1961 2001

Home
Preface
CARL (R.A. 6657, as amended) and Related Laws
o Matrix of RA 6657
o Matrix of RA 6657 (with Index)
o Republic Act No. 6657
o Batas Republika Blg. 6657
History and Evolution of Major Agrarian Reform Laws
Issuances
Philippine Constitution
Laws, Statutes and Presidential Issuances
Supreme Court Decisions and Issuances
Court of Appeals Decisions
Implementing Rules and Regulations
Issuances from Other Government Agencies
Handbooks and Publications
Articles and Journals
Forms and Templates
Lecture Materials
Login

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.
Rosello vs. Reyes
99 SCRA 1
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
Teodoro vs. Macaraeg
27 SCRA 8-9
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
266 SCRA 406
All actions pursued under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DAR, in
accordance with 50 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.
Tongson vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
215 SCRA 428
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.
Laureto vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992
212 SCRA 397
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
280 SCRA 298
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."
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
263 SCRA 758
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
249 SCRA 149
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
Dequito vs. Llamas
66 SCRA 504-505
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
Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992
216 SCRA 25
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.'
Candido vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107493, February 1, 1996
253 SCRA 79
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.
March 7, 2000
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
65 SCRA 195
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
25 SCRA 480
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.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
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
29 SCRA 573
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
Oarde vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997
280 SCRA 235
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
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 72
The agricultural lessee's rights are enforceable against the transferee or the
landowner's successor-in-interest.
Cuao vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 124
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.
Bernas vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993
225 SCRA 119
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.
Endaya vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88113, October 23, 1992
215 SCRA 110
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
Angel Chico vs. CA, et al.
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
Qua vs. Court of Appeals
198 SCRA 237, June 11, 1991
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.
Zamoras vs. Su, Jr.
184 SCRA 248, April 6, 1990
Tenants, as defined in Pres. Decree No. 1517 does not include those whose
possession of the property is under litigation.
De los Reyes vs. Espineli
30 SCRA 574
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.
Carag vs. Court of Appeals
151 SCRA 44
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.
Matienzo vs. Servidad
107 SCRA 276
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
215 SCRA 428
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.
Jalandoni, Jr. vs. Arsenal
189 SCRA 56, July 30, 1990
Private respondent is clearly an agricultural worker or farm laborer.
Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of
Appeals
164 SCRA 568-569
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.
30 SCRA 576
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.
Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals
142 SCRA 137
"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
De Santos vs. Santos
2 SCRA 820
"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 . . .".
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 704-705
Agricultural year: period covered; Each crop period is considered an
independent agricultural year.

AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS
Locsin vs. Valenzuela
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.
Santiago vs. Court of Appeals
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.
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.
169 SCRA 288, January 20, 1989
An appeal cannot be perfected if the corresponding docket fee is not paid.
Angel vs. Inopiquez
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.
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.
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.
2 SCRA 820
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.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
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.
Macandile vs. Macalino
85 SCRA 329
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
156 SCRA 188
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.
Santos vs. De Guzman
1 SCRA 1048
Appeal: where original decision was incomplete, period for appeal is
counted from receipt of supplemental decision.
Tiu vs. Court of Appeals
37 SCRA 100
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
116 SCRA 659
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.
Tumulin vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 450
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.
Canturna vs. Court of Appeals
70 SCRA 563-564
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.
Anduiza vs. Dy-Kia
29 SCRA 199
Only final orders of agrarian court are appealable.
Arellano vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 131
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.
Teruez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
134 SCRA 414
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
142 SCRA 124
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
175 SCRA 345, July 14, 1989
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
280 SCRA 236
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
262 SCRA 246
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
179 SCRA 5 (1989) citing Espiritu v. Court of Appeals, 20 SCRA 530 (Castillo vs.
Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 530, January 27, 1992
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.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
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
143 SCRA 300-301
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
148 SCRA 685-686
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.
Mallari vs. Court of Appeals
161 SCRA 504
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
162 SCRA 391
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
Vinzons-Magana vs. Estrella
Mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the
farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein.
Curso vs. Court of Appeals
128 SCRA 568
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.
Miranda vs. Court of Appeals
141 SCRA 303
Certificate of land transfer; the nullification of said certificate may be had
only in a case directly attacking its validity but never collaterally.
128 SCRA 568
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
Chico vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998
284 SCRA 33
Certiorari; Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot be a substitute for lost
appeal.
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 404
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
216 SCRA 25
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
25 SCRA 480
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
79 SCRA 558
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
17 SCRA 16
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.
Ibaviosa vs. Tuazon
21 SCRA 1439
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.
Cruz vs. Pangan
11 SCRA 300
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.
Uichanco vs. Gutierrez
14 SCRA 231
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
11 SCRA 171
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.
Marcelo vs. Matias
25 SCRA 816
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.
Enriquez vs. Cabangon
18 SCRA 81
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).
Reyes vs. Santos
18 SCRA 28
Section 14 of Agricultural Tenancy Law is constitutional.
Tinio vs. Macapagal
19 SCRA 421
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 is constitutional.
Vda. De Macasaet vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 521
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
Gabriel vs. Pangilinan
58 SCRA 590
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
175 SCRA 347, July 14, 1989
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.
Quiban vs. Butalid
189 SCRA 106, August 27, 1990
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.
Quillian vs. Court of Appeals
169 SCRA 280, January 20, 1989
Parties to a contract should abide in good faith with their contractual
commitments.
Salen vs. Dinglasan
198 SCRA 623, June 28, 1991
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.
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 99, July 21, 1990
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
175 SCRA 561, July 24, 1989
Under the law on contracts, vitiated consent does not make a contract
unenforceable but merely voidable.
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 703, April 10, 1989
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
30 SCRA 576
Coconut land is considered agricultural land under both the Agricultural
Land Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
142 SCRA 137
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.
142 SCRA 138
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.
Robles vs. Batacan
154 SCRA 644
Nature of work performed by the respondents' father is that of a tenant on
the land.
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals
113 SCRA 521
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
G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997
274 SCRA 30
Provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn are
excluded from the coverage of CARL.
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 246
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
225 SCRA 278
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
215 SCRA 86
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
119 SCRA 223-224
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."
Jasmin vs. Valera
137 SCRA 214
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.
Velasquez vs. Magat
158 SCRA 206
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.
Algabre vs. Court of Appeals
28 SCRA 1131
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."
Jasmin vs. Valera
137 SCRA 213
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.
Osmea vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 828
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).
Vda. De Guilas vs. David
23 SCRA 762-763
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.
Gabayan vs. Navarro
124 SCRA 608
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
Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals
118 SCRA 484
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.
58 SCRA 591
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
Villaflor vs. Reyes
22 SCRA 385
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
Ayog vs. Cusi, Jr.
118 SCRA 494
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.
Del Rosario vs. Chingcuangco
18 SCRA 1151
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
Padasas vs. Court of Appeals
82 SCRA 251-252
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
G.R. No. 95684, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 300
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
G.R. No. 123905, June 9, 1997
273 SCRA 152
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
4 SCRA 1152
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.
4 SCRA 1151
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.
79 SCRA 557
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.
79 SCRA 558
Ambiguous provision in a contract is adversely interpreted against the
party responsible therefore.
Novesteras vs. Court of Appeals
149 SCRA 48
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.
27 SCRA 7-8
Label of contract cannot be used to camouflage real import of an
agreement.
Castro vs. Court of Appeals
99 SCRA 722-723
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.
99 SCRA 723
Contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties.
Evangelista vs. Court of Appeals
158 SCRA 42
The fact that the lease contracts did not stipulate personal cultivation
indicates the intent of the parties to establish only a civil lease relationship.
Cruz vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 222-223
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.
129 SCRA 224
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
4 SCRA 1232
Crop other than rice is to be divided according to contract, or, in its
absence, custom of the place.
Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals
87 SCRA 264
Fact that tenant did not immediately vacate portion of his landholding
does not make the surrender thereof by means of contract less voluntary.
Santos vs. Vda. De Cerdenola
5 SCRA 823
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.
38 Phil. 501
Label of contract cannot be used to camouflage real import of an
agreement.
17 SCRA 26
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.
11 SCRA 171
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.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
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).
129 SCRA
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.
Ponce vs. Guevarra
10 SCRA 649
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
Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals
174 SCRA 398, June 29, 1989
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
10 SCRA 705
Conversion of agricultural land to industrial character does not deprive
agrarian court of jurisdiction.
Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals
104 SCRA
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
Andres vs. De Santos
55 SCRA 624
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
4 SCRA 1232
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.
4 SCRA 1152
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.
2 SCRA 820
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.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
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
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
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.
Latag vs. Banog
16 SCRA 80
A "caretaker" of an agricultural land is also considered "cultivator" of the
land.
Camus vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
11 SCRA 372
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.
30 SCRA 577
"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.
Appeals
164 SCRA 570
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.
Almodiel vs. Blanco
5 SCRA 648
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.
De Santos vs. Acosta
4 SCRA 359
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.
De Guzman vs. Santos
6 SCRA 795-796
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.
6 SCRA 796
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
280 SCRA 236
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.
Galang vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80645, August 3, 1993
225 SCRA 38
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.
Latag vs. Banog
16 SCRA 88-89
Agrarian court has jurisdiction over tenant's claim for damages.
Robles vs. Batacan
154 SCRA 644-645
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.
Espaol vs. Court of Appeals
124 SCRA 623
Award of damages to tenant and payment of back shares correctly
excluded by the Court of Appeals in instant agrarian case.
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.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390
The CAR is vested with authority to award moral and exemplary damages
and attorney's fees.
162 SCRA 392-393
Court sustains the award of damages against the petitioners.
162 SCRA 393-394
Court disagrees with the finding of the respondent court that respondent
should be absolved from liability.
Pagdanganan vs. Galleta
30 SCRA 426
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
19 SCRA 593
Damages may not be awarded on the basis of speculation, conjecture or
guess work.
Belmi vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
7 SCRA 812
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.
137 SCRA 327-328
The petitioners are also entitled to exemplary damages because the
defendants acted in an oppressive manner.
Villaviza vs. Panganiban
10 SCRA 824
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.
6 SCRA 796
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
10 SCRA 659
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
133 SCRA 77
Moral damages, not awarded to tenant, as the barangay who instituted the
expropriation proceeding had not acted with malice and in bad faith.

DEMOLITION
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 379
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)
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 406
The DARAB was without authority to issue the SQO, much less the
warrant of arrest.
Machete vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995
250 SCRA 176
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.
Board
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
215 SCRA 87
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
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
249 SCRA 150
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.
Carandang vs. Cabatuando
52 SCRA 384-385
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
2 SCRA 568
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.
Cruz vs. Pangan
11 SCRA 300
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.
27 SCRA 8
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
46 SCRA 20
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.
18 SCRA 82
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."
30 SCRA 426
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.
Baligwat vs. Court of Appeals
142 SCRA 34
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.
Gallardo vs. Borromeo
161 SCRA 500
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.
18 SCRA 1151
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.
Beltran vs. Cruz
25 SCRA 607-608
Prohibition on pre-threshing; reaping of harvest one day ahead of the date
agreed upon is a sufficient cause to dispossess tenant.
People vs. Adillo
68 SCRA 91
The leasehold system is mandated to prevail between the parties in
agricultural lands planted to rice and/or corn.
Calderon vs. De la Cruz
138 SCRA 173
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.
138 SCRA 173-174
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
17 SCRA 368
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
5 SCRA 32
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.
10 SCRA 659
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.
Tawatao vs. Garcia
8 SCRA 567
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.
Guevarra vs. Santos
18 SCRA 709
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.
Sintos vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 224
A cause of action for disturbance compensation arose from the time the
tenants were ejected.
Tanpingco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
207 SCRA 653, March 31, 1992
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
Vda. De Santos vs. Garcia
8 SCRA 195
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.
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 78
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.
Mipalar vs. Santos
20 SCRA 935-936
In the interpretation of Republic Act No. 1199, all doubts are to be
resolved in favor of the tenant (Sec. 56).
Quimson vs. De Guzman
7 SCRA 159
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.
De Tanedo vs. De la Cruz
32 SCRA 64
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.
Relucio III vs. Macaraig, Jr.
173 SCRA 635, May 30, 1989
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.
28 SCRA 1131
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.
Ferrer vs. Villamor
60 SCRA 107
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.
Salandanan vs. Tizon
62 SCRA 388-389
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.
Baladiang vs. Aquilizan
137 SCRA 484
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
40 SCRA 240
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
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383
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
250 SCRA 306
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
De Luna vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 97788, May 11, 1993
321 SCRA 704
The primary and only issue in an ejectment suit is material possession.
De la Cruz vs. Bautista
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.
Guzman vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
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]
Ancheta vs. Court of Appeals
200 SCRA 407, August 9, 1991
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.
Valino vs. Muoz
35 SCRA 413
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.
32 SCRA 63
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.
Barias vs. Alcantara
117 SCRA 651
The alleged tenant's theory that he was "constructively ejected" and his
claim for damages are baseless.
Erfe vs. Fortun
136 SCRA 552
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.
7 SCRA 159
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.
Moreno vs. Tangonan
10 SCRA 724
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.
Valencia vs. Surtida
2 SCRA 622
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.
Garchitorena vs. Panganiban
6 SCRA 339
Ejectment of tenants is justified if failure to pay rentals is not attributable
to extraordinary event.
Tiongson vs. Court of Appeals
130 SCRA 483
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.
Silva vs. Cabagon
7 SCRA 33
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.
Gabani vs. Reas
2 SCRA 710
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.
37 SCRA 99-100
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.
37 SCRA 100
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
162 SCRA 247
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
12 SCRA 361
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.
161 SCRA 500
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.
87 SCRA 265
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.
Ira vs. Zafra
6 SCRA 513
Promise to exchange land with another belonging to same landlord is not
one of the means provided for ejectment of tenant.
Diga vs. Adriano
133 SCRA 421
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.
Defensor vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 1
The vendee a retro of a landholding has the right to eject the tenant on the
ground of personal cultivation.
Clapano vs. Gapultos
132 SCRA 430
Sale of Land, not included as one of just causes for removal of tenants
from the landholding under P.D. No. 1038.
Santiago vs. Calumpag
12 SCRA 289
Telling a tenant to leave because the term has expired is not illegal
ejectment.
Roxas Y Cia vs. Cabatuando, et al.
1 SCRA 1106-1107
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.
Paulo vs. Court of Appeals
54 SCRA 253
Tenant may not be ejected except by final judgment.
Dumlao vs. De Guzman
1 SCRA 145
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
264 SCRA 708
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
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993
222 SCRA 174
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.
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993
222 SCRA 173
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
175 SCRA 348, July 14, 1989
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.
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
30 SCRA 575
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
162 SCRA 392
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
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
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.
Arellano vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 131
Attack on timeliness of appeal not barred by estoppel.
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
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.
Lantican vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 97929, October 22, 1993
227 SCRA 370
Petitioners having invoked the jurisdiction of the DAR are now estopped
from assailing such lack of jurisdiction.
Salen vs. Dinglasan
198 SCRA 624, June 28, 1991
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.
Prudential Bank vs. Gapultos
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
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 299
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
280 SCRA 236
Certifications issued by administrative agencies or officers that a certain
person is a tenant are merely provisional and not conclusive on courts.
Candido vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107493, February 1, 1996
253 SCRA 78
A document; or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is
simply marked for identification it must be formally offered.
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 223
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.
189 SCRA 758 ([1990])
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 224
In agrarian cases, all that is required is mere substantial evidence.
Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 100894, January 26, 1993
217 SCRA 550
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.
Malate vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 55318, February 9, 1993
218 SCRA 527
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
216 SCRA 26
In agrarian cases, the quantum of evidence required is no more than
substantial evidence.
G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992
215 SCRA 427
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.
Board
G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992
215 SCRA 86
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.
Laureto vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992
312 SCRA 397
Substantial Evidence; In agrarian cases, substantial evidence will suffice to
support factual findings.
Velasquez vs. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 28
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.
Gelos vs. Court of Appeals
208 SCRA 608, May 8, 1992
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence.
Castillo vs. Court of Appeals
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.
198 SCRA 235, June 11, 1991
The findings and conclusions of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform being
preliminary in nature are not in any way binding on the trial courts.
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.
Gonzales, Jr. vs. Alvarez
182 SCRA 16, February 7, 1990
In agrarian cases, all that is required is submission of "substantial
evidence," not preponderance of evidence.
Relucio III vs. Macaraig
173 SCRA 635, May 30, 1989
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.
Angel vs. Inopiquez
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
Teruez v. IAC, Gagola v. CAR
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.
Velasco vs. Mosuela
104 SCRA 556
Courts of Agrarian Relations are not bound strictly by the technical rules
of evidence.
10 SCRA 659
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.
Cabio vs. Alcantara
81 SCRA 387
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
2 SCRA 568
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
159 SCRA 243
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.
Bagsican vs. Court of Appeals
141 SCRA 226-227
Findings of trial court that plaintiff below is a tenant on the land in
question is supported by substantial evidence.
7 SCRA 812
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
164 SCRA 431
The findings of fact of the court of agrarian relations are final and
conclusive if they are based on substantial evidence.
164 SCRA 433
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
19 SCRA 593
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.
Bagsican vs. Court of Appeals
141 SCRA 226
In agrarian cases, all that is required is submission of "substantial
evidence", not "preponderant evidence."
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 78
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
17 SCRA 368-369
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.
Antonio vs. Natividad
4 SCRA 680
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.
130 SCRA 483
A receipt prepared by landowner and signed voluntarily by adverse party is
not necessarily self-serving.
Picardal vs. Lladas
21 SCRA 1484
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.
Appeals
164 SCRA 572
Substantial evidence is all that is required in agrarian cases.
4 SCRA 1151
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.
Beltran vs. Cruz
25 SCRA 607
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.
129 SCRA 222-223
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
116 SCRA 660
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 Buag and Irma Buag 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
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 405
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.
Pagara vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96882, March 12, 1996
254 SCRA 607
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
99 SCRA 723
Agricultural tenant should be reimbursed for value of improvements he
introduced in the landholding.
Espiritu vs. David
2 SCRA 350
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.
4 SCRA 1153
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
4 SCRA 1160
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.
Ilusorio vs. Santos
4 SCRA 705
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.
Santos vs. De Guzman
1 SCRA 1048
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.
18 SCRA 81
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
7 SCRA 812
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
129 SCRA 223
That fact that respondent did not observe regular working hours indicates
that respondent is a tenant not a hired laborer.
162 SCRA 393-394
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
9 SCRA 412
A factual finding by the Court of Agrarian Relations, when supported by
substantial evidence, may no longer be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Ibaviosa vs. Tuazon
21 SCRA 1438
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.
87 SCRA 263
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.
55 SCRA 624
The findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence is not binding.
De Chavez vs. Zobel
55 SCRA 26
The findings of facts of Court of Agrarian Relations, supported by
substantial evidence, is conclusive and binding upon Supreme Court.
Del Rosario vs. De los Santos
25 SCRA 1196-1197
The findings of facts of agrarian court, if supported by substantial
evidence, is binding on the Supreme Court.
Resuena vs. Bas
34 SCRA 386
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
146 SCRA 230-231
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
8 SCRA 499
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
154 SCRA 119-120
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."
Picardal vs. Lladas
21 SCRA 1483
The findings of facts of the Court of Agrarian Relations will not be
disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support them.
27 SCRA 9
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).
30 SCRA 574
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
Isidro vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993
228 SCRA 503
It is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land.
Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 717
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.
Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 718
Where a fishpond is covered by a civil law lease the rights of persons hired
by the lessee cannot rise higher than the lessee.
58 SCRA 590
Under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, "agricultural land" specifically
mentions fishponds and prescribes the considerations for the use thereof.
Tawatao vs. Garcia
8 SCRA 566-567
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 226 is applicable
to fishponds.
11 SCRA 371
The conversion of fishponds into saltbeds does not change their character
as agricultural into mineral lands.

FORCIBLE ENTRY
Villaflor vs. Reyes
22 SCRA 385
Right of occupant of public land may be protected by possessory action of
forcible entry.
Singson vs. Babida
79 SCRA 111
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
De Dios vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 127623, June 19, 1997
274 SCRA 520
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
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383
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
Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107741, October 18, 1996
263 SCRA 326
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
263 SCRA 324
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
263 SCRA 323
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.
G.R. No. 108941; July 6, 2000
Harvest sharing is not proven since no receipt, or any other evidence was
presented.

HARVESTING OF CROPS
Ignacio vs. De Guzman
5 SCRA 1161
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
Alita vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Benzonan vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Patricio vs. Bayog
112 SCRA 42
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
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 71
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.
Ualat vs. Ramos
Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-91-567, December 6, 1996
265 SCRA 345
Sabio vs. Ramos
265 SCRA 345
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.
Ualat vs. Ramos
265 SCRA 346
Ignorance of land, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one
certainly not judges.
Ualat vs. Ramos
265 SCRA 347
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
257 SCRA 462
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.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383
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
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
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.
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
Small farmer is oblige to work on the land by himself or with the aid of his
immediate farm household.
58 SCRA 590
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."
Velasquez vs. Magat
158 SCRA 206-207
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
6 SCRA 796
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.
Silva vs. Cabagon
7 SCRA 33
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
162 SCRA 392-393
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
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Belleza vs. Dimson Farms Inc.
44 SCRA 386
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
57 SCRA 720
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
120 SCRA 422
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
8 SCRA 499
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
207 SCRA 650, March 31, 1992
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
210 SCRA 545, June 29, 1992
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.
141 SCRA 302-303
An agreement already declared null and void by a competent court in once
case can no longer be relitigated.
Belleza vs. Dimson Farms Inc.
44 SCRA 386
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.
Cunanan vs. Aguilar
85 SCRA 47
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.
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
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.
Ayog vs. Cusi
118 SCRA 493
A judgment cannot be enforced against petitioners who are not defendants
in the case of ejectment below.
Ernesto vs. Court of Appeals
116 SCRA 755
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.
116 SCRA 757
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.
De Borja vs. Court of Appeals
163 SCRA 175
Once a judgment has become final, the issues therein should be laid to rest.
Villaflor vs. Reyes
22 SCRA 385-386
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
120 SCRA 423
The dispositive part does not always constitute a judgment and the judicial
pronouncements in the body of the decision must be considered.
Anduiza vs. Dy-Kia
29 SCRA 199
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.
Carandang vs. Cabatuando
53 SCRA 384
There is no abuse of discretion committed by agrarian court in declaring
petitioner-defendant in default.

JUDGES
Abibuag vs. Estonina
58 SCRA 49
Remark by judge that complainant is troublesome does not constitute
interference with farmer's right to self-organization.
58 SCRA 50
It is the duty and responsibility of judges to refrain from making remarks
about tenancy problems that could be misunderstood by tenants present.
85 SCRA 330
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
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
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
192 SCRA 52, December 4, 1990
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.
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
284 SCRA 33
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.
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 298
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.
G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997
280 SCRA 297
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.
G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 404
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.
G.R. No. 113220-21, January 21, 1997
266 SCRA 406
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
263 SCRA 758
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
263 SCRA 326
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
263 SCRA 760
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
263 SCRA 759
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
263 SCRA 325
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.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 378
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.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 379
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
254 SCRA 606
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
250 SCRA 177
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
250 SCRA 176
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.
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 166
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.
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
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
237 SCRA 125
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
228 SCRA 503
Whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action
is determined from the allegations of the complaint.
Bernas vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993
225 SCRA 119
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.
G.R. No. 97788, May 11, 1993
221 SCRA 704
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
215 SCRA 87
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
214 SCRA 197
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
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.
Determination of just compensation by the DAR is by no means final and
conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party.
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.
200 SCRA 408, August 1991
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
Leasehold relationship continues until terminated for cause.
Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals
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
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.
Quiban vs. Butalid
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.
Jalandoni Jr. vs. Arsenal
189 SCRA 56, July 30, 1990
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.
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 96, July 21, 1990
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.
186 SCRA 518, June 14, 1990
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.
Zamoras vs. Su, Jr.
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.
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.
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.
175 SCRA 561, July 24, 1989
Regional Trial Court now has jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Court of Agrarian Relations.
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.
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
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
Angel vs. Inopiquez
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
The remand of the case to the lower court would not serve the ends of
justice at all.
20 SCRA 1131
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.
Tubera vs. Fernando
10 SCRA 570
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.
Catorce vs. Court of Appeals
129 SCRA 210
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
87 SCRA 255
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.
29 SCRA 1144
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
119 SCRA 223
A CFI does not lose jurisdiction by interposition of defense of tenancy but
must proceed to receive evidence to determine if it has jurisdiction.
40 SCRA 22
Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction over controversy arising from
agrarian relations.
62 SCRA 388
Court of Agrarian Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes
involving agricultural relationships.
Ferrer vs. Villamor
60 SCRA 106-107
Court of Agrarian Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes
involving agricultural relationship.
Cabio vs. Alcantara
81 SCRA 386-387
The Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction to rule on issue of
ownership in ejectment cases filed by the landholder.
1 SCRA 145
The Agrarian Court has no jurisdiction in a case where there exists no
tenancy relation between the parties.
Lastimoza vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
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.
Baranda vs. Padios
154 SCRA 720-721
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
42 SCRA 89
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.
People vs. Adillo
63 SCRA 91-92
Courts have no jurisdiction to try and convict persons charged with pre-
reaping or pre-threshing under agricultural tenancy Act of 1954.
Espiritu vs. David
2 SCRA 350
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.
58 SCRA 49
Courts of first instance may take cognizance of criminal violation of R.A.
No. 3844; courts may take notice of Proclaimed land reform areas.
Alvarez vs. Guanzon
131 SCRA 559
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.
Magno-Adamos vs. Bagasao
162 SCRA 747
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).
162 SCRA 390
It is axiomatic that jurisdiction once validly acquired is supposed to be
retained despite subsequent laws transferring it elsewhere unless the contrary is
indicated.
65 SCRA 195-196
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.
118 SCRA 484
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over both agrarian and non-agrarian
litigations.
133 SCRA 77
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.
62 SCRA 388
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by law and cannot be
conferred by the will of the parties.
Velasco vs. Mosuela
104 SCRA 556
Secretary of Agrarian Reform is empowered to review upon appeal the
findings of the regional director that a case is not proper for trial.
65 SCRA 196
Money claim arising from performance of agricultural labor for
agricultural production is within jurisdiction of agrarian court.
Cabatan vs. Court of Appeals
95 SCRA 324
No certification of triability from the Ministry of Agrarian Reform is
necessary because when the complaints were filed said requirement was not yet
imposed.
Geraldez vs. Rodriguez
12 SCRA 355
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.
143 SCRA 299
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.
28 SCRA 1144
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.
Ira vs. Zafra
6 SCRA 513
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.
Arevalo vs. Benedicto
58 SCRA 187
Violations of Agrarian Law is within jurisdiction of agrarian courts.

JUST COMPENSATION
G.R. Nos. 56219-20; G.R. Nos. 56393-94, November 27, 1996
264 SCRA 709
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.
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993
222 SCRA 175
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
175 SCRA 351, July 14, 1989
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
175 SCRA 350, July 14, 1989
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
123 SCRA 245, June 29, 1983
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
155 SCRA 446-447
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
113 SCRA 799
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
149 SCRA 308
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
182 SCRA 281-282
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.
155 SCRA 446
Land Bank Bonds are deemed contracts and fall within the purview of the
non-impairment clause of the constitution.
143 SCRA 299-300
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
82 SCRA 250-251
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
113 SCRA 799
The Agricultural Land Reform Code R.A. No. 3844 is constitutional even
under the 1935 constitution.
104 SCRA 619
Brief summary of recent series of land reform laws.
Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo
33 SCRA 105-106
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
146 SCRA 230-231
Like P.D. 27, P.D. 316 applies and operates only in favor of bona-fide
tenant farmers.
People vs. Adilo
68 SCRA 91
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.
Molino vs. Court of Appeals
115 SCRA 799
One of the objectives of P.D. 946 is speedy disposition of cases.
People vs. Almuete
69 SCRA 410
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.
163 SCRA 175
P.D. No. 27 cannot be applied retroactively, there being no express nor
clearly implied authorization.
162 SCRA 247
P.D. No. 1038 applies specifically to private agricultural lands devoted to
crops other than rice or corn.
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals
57 SCRA 720
P.D. Nos. 27 and 316 proclaimed emancipation of rice and corn tenants.
Gonzales vs. Estrella
91 SCRA 294
P.D. No. 27; emancipation of the farmers from the bondage of the soil; the
decree is part of the law of the land.
155 SCRA 445-446
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.
129 SCRA 210-211
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
48 SCRA 294
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
237 SCRA 125
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.
Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994
233 SCRA 626
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence not only of ownership of the
land referred but also its location.

LAND TRANSFER
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 166
Stipulation in Deed of Sale limiting disposition of land within five years
binds vendee's heirs.
Velasquez v. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 29
Transferee of agricultural land could be asked to sell land to lessee.
Velasquez v. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 28
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
164 SCRA 571
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
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
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
141 SCRA 303
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
138 SCRA 174
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.
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 76-77
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.
162 SCRA 392
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.
158 SCRA 42
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.
People vs. Adilo
68 SCRA 91
Notice of reaping or threshing is not required under a leasehold system.
Manubay vs. Martin
33 SCRA 730
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.
Guevara vs. Santos
18 SCRA 710
Section 43 enjoins the tenant-lessee to make proper use of the land and
improvements thereon.
58 SCRA 186
Tenant of agricultural lessee has the right to remain in the land being tilled
by him notwithstanding surrender of lease.
149 SCRA 49
There is no leasehold tenancy where alleged lessee never intended to
cultivate the land personally.
79 SCRA 559
Under the leasehold tenancy system, the lessee shoulders the cost of
irrigation which, therefore, is not deductible from the gross harvest.
M

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
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
162 SCRA 247
P.D. No. 316 referred only to agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice
and corn.

MECHANIZATION OF FARMS
De Santos vs. Acosta
4 SCRA 359
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
Ty vs. Elale
115 SCRA 29-30
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.
Ty vs. Elale
115 SCRA 30
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
Angel vs. Inopiquez
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
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 72
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.
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 70
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
237 SCRA 125
The remedy of the mortgagee is not against the land nor the agricultural
lessees but against the mortgagors.
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 96, July 21, 1990
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.
143 SCRA 299-300
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.
Adrisola vs. Court of Appeals
133 SCRA 245-246
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.
155 SCRA 446-447
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.
87 SCRA 254-255
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.
87 SCRA 255
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
18 SCRA 427
Motions for postponement are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al.
G.R. No. 131457
August 19, 1999
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.
116 SCRA 755
In agrarian cases no motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be
allowed in the Court of Appeals.
85 SCRA 330
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.
85 SCRA 330-331
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.
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
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.
70 SCRA 564
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
Chingan vs. La Guardia
17 SCRA 541
Motion for new trial should be supported by affidavit of merits.
17 SCRA 540-541
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
99 SCRA 723
Agricultural lands which are non-tenanted lands are not covered by P.D.
No. 27.

NOTICES
Salen vs. Dinglasan
198 SCRA 623, June 28, 1991
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.
55 SCRA 623-624
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.
Manubay vs. Martin
33 SCRA 730
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.
18 SCRA 82
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.
Lusung vs. Vda. De Santos
118 SCRA 670
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.
Mipalar vs. Santos
20 SCRA 935
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.
Ibaviosa vs. Tuazon
21 SCRA 438-439
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
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 246
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.
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 245
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.
Galang vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80645, August 3, 1993
225 SCRA 38
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
217 SCRA 374
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
217 SCRA 373
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
Natividad vs. De Guzman
1 SCRA 830
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 Buag and Irma Buag 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
237 SCRA 123
The act of an overseer in hiring agricultural lessees with the knowledge
and acquiescence of the landholder validated the relationship thereby created.

OWNERSHIP
207 SCRA 652, March 31, 1992
The owner has the right to dispose of a thing without other limitations than
those established by law.

OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 71
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.
G.R. Nos. 56393-94, G.R. Nos. 56219-20, November 27, 1996
264 SCRA 710
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.
Acap vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118114, December 7, 1995
251 SCRA 31
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
251 SCRA 30
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
G.R. No. 88384, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 175
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
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 98, July 21, 1990
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
G.R. No. 125567
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
58 SCRA 187
Grant of relief is not erroneous where it will enable court to correct
jurisdictional error.
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge, BR. V, CFI Bulacan
119 SCRA 222
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
119 SCRA 223
Petition for relief must be supported by affidavits of merit.
27 SCRA 9
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
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 382
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.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 381
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.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 378
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
274 SCRA 520
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.
234 SCRA 25 (1994)
G.R. No. 127623, June 19, 1997
274 SCRA 520
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
254 SCRA 606
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
216 SCRA 25
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
215 SCRA 426
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.
Caparas vs. Court of Appeal
105 SCRA 355
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
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 383
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
251 SCRA 31
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
257 SCRA 31
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
218 SCRA 446
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
217 SCRA 372
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
231 SCRA 363
Police power subordinates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 362
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.
Reform
175 SCRA 346, July 14, 1989
Property condemned under Police Power is noxious or intended for a
noxious purpose is not compensable.
Reform
175 SCRA 346, July 14, 1989
A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is a
concurrence of the lawful subject method.
Valencia vs. Surtida
2 SCRA 622
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.
22 SCRA 1196
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
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
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.
Angel vs. Inopiquez
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.
Angel vs. Inopiquez
169 SCRA 130, January 13, 1989
Rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid technical sense.
Valino vs. Muoz
35 SCRA 413
Absence of verification is a formal, not jurisdictional defect.
Gamalog vs. Court of Appeals
30 SCRA 591-592
The change in procedure does not affect the nature of the proceeding as an
appeal by way of certiorari.
Ferrer vs. Villamor
60 SCRA 107
Parties to action must be real party in interest, not mere apoderado.
124 SCRA 622-623
The CAR should have sent its decision to the "MAR Office, Kapatagan,
Lanao del Norte" rather than to BALA, MAR, Diliman, Quezon City.
Masa vs. Baes
28 SCRA 263
Court is not bound by technical rules of evidence and procedure.
Molino vs. Court of Appeals
115 SCRA 799
Ex-parte hearing is allowed under PD 946 provided both parties and
counsel duly notified.
11 SCRA 171
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.
70 SCRA 563
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.
162 SCRA 747
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.
Appeals
164 SCRA 571
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.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390
Under R.A. No. 3844, the CAR may deviate from the usual norms of
procedure.

PUBLIC AUCTION
G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997
275 SCRA 73
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
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
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.
186 SCRA 518, June 14, 1990
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
176 SCRA 804, August 28, 1989
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.
Vda. De Guanzon vs. Yrad, Jr.
133 SCRA 727-728
There being a ministry certification that the land at bar is not tenanted the
CFI validly assumed jurisdiction.
99 SCRA 724
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.
Entienza vs. Laya
79 SCRA 464
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.
Velasco vs. Mosuela
104 SCRA 556
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.
Graza vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 39-40
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.
163 SCRA 40
Secretary's determination of the relationship between the parties cannot be
final and conclusive on the lower court.
156 SCRA 188
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.
Caballero vs. Alfonso, Jr.
153 SCRA 155
Presidential Decree No. 1038 is not an undue encroachment on the
independence of the judiciary.
153 SCRA 155-156
The referral of a case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not
"terminate" but merely suspends a proceeding.
128 SCRA 568
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.
162 SCRA 427
Requirements of P.D. 1038 is not applicable to the instant case.
162 SCRA 247-248
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.
Erfe vs. Fortun
136 SCRA 552
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
159 SCRA 243
Jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations was not lost after the lapse
of the reglementary period prescribed under the constitution.

REINSTATEMENT OF TENANT
124 SCRA 623
An agreement limiting agrarian tenancy to two years is against the law.
Tenant was correctly reinstated.
Alarcon vs. Santos
5 SCRA 558
Expiration of tenancy contract does not terminate outright relationship.
Yusay vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
135 SCRA 256
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.
Defensor vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 1
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.
Ilagan vs. Adame
10 SCRA 645
In sale with right to repurchase; a tenant has a right to reinstatement after
repurchase.
129 SCRA 210
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
Yusay vs. Tugba
7 SCRA 262
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.
Benson vs. Ocampo
6 SCRA 998
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.
17 SCRA 541
Respondent Judge did not err in not considering petitioner's special defense
of ownership of only one-half of the land.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
Where the tenant received less than his rightful share of the harvests for
certain crop-years, he is entitled to a reliquidation thereof.

RENTALS
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 704, April 10, 1989
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.
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 704, April 10, 1989
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.
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.
95 SCRA 324
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.
95 SCRA 325
Leasehold rental rates in agricultural leases can be re-determined so as to
increase the same to the limit authorized by law.
17 SCRA 26
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.
32 SCRA 63
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
148 SCRA 686
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.
104 SCRA 620
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.
159 SCRA 244
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
People vs. Almuete
69 SCRA 411
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
176 SCRA 804, August 28, 1989
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.
Vda. De Guillas vs. David
23 SCRA 763
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).
58 SCRA 187-188
Defense of res judicata unavailing when judgment is a nullity.
Salazar vs. Santos
10 SCRA 358
Weight given to previous decision although not res adjudicata.

RESIDENTIAL LAND
186 SCRA 518, June 14, 1990
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.
130 SCRA 483
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
148 SCRA 573
The land in question was purchased at a foreclosure proceeding as
"residential" and tax assessments show that it is "residential", not agricultural.
148 SCRA 573-574
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
210 SCRA 546, June 29, 1992
An heir does not have to cultivate personally the 7-hectare retention area.
210 SCRA 546, June 29, 1992
Secretary of Agrarian Reform may recall Certificates of Land Transfer
which violate the law on retention scheme.

RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF LAW
Benzonan vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Balatbat vs. Court of Appeals
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
163 SCRA 175
P.D. No. 27 cannot be applied retroactively, there being no express nor
clearly implied authorization.
87 SCRA 264-265
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.
99 SCRA 724
P.D. No. 27 does not apply retroactively.
Ayog vs. Cusi, Jr.
118 SCRA 492-493
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.
161 SCRA 500
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.
Ponce vs. Guevarra
10 SCRA 649
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.
104 SCRA 620
Laws shall have no retroactive application, unless the contrary is provided.
Nilo vs. Court of Appeals
128 SCRA 520-521
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
156 SCRA 189
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.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
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.
Evanado vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 367
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.
Evanado vs. Blanco
11 SCRA 367-368
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.
Zurbano vs. Estrella
137 SCRA 333
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.
Geronimo vs. Court of Appeals
121 SCRA 859
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.
7 SCRA 159
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
161 SCRA 503-504
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.
161 SCRA 504
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.
40 SCRA 22-23
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.
118 SCRA 669
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.
118 SCRA 670
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.
Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo
35 SCRA 106
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.
104 SCRA 620
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.
104 SCRA 621
Redemption should be allowed if the land is not considered by the
appropriate government authorities to be suitable as a residential subdivision.
82 SCRA 251
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.
82 SCRA 251-252
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
25 SCRA 8-9
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
25 SCRA 9
Redemption must cover the entire landholding sold but the lessee is
entitled only to redeem the portion he actually cultivates.
Almeda vs. Court of Appeals
78 SCRA 194
Rights of redemption is available to tenants of sugar and coconut lands.
78 SCRA 194-195
Right of redemption by a tenant of agricultural land must be exercised in
accordance with law.
40 SCRA 23
Tenant can exercise right of redemption and pre-emption with his own
resources.
Manuel vs. Court of Appeals
118 SCRA 478
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.
118 SCRA 478-479
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
278 SCRA 820
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."
G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
249 SCRA 151
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
237 SCRA 126
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
237 SCRA 124
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.
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 363
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.
G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
231 SCRA 362
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
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
118 SCRA 477-478
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.
9 SCRA 412
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.
Robles vs. Batacan
154 SCRA 644
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
Jovelo vs. Vda. De Bautista
8 SCRA 185
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).
Baranda vs. Padios
154 SCRA 721
Sec. 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court does not apply to cases covered by
the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
Phil. Packing Corp. vs. Reyes
42 SCRA 383
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.
18 SCRA 1150-51
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
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
278 SCRA 820
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.
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
278 SCRA 819
Where the law is unambiguous and clear, it must be applied according to
its plain and obvious meaning, according to its express terms.
G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996
262 SCRA 247
Egregious error in the interpretation of a provision of a law is not
equivalent to gross and evident bad faith.
Bayog vs. Natino
G.R. No. 118691, July 5, 1996
258 SCRA 378
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.
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994
233 SCRA 626
In proceedings covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure,affidavits are
entitled to great respect in the absence of anything to show the contrary.
G.R. No. 80223, February 5, 1993
218 SCRA 447
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.
G.R. No. 80223, February 5, 1993
218 SCRA 446
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
Chavez vs. Court of Appeals
147 SCRA 580
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.
11 SCRA 372
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
161 SCRA 688
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.
158 SCRA 41
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.
129 SCRA 210-211
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.
30 SCRA 426
Landholder-lessee who is not the landholder-owner, cannot personally
cultivate the landholding upon the death of tenant.
Villaviza vs. Panganiban
10 SCRA 824
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.
133 SCRA 77
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.
159 SCRA 244
A share tenant of saltbeds and agricultural lessee of fishpond is entitled to
a security of tenure.
Lastimosa vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
Security of tenure can be invoked only by tenants de jure.
Lastimosa vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
Tenant of intruder cannot invoke security of tenure.
Philippine National Railway vs. Valle
29 SCRA 573
The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy law may be invoked only
by tenants de jure.
Manubay vs. Martin
33 SCRA 730
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.
10 SCRA 705
Security of tenure of tenant is not extinguished by sale of land.
27 SCRA 8
Security of tenure subsists despite termination of contract which limit
tenancy relationship to one year.
162 SCRA 392
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.
149 SCRA 47

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--vis, the landowner, after the civil lease terminated.
1 SCRA 145
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
Picardal vs. Lladas
21 SCRA 1484
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
There is share tenancy whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking
for agricultural production.

SHARE TENANCY SYSTEM
142 SCRA 138-139
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.
Appeals
164 SCRA 568
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)."
22 SCRA 1196
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.
30 SCRA 571
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.
Appeals
164 SCRA 568
From the evidence adduced, it is clear that the private respondents are not
mere agricultural workers, but are share tenants of petitioners.
58 SCRA 49-50
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 . . .".
Ilagan vs. Adame
10 SCRA 645
An action upon an oral contract of share tenancy comes under Article 1145
of the Civil Code and prescribes after six years.
People vs. Adillo
63 SCRA 91
Reaping or threshing of palay without notice to landowner by a share
tenant is no longer an offense.
Almarinez vs. Manabat-Potenciano
12 SCRA 361
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.
30 SCRA 575
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
164 SCRA 568-569
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
142 SCRA 138-139
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.
Appeals
164 SCRA 568
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)."
22 SCRA 1196
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.
30 SCRA 575
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.
Ponce vs. Guevarra
10 SCRA 649
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.
142 SCRA 139
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.
159 SCRA 244
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.
79 SCRA 558
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.
Latag vs. Banog
16 SCRA 88
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
164 SCRA 568-569
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
People vs. Adillo
68 SCRA 90-91
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
30 SCRA 592
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.
Ayog vs. Cusi
11 SCRA 493
Administrative authorities should find ways and means to accommodate
some of the petitioners if they are landless and are tillers of the soil.
Alfanta vs. Noe
53 SCRA 77
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, was enacted to improve lot of share-
cropper.
95 SCRA 325
The concept of "social justice" was not meant to perpetuate an injustice to
the landholder-lessor.
78 SCRA 194-195
Under the new constitution, property ownership is impressed with a social
function.
Nilo vs. Court of Appeals
128 SCRA 519-520
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.
Paulo vs. Court of Appeals
54 SCRA 253-254
Land Reform is made more imperative by the new constitution.
138 SCRA 173
Landlords, especially small landowners, deserves protection; tenants are
not to be solely protected by law.
David vs. Court of Appeals
162 SCRA 115
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
142 SCRA 59
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.
Diga vs. Adriano
133 SCRA 421
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
5 SCRA 32-33
Tenancy law; its protective arm is for tenant as well as for landlord.
Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes
125 SCRA 225
Welfare of small landowners and the landless should prevail over right of
PTA to expropriate land for tourism development.

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
Chavez vs. Court of Appeals
147 SCRA 580
If the respondents were employees and not tenants this relationship should
have been reported to the Social Security Commission.

SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
153 SCRA 155-156
Speedy disposition of cases is a relative term, flexible, concept, consistent
with delays and depends upon the circumstances.

STATUTES
Bonifacio vs. Dizon
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.
Santiago vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Balatbat vs. Court of Appeals
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
Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo
33 SCRA 106
Statutory construction; spirit or intent must prevail over letter of the law.
People vs. Almuete
69 SCRA 410
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.
Tumulin vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 450
Tenant may not be ousted except by virtue of a final and executory
judgment.

SUB-TENANTS
7 SCRA 813
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
250 SCRA 305
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
Cunanan vs. Sengson
179 SCRA 695-696, December 1, 1989
Law providing for automatic conversion from agricultural share tenancy to
agricultural leasehold, applies to sugarland tenants.
David vs. Court of Appeals
161 SCRA 114-115
Sugarlands are not mentioned as among the areas covered by the
Agricultural Land Reform Code, and neither they are included in the exempted
lands.
Dayrit vs. Court of Appeals
163 SCRA 257
Automatic conversion, from agricultural share tenancy to agricultural
leasehold, applicable to sugarland tenants.
116 SCRA 757
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
G.R. No. 88384, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 176
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."
G.R. No. 88384, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 175
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
284 SCRA 33
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
280 SCRA 235
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
there is a sharing of harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur
G.R. No. 120363, September 5, 1997
278 SCRA 820
A mere member of a tenant's immediate farm household is not entitled to a
home lot.
Suplico vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103103, June 17, 1996
257 SCRA 397
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.
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 223
G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994
237 SCRA 124
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.
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994
233 SCRA 627
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
228 SCRA 504
Ocier vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105088, December 11, 1992
216 SCRA 510
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.
Gelos vs. Court of Appeals
208 SCRA 608, May 8, 1992
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.
Salen vs. Dinglasan
198 SCRA 624, June 28, 1991
Tenancy relationship of Sevilla with the vendee a retro not severed by the
repurchase of the subject landholding.
198 SCRA 236, June 11, 1991
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.
Baranda vs. Baguio
189 SCRA 194-195, August 30, 1990
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
189 SCRA 175, August 30, 1990
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.
Torres vs. Ventura
187 SCRA 97, July 21, 1990
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.
Zamoras vs. Su, Jr.
184 SCRA 248, April 6, 1990
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.
Talavera vs. Court of Appeals
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.
182 SCRA 16, February 7, 1990
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.
175 SCRA 559, July 24, 1989
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.
173 SCRA 636, May 30, 1989
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.
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.
168 SCRA 247-248, December 5, 1988
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
164 SCRA 433
Absent the essential elements of consent and sharing between the parties,
no tenancy relationship can exist between them.
158 SCRA 42
Absent the requirement of personal cultivation by the alleged tenant, no
tenancy relationship exists between him and the landowner.
Tizon vs. Cabagon
19 SCRA 49
The landowner's admission in this answer that the petitioner is his tenant is
conclusive.
9 SCRA 412-413
Non-retroactivity of amendment by Rep. Act No. 2263 as to succession to
tenancy relationship.
Cunanan vs. Aguilar
85 SCRA 47-48
An agricultural tenancy relationship cannot be created by one who is not a
true and lawful owner or legal possessor.
62 SCRA 388
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.
130 SCRA 483
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.
162 SCRA 747-748
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.
Ponce vs. Guevarra
10 SCRA 649
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.
163 SCRA 41
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.
30 SCRA 591
Expiration of contract of lease does not extinguish the tenancy
relationship.
Amante vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
18 SCRA 427-428
Expiration of tenancy contract does not extinguish tenancy relationship.
164 SCRA 432
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.
163 SCRA 432
Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship but a legal relationship.
164 SCRA 432
Fact alone of working on another's landholding does not raise a
presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy.
Carag vs. Court of Appeals
151 SCRA 45
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.
Lastimoza vs. Blanco
1 SCRA 231
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.
118 SCRA 484
Tenancy, however, is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what
the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.
118 SCRA 485
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.
Appeals
164 SCRA 571-572
A landholder-tenant relationship is preserved even in case of transfer of
legal possession of the subject property.
148 SCRA 573
Tenancy cannot be created nor depend upon what the alleged tenant does
on the land.
148 SCRA 573-574
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.
Ira vs. Zafra
6 SCRA 513
Relationship is not severed by tenant's acceptance of another land for
cultivation.
Dadural vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
10 SCRA 688-689
The reversal of findings of tenancy relationship revokes order of delivery
of shares.
Quilantang vs. Court of Appeals
48 SCRA 294-295
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
18 SCRA 992
Tenancy relationship is extinguished by tenants abandonment of the land.
Decena vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
18 SCRA 103
Tenancy relationship is not terminated by death of landholder.
Yabut vs. Lilles
53 SCRA 37
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
116 SCRA 660
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
8 SCRA 499
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
18 SCRA 103
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.
10 SCRA 705
Third party complaint by vendee against vendor is not within jurisdiction
of agrarian court.
U

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Jalandoni, Jr. vs. Arsenal
189 SCRA 56, July 30, 1990
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.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 389
Unfair labor practice CAR has jurisdiction to entertain a ULP case
involving agricultural workers under R.A. No. 3844.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390
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.
Jayme vs. De Leon
79 SCRA 390-391
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
42 SCRA 383
Preliminary investigation of unfair labor practice is not required in the
agrarian court.

UNLAWFUL DETAINER
G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994
233 SCRA 627
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
228 SCRA 505
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
228 SCRA 503
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
186 SCRA 517, June 14, 1990
No consideration is required for voluntary surrender by tenant of his
agricultural holding.
Talavera vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Magno vs. Blanco
171 SCRA 704, April 10, 1989
A writ of execution not warranted of the decision or judgment which gives
it life or cause to exist, has no validity.
Jasmin vs. Valera
137 SCRA 214
A compromise is based on mutual reciprocal concessions.
87 SCRA 263
Voluntary surrender of landholding is one of the recognized grounds for
severance of tenancy relationship.
87 SCRA 264
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
251 SCRA 31
"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.
November 20, 1995
250 SCRA 176
"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.
G.R. No. 96489, July 14, 1995
246 SCRA 223
"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.
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 167
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.
G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995
245 SCRA 166
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
237 SCRA 122
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
237 SCRA 123
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
237 SCRA 124
"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
228 SCRA 503
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
228 SCRA 504
The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ifso facto make the
possessor an agricultural lessee or tenant.
G.R. No. 97788, May 11, 1993
221 SCRA 703
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.
Velasquez vs. Nery
G.R. No. 64284, July 3, 1992
211 SCRA 28
"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
Vda. de Tisado vs. Tablizo
Adm. Mat. No. P-94-1025, February 20, 1996
253 SCRA 647
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.
Jereos, Jr. vs. Reblando, Sr.
71 SCRA 126, 131-132 (1976)
Vda. De Tisado vs. Tablizo
Adm. Mat. No. P-94-1025, February 20, 1996
253 SCRA 646
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.
163 SCRA 175
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.
Osmea vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
17 SCRA 828
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
162 SCRA 390
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.

HELP CENTER
How to Use the ERC Legal Information Archive
CONTACT INFORMATION
Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel. No.: (632) 928-7031 to 39
Copyright Information
All material contained in this site is copyrighted by the Department of Agrarian Reform unless otherwise specified. For
the purposes of this demo, information are intended to show a representative example of a live site. All images and
materials are the copyright of their respective owners.

1961 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1961 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Home

You might also like