Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agra Prelims Cases
Agra Prelims Cases
L-
36153. NOVEMBER 28, 1975
Facts:
NIEVES V. DULDULAO. G.R. 190276. APRIL 2, 2014
Petitioner Alfonso V. Legaspi, an employee of DAR, sent a
Facts:
letter to respondent Secretary of DAR expressing his desire
Petitioner, owner of a piece of agricultural land, sought to to be laid off under the provision of RA No. 3844, as
eject respondents, tenants and cultivators of the subject amended by RA No. 6389, on condition that he would also
land. Petitioner claimed that Ernesto and Felipe failed to pay be paid the gratuity benefits to which he might be entitled
their leasehold rentals since 1985 which had accumulated under RA No. 1616. The respondent Secretary approved
to 446.5 and 327 cavans of palay, respectively. The PARAD petitioner’s request. The General Manager of the GSIS
declared that the tenancy relations between the parties had approved petitioner’s retirement under Sec. 12 (c) of CA No.
been severed by the respondents’ failure to pay their back 186, as amended by RA No. 1616 but denied the petitioner’s
leasehold rentals thereby ordering them to vacate. The claim for gratuity under Sec. 169 of RA No. 3844.
DARAB affirmed the decision of PARAD. The CA granted
In the instant petition, respondents maintain that gratuity
respondents’ petition for review, thereby reversing the
provided for under Sec. 169 of RA No. 3844 is a retirement
ruling of DARAB.
gratuity intended for those who desire to be laid-off but
Issue: would not be eligible to receive retirement benefits under
the general laws.
WON the petitioner has the right to eject respondents from
the land under RA No. 3844. Issue:
Ruling: YES WON petitioner has the right to collect the gratuity under
RA No. 3844, in addition to what he has received under CA
Agricultural lessees, being entitled to security of tenure may No. 186.
be ejected from their landholding only on the grounds
provided by law. These ground – the existence of which is to Ruling: NO
be proven by the agricultural lessor in a particular case – are
There is nothing in Section 169, RA No. 3844, as amended,
enumerated in Section 36 of RA No. 3844 xxx :
that would as much suggest that an employee who is laid-
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental off or prefers to be laid-off can receive two pension benefits,
when it falls due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the one under its provisions and another pursuant to CA No.
rentals shall be due to crop failure to the extent of seventy 186. From the phrase “in addition to all benefits to which
five per cent as a result of a fortuitous event, the non- they are entitled under existing laws and regulations,” there
payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although is no hint that it meant to allow double gratuities. On the
the obligation to pay the rental due that particular crop is contrary, Section 169 of RA No. 3844, refer to those “other
not thereby extinguished; than retirement benefits” to which the laid-off employee
may be entitled, such as, the money equivalent of his
To eject the agricultural lessee for failure to pay the accumulated sick and vacation leaves This interpretation is
leasehold rentals under item 6 of the above-cited provision, more in line with the policy of the law embodied in Section
jurisprudence instructs that the same must be wilful and 28 (b) of CA No. 186 prohibiting an employer from paying
deliberate in order to warrants the agricultural lessee’s double retirement benefits to an employee.
dispossession of the land that he tills.
Issue: WON petitioners are entitled to a disturbance Even if we supplemented the provisions of Presidential
compensation. Decree No. 27, the outcome is still the same, because the
Dakila property was still not within the scope of the law. For
Ruling: NO land to be covered under Presidential Decree No. 27, it must
be devoted to rice or corn crops, and there must be a system
At the core of the controversy is the issue of whether or not of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein. If either
a mere reclassification of the land from agricultural to requisite is absent, the land must be excluded. Hence,
residential, without any court action by the landowner to exemption from coverage followed when the land was not
eject or dispossess the tenant, entitles the latter to devoted to rice or corn even if it was tenanted; or the land
disturbance compensation.
was untenanted even though it was devoted to rice or
A tenancy relationship, once established, entitles the tenant corn. Based on these conditions, the DAR Regional Office
to a security of tenure. He can only be ejected from the erred in subjecting the Dakila property under the OLT.
agricultural landholding on grounds provided by law.
For land to come within the coverage of the OLT, indeed,
Section 36 provides the different grounds and manner by there must be a showing that it is devoted to the cultivation
which a tenant can be lawfully ejected or dispossessed of his of rice or corn, and there must be a system of share-crop or
landholding. One of them is the reclassification of the lease tenancy obtaining on October 21, 1972, the time when
landholding from agricultural to non-agricultural. Presidential Decree No. 27 took effect.66 Unfortunately, no
such evidence was presented, nor was there any field
It is clear that a tenant can be lawfully ejected only if there investigation conducted to verify whether or not the
is a court authorization in a judgment that is final and landholding was primarily devoted to the cultivation of rice
executory and after a hearing where the reclassification of or corn. Accordingly, the Dakila property should be
the landholding was duly determined. If the court authorizes excluded from the OLT.
the ejectment, the tenant who is dispossessed of his
tenancy is entitled to disturbance compensation. TORALBA VS. MERCADO. GR. NO. 146480
The argument is not well-taken. The RARAD decision is not Pursuant to P.D. No. 27, a farmer-beneficiary cannot make
yet final and executory. It was made the subject of a petition any valid form of transfer of the land adjudicated to them,
for review with the Court of Appeals and is pending with this except to the government or by hereditary succession to
Court. their respective successors. The farmer-beneficiary alone
has title over the agricultural land covered by the Certificate the trial court, because even if at the time of valuation R.A.
of Land Transfer granted to him. 6657 was already effective, the respondents failed to
present any evidence on the valuation factors under Section
Nonetheless, a second look at the present transaction 17 of R.A. 6657.
reveals that petitioner voluntarily surrendered her
landholding to the Samahang Nayon, a legally permissible LBP VS. SPS. ESTEBAN. GR. NO. 192345
conveyance, for being in favor of the government. In Corpuz
v. Grospe, voluntary surrender to the Samahang Mao gyapon. Computation sa just compensation. Bahala na
Nayon qualifies as a surrender or transfer to the diha.
government because such action forms part of the
mechanism for the disposition and the re-allocation of
farmholdings of tenant-farmers who refuse to become
beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27.