JAIME SANCHEZ, JR., Petitioner, v. ZENAIDA F. MARIN, JESUS NICASIO F. MARIN, JOSE DAVID F.

MARIN, MARIA BERNADETTE F. MARIN, PAUL PETER F. MARIN and PHILIP LUIS F. MARIN,
Respondents.

[G.R. NO. 171346: October 19, 2007]

DOCTRINE:

➢ By virtue of Sec. 2, RA 7881, the operation of fishponds is no longer considered an agricultural activity,
and a parcel of land devoted to fishpond operation is no longer an agricultural land.
➢ Having been declared as a tenant with the right to security of tenure as provided by the law enforced
at the time of the filing of the complaint, a person acquired a vested right over the subjected fishpond.
Even if fishponds were later excluded/exempted from CARL coverage, and despite the fact that no CLOA
has been issued, the same cannot defeat the aforesaid vested right already granted and acquired by a
person long before the passage of RA 7881.
➢ On jurisdiction: if prior to the enactment of RA 7881, a case was already pending appeal before the
DARAB. The aforesaid amendments in RA 7881 regarding fishpond exclusion on CARL cannot be made
to apply to divest the DARAB of its jurisdiction of the case. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court, it
remains with it until the full termination of the case.

FACTS:

➢ David Felix owned a fishpond.

o Jaime Sanchez was instituted as a tenant on the fishpond, with a 50/50 sharing agreement.
o After a few years, Felix sold and transferred ownership of the subject fishpond to the respondents
Jesus Nicasio, Jose David, Maria Bernadette, Paul Peter and Philip Luis (the “Marins”).
o As new owners of the fishpond, they entered into a civil law agreement with their mother, Zenaida,
which was renewable yearly.
➢ Zenaida made an arrangement with Sanchez wherein he would receive:
o a regular salary; and
o 20% share in the net profit of the fishpond.
➢ When her lease agreement with her children expired, Zenaida ordered Sanchez to vacate the premises.
o Sanchez refused, asserting that he was a tenant of the fishpond and not a mere contractual worker.
o He had the right to its peaceful possession and security of tenure.
➢ He petitioned the court to declare him as a tenant of the subject fishpond, which subsequently did.
➢ As Sanchez was already declared as an agricultural tenant of the fishpond, he filed a petition to the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for the fixing of leasehold rentals for his use of the
fishpond.
o Zenaida countered this application by filing a case with the PARAD to eject Sanchez for failure to
pay the rent and for failure to render an accounting.
o The PARAD consolidated the 2 cases
➢ PARAD: ruled in favor of Sanchez.
o Zenaida appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
➢ DARAB: affirmed the PARAD decision.
➢ CA: reversed the ruling, stating that the DARAB lacked jurisdiction over the case.
o It stated that Sec. 2 of RA 7881, which amended Sec. 10 of RA 6657, excluded private lands
actually, directly, and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the
CARL, so that the operation of a fishpond is no longer considered an agricultural activity.
o Since the cases are not agrarian disputes, then the DARAB could not have validly acquired
jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a fishpond is an agricultural land.

2. Whether a tenurial arrangement exists between Sanchez and Zenaida Marin.
3. Whether the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD:

1. Whether a fishpond is an agricultural land.

o NO.
o By virtue of Sec. 2, RA 7881, the operation of fishponds is no longer considered an agricultural
activity, and a parcel of land devoted to fishpond operation is no longer an agricultural land.

2. Whether a tenurial arrangement exists between Sanchez and Zenaida Marin.

o YES.
o Although the fishpond is not covered by the CARL, it bears emphasis that Sanchez’ status as a
tenant in the subject fishpond and his right to security of tenure were already previously settled.
o Having been declared as a tenant with the right to security of tenure as provided by the law enforced
at the time of the filing of the complaint, Sanchez has acquired a vested right over the subject
fishpond.
o Therefore, even if fishponds were later excluded/exempted from CARL coverage, and despite the
fact that no CLOA has been issued to Sanchez, the same cannot defeat the aforesaid vested right
already granted and acquired by Sanchez long before the passage of RA 7881.

3. Whether the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.

o YES.
o The present case was instituted as early as 1991 when the law applicable was still RA 6657, and
fishponds and prawn farms were not yet exempted/excluded from the CARL coverage.
o Prior to the enactment of RA 7881 in 1995, the case was already pending appeal before the DARAB.
The aforesaid amendments (fishpond exclusion) cannot be made to apply to divest the DARAB of
its jurisdiction of the case.
o Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court, it remains with it until the full termination of the case.