not so in the case at bar.
Landholder-lessee who is not the landholder-owner, cannot personally cultivate the landholding upon the death of tenant.
A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, is an obligation of the landholder created by law, and an action for violation thereof prescribes in ten years under No. 2 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code.
Lacuesta vs. Barangay Casabaan, Municipality of Cabangan
Procedural lapses should not prejudice the right to security of tenure of a tenant who is also entitled to protection even where the power of eminent domain is exercised.
Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals
A share tenant of saltbeds and agricultural lessee of fishpond is entitled to a security of tenure.
Security of tenure can be invoked only by tenants de jure.
Tenant of intruder cannot invoke security of tenure.
Philippine National Railway vs. Valle
The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy law may be invoked only by tenants de jure.
The court is given some discretion to determine whether or not the cause, although among those enumerated, is of such gravity as to warrant the drastic remedy of dismissal of the tenant or whether or not there exist circumstances under which the application of the provision warranting eviction and dispossession may be stayed.
Davao Steel Corporation vs. Cabatuando
Security of tenure of tenant is not extinguished by sale of land.
Security of tenure subsists despite termination of contract which limit tenancy relationship to one year.
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The settled jurisprudence is that as long as the legal possessor of the land constitutes a person as a tenant-farmer by virtue of an express or implied lease, such an act is binding on the owner of the property even if he himself may not have given his consent to such an agreement.
Novesteras vs. Court of Appeals
Where a share tenant surrendered his landholding and them was instituted as a share tenant by the civil lessee of the same land, said tenant's status did not change, vis-à-vis, the landowner, after the civil lease terminated.
The security of tenure may be invoked only by tenants "de jure" and not by those who are not true and lawful tenants who become so only through the acts of a supposed landholder who had no right to the landholdings.
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS
Assuming that the special administration acquiesced to the ejectment, the estate would still not be liable because if Section 5, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court makes the administrator himself liable for any waste committed in the estate through his negligence with more reason would he be personally responsible and not the estate, for the consequences of his unlawful act.
SHARE TENANCY
Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
189 SCRA 758, September 21, 1990
There is share tenancy whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural production.
SHARE TENANCY SYSTEM
Though not a positive indication of the existence of tenancy relations per se, the sharing of the harvests, taken together with other factors characteristic of tenancy shown to be present in the case at bar, strengthens the claim of respondent that indeed, he is a tenant.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
Share tenancy or agricultural tenancy is defined as: "x x x the physical possession by a person of land devoted to agriculture, belonging to or legally possessed by another for the purpose of production through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household in consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money or in both (Section 3, Republic Act 1199, the Agricultural Act, as amended)."
The rule has been firmly established that section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1955 (Rep. Act No. 1199) which empowers a tenant to change the tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to the leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop-sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy is valid and constitutional.
A farm employer-farm worker relationship and an agricultural sharehold tenancy relationship are leases, but in the former, the lease is one of the labor, with the agricultural laborer as the lessor of his services, and the farm employer as the lessee thereof. In the latter, it is the landowner who is the lessor, and the sharehold tenant is the lessee of agricultural land. As lessee he has possession of the leased premises.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
From the evidence adduced, it is clear that the private respondents are not mere agricultural workers, but are share tenants of petitioners.
Section 167 (2) of R.A. 3844 punishes the act of inducing a tenant "to execute or enter into a share tenancy contract with himself or with another in violation of this Code . . ., provided that the execution of share tenancy contract shall be considered prima facie evidence of such inducement . . .".
An action upon an oral contract of share tenancy comes under Article 1145 of the Civil Code and prescribes after six years.
Reaping or threshing of palay without notice to landowner by a share tenant is no longer an offense.
Almarinez vs. Manabat-Potenciano
The tenant's right to receive his lawful share of the produce of the land is unhampered by transfers of said land from one landholder to another.
Aside from the usual essential requisites of a contract, the characteristics of a share tenancy contract are: (1) the parties are a landholder, who is a natural or juridical person and is the owner, lessee, usufractuary or legal possessor of agricultural land, and a tenant who himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates the land which is the subject matter of the tenancy; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) the purpose of the contract is agricultural production; and (4) the cause of consideration is that the landholder and the share tenant would divide the agricultural produce between themselves in proportion to their respective contributions.
SHARE TENANT AND AGRICULTURAL WORKER DISTINGUISHED
Coconut Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
The agricultural laborer works for the farm employer, and for his labor he receives a salary or wage, regardless of whether the employer makes a profit. On the other hand, the share tenant participates in the agricultural produce. His share is necessarily dependent on the amount of the harvest.
SHARE TENANCY SYSTEM
Though not a positive indication of the existence of tenancy relations per se, the sharing of the harvests, taken together with other factors characteristic of tenancy shown to be present in the case at bar, strengthens the claim of respondent that indeed, he is a tenant.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
Share tenancy or agricultural tenancy is defined as: ". . . the physical possession by a person of land devoted to agriculture, belonging to or legally possessed by another for the purpose of production through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household in consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money or in both (Section 3, Republic Act 1199, the Agricultural Act, as amended)."
The rule has been firmly established that section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1955 (Rep. Act No. 1199) which empowers a tenant to change the tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to the leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop-sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy is valid and constitutional.
Aside from the usual essential requisites of a contract, the characteristics of a share tenancy contract are: (1) the parties are a landholder, who is a natural or juridical person and is the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of agricultural land, and a tenant who himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates the land which is the subject matter of the tenancy; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) the purpose of the contract is agricultural production; and (4) the cause of consideration is that the landholder and the share tenant would divide the agricultural produce between themselves in proportion to their respective contributions.
Under Act No. 4054, a tenancy relationship may validly be established without a written agreement therefore, and under Section 4 of said act a written contract between the landholder and the tenant is necessary only to establish a sharing basis other than that fixed in section 8 of the same Act.
Statutory abolition of share tenancy did not end the rights of share tenants in coconut and sugar lands even if leasehold tenancy in these types of lands has not yet been installed.
Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals
The contention that fishponds and saltbeds are not covered by the share tenancy system under Section 35 of Rep. Act No. 3844 is incorrect. That provision merely says that the consideration, as well as the share tenancy system prevailing, shall be governed not by that law but by Rep. Act No. 1199, as amended.
De Borja vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The view that share tenants under Act 4054 shall remain as such for as long as the tenancy relationship exists is erroneous and contravenes section 14 of R.A. No. 1199.
A share tenancy exists where, as in this case a person has physical possession of another's land for the purpose of cultivating it and giving the owner a share in the crop.
SHARE TENANT AND AGRICULTURAL WORKER DISTINGUISHED
Coconut Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
The agricultural laborer works for the farm employer, and for his labor he receives a salary or wage, regardless of whether the employer makes a profit. On the other hand, the share tenant participates in the agricultural produce. His share is necessarily dependent on the amount of the harvest.
SHAREHOLD AND LEASEHOLD SYSTEMS DISTINGUISHED
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.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
Social justice would be a meaningless term, if in a situation like the present, an element of rigidity would be affixed to procedural precepts and made to cover the matter.
Administrative authorities should find ways and means to accommodate some of the petitioners if they are landless and are tillers of the soil.
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, was enacted to improve lot of share-cropper.
The concept of "social justice" was not meant to perpetuate an injustice to the landholder-lessor.
Under the new constitution, property ownership is impressed with a social function.
The courts would be thwarting the legislative policy of encouraging small landowners to till and cultivate their lands by compelling them to perpetuate a lessor-lessee relationship.
Land Reform is made more imperative by the new constitution.
Landlords, especially small landowners, deserves protection; tenants are not to be solely protected by law.
We can do less than to apply a liberal interpretation of the Agricultural Land Reform Code to give full force and effect to its clear intent which, under Section 2(2) and (6) of said Code, is "to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers" and to make them "more dependent, self reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society.
Director of Lands vs. Funtilar
The Regalian doctrine which forms the basis of our land laws and, in fact, all governing natural resources is a revered and long standing principle. It must, however, be applied together with the constitutional provisions on social justice and land reform and must be interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest unfairness and injustice.
Republic Act No. 3844 and Republic Act No. 6389, being social legislations, should be liberally interpreted in favor not only to the actual tillers, tenant-farmers but also to landowners.
Feliciano vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Tenancy law; its protective arm is for tenant as well as for landlord.
Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes
Welfare of small landowners and the landless should prevail over right of PTA to expropriate land for tourism development.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
If the respondents were employees and not tenants this relationship should have been reported to the Social Security Commission.
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Speedy disposition of cases is a relative term, flexible, concept, consistent with delays and depends upon the circumstances.
STATUTES
177 SCRA 296, September 5, 1989
We categorically ruled that both R.A. No. 6389 and P.D. No. 27 cannot be applied retroactively under the general rule that statutes have no retroactive effect unless otherwise provided therein.
Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
In construing constitutional provisions which are ambiguous or of doubtful meaning, the courts may consider the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
179 SCRA 188, November 8, 1989
The interpretation of R.A. 3844 and R.A. 6389 is designed to promote economic and social stability; Must be interpreted liberally not only in favor of the tenant-farmers but also of landowners.
194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991
The tenants-farmers became owners of the land they tilled as of the effective date of Presidential Decree No. 27, i.e., 21 October 1972.
205 SCRA 530, January 27, 1992
The right of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another.
205 SCRA 420, January 27, 1992
It is a rule in statutory construction that all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Statutory construction; spirit or intent must prevail over letter of the law.
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same subject operates as a repeal of anything not so included in the amendatory act.
Tenant may not be ousted except by virtue of a final and executory judgment.
SUB-TENANTS
Belmi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Workers engaged to transplant seedlings and reap harvest not sub-tenants.
SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
Vda. De Salazar vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995
Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, participated in the case and presented evidence in defense of deceased defendant.
SUGARLANDS
179 SCRA 695-696, December 1, 1989
Law providing for automatic conversion from agricultural share tenancy to agricultural leasehold, applies to sugarland tenants.
Sugarlands are not mentioned as among the areas covered by the Agricultural Land Reform Code, and neither they are included in the exempted lands.
Automatic conversion, from agricultural share tenancy to agricultural leasehold, applicable to sugarland tenants.
Sugar planters within the meaning of Sec. 1 of the Sugar Act means all planters, including emergency non-quota, non-district, or accommodation planters. The courts should not stick to executive interpretations of statutes applicable only to a situation in the past which had since changed.
T
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
By issuing the Order maintaining the status quo while a committee ascertained facts necessary in resolving whether or not the writ of preliminary injunction should be issued, the trial court should be deemed as merely exercising its inherent power under Section 5(b), Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of Court "to enforce order in proceedings before it."
Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
There is no reason to prevent a court from extending the 20-day period for the efficacy of a temporary restraining order when the parties themselves ask for such extension or for the maintenance of the status quo.
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
Anastacio Victorio vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 110012, March 28, 2001
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 among the parties; (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.
Bayani Bautista vs. Patricia Araneta, et al.
G.R. No. 135829, February 22, 2000
Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder who is either the "owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of the land," and not thru the acts of the supposed landholder who has no right to the land subject of the tenancy.
Edmundo Benavidez vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 125848, September 6, 1999
The following essential requisites must concur in order to establish a tenancy relationship: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of harvests between the parties.
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
In order for a tenancy relation to take serious hold over the dispute, it would be essential to first establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is share between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. It is not enough that these requisites are alleged; these requisites must be shown in order to divest the regular court of its jurisdiction in proceedings lawfully began before it.
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship. - The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties.
Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
A mere member of a tenant's immediate farm household is not entitled to a home lot.
G.R. No. 103103, June 17, 1996
The Supreme Court finds no reasons to disturb the findings of both courts below where the facts found by the Court of appeals sustaining the trial court readily converge towards one conclusion – that tenancy did exist between the parties.
Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship. - The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
The fact that a tenant or an agricultural lessee may have been assisted by farm laborers hired by the landowners, on an occasional or temporary basis, does not preclude the element of "personal cultivation" essential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship.
One of the essential requisites for the existence of a tenancy relationship is sharing, by the landowner and tenant, of the produce.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship. - The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties.
G.R. No. 105088, December 11, 1992
When private respondent's amended complaint – where she alleged violation of a civil law lease agreement – was admitted, the issue of actual tenancy – raised by petitioner in both of his Answer and Amended Reform for determination as this was now a genuine issue.
Tenancy relationship is determined not by the nature of the work involved but by the intention of the parties.
205 SCRA 530, January 27, 1992
Well-settled is the rule that all the requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties and the absence of one or more requisites do not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant as contradistinguished from a de jure tenant.
205 SCRA 529-530, January 27, 1992
Absent the element of personal cultivation, one cannot be a tenant even if he is so designated in the written agreement of the parties.
Tenancy relationship of Sevilla with the vendee a retro not severed by the repurchase of the subject landholding.
The essential requisites set by law for the existence of a tenancy relationship, thus: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) the purpose is agricultural production; and (4) there is consideration. It is also understood that (5) there is consent to the tenant to work on the land, that (6) there is personal cultivation by him and that the consideration consists of sharing the harvest.
198 SCRA 236-237, June 11, 1991
The situation obtaining in this case still lacks three of the afore-enumerated requisites, namely: agricultural production, personal cultivation and sharing of harvests.
189 SCRA 194-195, August 30, 1990
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.
Olanday vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Termination of the lessor-lessee relationship did not divest the tenant of the lessee of the right to remain and continue on his cultivation of the land.
Notwithstanding the waiver of tenancy right, the transfer would still be void for being made in violation of PD 27.
186 SCRA 518-519, June 14, 1990
The essential requisites set by law for a tenancy relationship are as follows 1) the parties are the landholder and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) the purpose is agricultural production; (4) there is consideration. It is understood that there is consent to the tenant to work on the land, there is personal cultivation by him and consideration consists of sharing the harvest. All these requisites are necessary in order to create tenancy relationship between the parties and the absence of one or more requisites does not make the alleged tenant a de jure tenant as contradistinguished from a de facto tenant.
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landholder and the tenant; (2) the subject is the agricultural holding; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests between landlord and tenant.
182 SCRA 779, February 27, 1990
Tenancy Relations cannot be bargained away except for strong reasons.
182 SCRA 15-16, February 7, 1990
Tenancy is a legal relationship between the tenant and the landowner, it cannot be made to depend upon what the alleged tenant does on the land, consent of the landowner is necessary.
Private respondents not being a bona fide tenant-farmers cannot avail of the benefits under PD 27.
181 SCRA 160, January 19, 1990
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.
De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
It is an undisputed fact that petitioner is cultivating an adjacent fishpond with a size of 11-1/2 hectares which further proves that he is not a small farmer but a businessman.
Under the Land Reform Code, tenants are entitled to the enjoyment and possession of their landholding except when their dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory.
Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
168 SCRA 248, December 5, 1988
The fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. private respondent's status is more of a caretaker rather than a tenant.
Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
168 SCRA 247-248, December 5, 1988
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is the agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties.
Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Absent the essential elements of consent and sharing between the parties, no tenancy relationship can exist between them.
Evangelista vs. Court of Appeals
Absent the requirement of personal cultivation by the alleged tenant, no tenancy relationship exists between him and the landowner.
The landowner's admission in this answer that the petitioner is his tenant is conclusive.
Chavez vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Non-retroactivity of amendment by Rep. Act No. 2263 as to succession to tenancy relationship.
An agricultural tenancy relationship cannot be created by one who is not a true and lawful owner or legal possessor.
Where the allegation of the existence of tenancy relationship is raised, it is the duty of court to hold preliminary hearing to determine such question of jurisdiction.
Contribution of 30 cavans of palay having been accepted as contributions of respondent to increasing realty taxes, same cannot be considered as contribution for agricultural production as to devote a landlord-tenant relation.
A tenant is a person who, himself, and with the aid available from within his immediate 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.
Where the lessee of agricultural land that sub-leased it without the consent of the landholder, it is that regardless of the existence or not of a written contract between the landholder and the sub-lessees and regardless of the extinction of the contractual relations between the landholder and the lessee, and between the lessee and the sub-lessees, the latter cannot be ejected from the land except upon judicial authority and for one of the causes specified by law.
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are as follows: (1) the parties are the landholder 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.
Expiration of contract of lease does not extinguish the tenancy relationship.
Amante vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Expiration of tenancy contract does not extinguish tenancy relationship.
Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Tenancy relationship is not created where the consent of the true and lawful landowner is absent. Respondent's self-serving statements regarding their tenancy relations cannot establish the claimed relationship.
Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship but a legal relationship.
Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Fact alone of working on another's landholding does not raise a presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy.
There may have been sharing of harvests but such is not a positive indication of the existence of tenancy relations per se as it must be taken together with other factors characteristics of tenancy.
Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder who is the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of the land. It cannot be created through the acts of the supposed landholder who has no right to the land subject of tenancy.
Tenancy, however, is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.
Farmer and spouse who themselves cultivated a riceland they inherited cannot be forced to enter into a permanent tenancy relationship with a person who worked temporarily over the land for 3 crop years.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals
A landholder-tenant relationship is preserved even in case of transfer of legal possession of the subject property.
Hilario vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Tenancy cannot be created nor depend upon what the alleged tenant does on the land.
Hilario vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
The requirements set by law for the existence of a tenancy relationship, to wit: (1) the parties are the landholder and tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) the purpose is agricultural production; and (4) there is consideration; have not been met by private respondent.
Relationship is not severed by tenant's acceptance of another land for cultivation.
Dadural vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The reversal of findings of tenancy relationship revokes order of delivery of shares.
Quilantang vs. Court of Appeals
The Constitutional mandate that the State "afford protection to labor" (Section 6, Article XIV) has already found indelible expression in many of our laws on agrarian relations.
Gagola vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Tenancy relationship is extinguished by tenants abandonment of the land.
Decena vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Tenancy relationship is not terminated by death of landholder.
Where there no longer, exists any tenancy relationship between the parties, the relationship having been terminated not only by the said tenants, it follows that they have no longer any standing to seek reinstatement as tenants of the land.
Angliongton, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Where a person tool care of the children of his close relatives who were orphanes and as they grew up assigned them specific portions of the land to work on giving them a certain percentage of their respective produce, no tenancy relationship can be drawn therefrom.
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
Toledo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The Court of Agrarian Relations is the only court that can take cognizance of tenancy cases, which include dispossession of the tenanted agricultural land committed by third parties, regardless of the fact that there is an action of forcible entry brought involving controversy on possession of the land subject of the action.
Decena vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
The remedy provided in Section 15, Rule 39 of the old Rules of Court for a person to file a third party claim in the proceedings for execution of a decision is not exclusive, for the said section also provides that such third person is not prevented "from vindicating his claim to the property by any proper action.
Davao Steel Corporation vs. Cabatuando
Third party complaint by vendee against vendor is not within jurisdiction of agrarian court.
U
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Arsenal's complaint for non-payment of overtime wages is an agrarian dispute.
194 SCRA 196, February 19, 1991
Court believes that the usufruct which had theretofore existed as a jus in re aliena in favor of Helen Schon was effectively extinguished by Presidential Decree No. 27.
Unfair labor practice CAR has jurisdiction to entertain a ULP case involving agricultural workers under R.A. No. 3844.
The CAR can try violations of the minimum wage law for purposes of a ULP case filed under R.A. No. 3844.
The holding of a preliminary investigation ordered by the CAR before the filing of the ULP case though not required did not affect its jurisdiction to try the ULP case.
Under P.D. No. 442, jurisdiction to try ULP cases is now transferred to the labor arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Reyes
Preliminary investigation of unfair labor practice is not required in the agrarian court.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
What is clear is that one whose stay, like that of petitioner, is merely tolerated becomes a deforciant illegally occupying the land the moment he is required to leave.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
In the absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for unlawful detainer is properly within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
A court does not lose its jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties.
V
VENUE
Davao Abaca Plantation Company, Inc. vs. DOLE Philippines, Inc.
G.R. No. 134431; December 1, 2000
Venue; lies where the property in dispute is located, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended by Circular No. 13-95.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF LANDHOLDING
No consideration is required for voluntary surrender by tenant of his agricultural holding.
182 SCRA 778, February 27, 1990
Voluntary surrender, to extinguish tenancy relations, does not require any court authorization, but it must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent evidence.
A writ of execution not warranted of the decision or judgment which gives it life or cause to exist, has no validity.
A compromise is based on mutual reciprocal concessions.
Voluntary surrender of landholding is one of the recognized grounds for severance of tenancy relationship.
Extinguishment of tenancy relationship by means of voluntary surrender of the landholding does not require court approval.
W
WORDS AND PHRASES
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
"Contract of Sale" and Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights," Distinguished. - In the case at bench, the trial court was obviously confused as to the nature and effect of the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights, equating the same with a contract (deed) of sale. They are not the same. In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. Upon the other hand, a declaration of heirship and waiver of rights operates as a public instruments when filed with the Registry of Deeds whereby the intestate heirs adjudicate and divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves as they see fit. It is in effect an extrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.
"Agrarian Dispute," Defined. - Section 3, par. (d), of R.A. No. 6657 defines the term "agrarian dispute" as referring to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
"Agricultural Lessee," Defined. – Section 166(2) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides: . . . . . . . . . "(2) ‘Agricultural lessee' means a person who, by himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farmhousehold, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by, another with the latter's consent for purposes of production, for a price certain in money or in produce or both. It is distinguished from civil law lessee as understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession when dispossession has lasted for more than one year or when dispossession was effected by mean other than those mentioned in Rule 70.
Illegal detainer consist in withholding by a person from another of the possession of a land or building to which the latter is entitled after the expiration or termination of the former's right to hold possession by virtue of a contract express or implied.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
We note that the landholding in dispute is a mango plantation. We consider that – and there appears no dispute on this point – this plantation is covered by the provisions of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, Section 166 (1) of which defines agricultural land as "land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop lands as defined in pars. 18 and 19 of this section, respectively.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
Common requisites elements in share tenancy and lease relationships. - It is apparent from the foregoing that a "share tenant" and an "agricultural lessee" are defined in very similar terms and that a share tenancy and an agricultural lease relationship have the following common requisite elements: (1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) The subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land; (3) There is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) The purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) The harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
"Cultivation" is not limited to the plowing or harrowing of the soil but includes all activities designed to promote the growth and care of the plants or trees and husbanding the earth, by general industry, so that it may bring forth more products or fruits.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
Agrarian disputes refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to agriculture.
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ifso facto make the possessor an agricultural lessee or tenant.
The "third party" mentioned in Sec. 21, R.A. No. 1199 should be construed to mean a person who is neither landholder nor tenant but who acts for, openly, secretly, or factually for the landholder.
Meaning of the word third party in Section 21 of Republic Act 1199.
"Substantial evidence" defined. - Substantial evidence in support of the findings of the Court of Agrarian Relations does not necessary import preponderant evidence as is required in ordinary civil cases. Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the trial court in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.
WRIT OF EXECUTION
Adm. Mat. No. P-94-1025, February 20, 1996
The mere fact that defendants, in a threatening manner, prohibited the deputy sheriff from entering the premises is no excuse for the latter to retreat and refuse to enforce the writ of execution – a deputy sheriff is a front-line representative of the justice system, and if he shows fear, or worse, is cowed by mere threats from enforcing the legitimate orders of court, then by his cowardly act, he diminishes the judiciary.
Adm. Mat. No. P-94-1025, February 20, 1996
Sheriffs must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement the writ as early as possible, and by the nature of their functions, sheriffs at all times must act above suspicion.
An execution is the fruit and end of the suit; once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution.
Osmeña vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Motion for execution is proper where there is violation of compromise agreement.
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
National Housing Authority vs. Hon. Mauro Allarde, et al.
G.R. No. 106593, November 16, 1999
Well-settled to the point of being elementary is the doctrine that "before a writ of preliminary injunction may issue, there must be a clear showing by the complaint of a right to be protected" and that the acts against which the writ is to the directed infringe such right.
Z
ZONING
Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Metro Manila zoning ordinance No. 81-01, series of 1981, does not disclose any provision converting existing agricultural land in the covered area into residential or light industrial; the ordinance should be given prospective operation only as a general rule.
The Zoning ordinance in question while valid as a police measure was not intended to effect existing rights protected by the impairment clause affirmed.