De La Salle University 4. Republic Act No.

6657
College of Law 5. Republic Act No. 9700
6. Republic Act No. 8550
COURSE SYLLABUS 7. Republic Act No. 8371
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation 8. Republic Act No. 7279
Atty. Aison S. Garcia 9. EO 129-A, EO 229, Proclamation 131
10. AO 7, Series of 2011 (and its amendatory AOs)
11. AO 6, Series of 2011
A. DESCRIPTION
Books
This course will discuss the basic human rights principles of Agrarian Reform, 1. Landowners’ Rights by Attys. Gil Alba and Eduardo Hernandez
the economic basis, the Constitutional basis, the major jurisprudence and the 2. How Asia Works by Joe Studwell
implementing laws and administrative issuances. There will be a discussion on 3. Making the Most Agricultural Investment by Vermuelen
the procedures and rules of agrarian and tenancy cases, drafting of contracts 4. Land Reform in Developing Countries by Michael Lipton
that are compliant to agrarian laws and participating in the current policy
discussions. A survey of the different social legislations affecting the basic Prerequisite Topics
sectors will also be discussed. The method of learning is a combination of lecture, 1. Constitutional Law
group work, research, film viewing and field exposure. 2. Land Titles and Deeds
3. Obligations and Contracts
B. COURSE OBJECTIVES
1. To be able to know the basic principles of Agrarian Reform Program in the
Philippines. The following are reference materials for enhancement:
2. To be able to appreciate different social legislations in the Philippines like 1. CARP Impact Assessment by Arsenio Balisacan
the Social Security System. 2. Why Nations Fall by Robertson
3. To be able to advocate (i.e. cases, legislation, executive policies) for reforms 3. Voluntary Guidelines on Land Tenure
in the implementation of agrarian laws and other social legislations.
E. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING
C. COURSE TOPICS
A. Grading
1. Basic Principles of Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
2. Developmental Economics and Social Justice 100-99 4
3. History of Agrarian Reform 98-97 3.75
4. Agricultural Leasehold and Tenancy 96-95 3.5
5. Agrarian Law Implementation (Coverage and Beneficiary Identification) 94-93 3.25
6. Just Compensation 92-91 3
7. Rights of Landowners (Retention, Protests, Exemption, Preferred 90-89 2.75
Beneficiaries,etc.) 88-87 2.5
8. Land Conversion 86-85 2.25
9. Indefeasibility of Agrarian Reform Titles 84-83 2
10. Economic Schemes and Contracts under Agrarian Reform 82-81 1.75
11. Social Legislations 80-79 1.5
78-77 1.25
D. REQUIRED TEXTS AND REFERENCE MATERIALS 76-75 1

Laws
1. Republic Act No. 1199 B. Papers (topics to be assigned)
2. Republic Act No. 3844 Legal Paper shall be in Font No. 12 Arial. It must be submitted in Legal
3. Presidential Decree 27 EO 228 Size. Plagiarism will result to a failing grade and administrative sanctions.
 Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create
C. Film Showing and Field Trip (tentative) economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
At least one film viewing and field trip is required
2. Social Justice
D. Exams and Recitations
a. Daily oral recitation Calalang vs Williams (G.R. No. 47800)
b. Quizzes • (F) It is alleged in the petition that the National Traffic Commission, in its
c. Midterm Exam resolution of July 17, 1940, resolved to recommend to the Director of Public
d. Final Exam Works and to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications that animal-
drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario Street extending from
F. Legal Research and Library Work Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmariñas Street, from 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
and from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and along Rizal Avenue extending from the
G. CLASSROOM RULES railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.,
from a period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to
1. Attendance. traffic.
a. A student with four (4) absences shall be dropped from the • Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise
course and will get a failing grade. of the paramount police power of the state. Said Act, by virtue of which the rules
b. Three (3) tardiness are equivalent to one (1) absence. and regulations complained of were promulgated, aims to promote safe transit
c. Coming in 15 minutes after class has started is considered upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in the interest and convenience
tardy. of the public. In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was
2. Socratic Method of Learning prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. It was inspired
3. No using of Cellphones during class by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, to say the least, a menace to
4. When reciting, no looking at notes. No coaching. public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of said
5. Legal Research and Library Work law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with
personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and
H. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to
secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state.
I. Concept of Agrarian Reform • Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,"
but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces
1.Constitution by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may
at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all
Art II, Sec 10 the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure
economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of
development. the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of
Art XIII, Secs 1-2 powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored
principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be
Social Justice and Human Rights founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and
diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life,
protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of
economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. "the greatest good to the greatest number."

To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments. 3.Police Power, Eminent Domain
 • Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and
establish wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, not
repugnant to the Constitution, for the good and welfare of the people. This power
to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education, good order or
safety, and general welfare of the people flows from the recognition that salus
populi est suprema lex – the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
o imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the
• 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. Obviously, there is no need to expropriate where the owner is
willing to sell under terms also acceptable to the purchaser, in which case an
ordinary deed of sale may be agreed upon by the parties. 35 It is only where the
owner is unwilling to sell, or cannot accept the price or other conditions offered
by the vendee, that the power of eminent domain will come into play to assert
the paramount authority of the State over the interests of the property owner.
Private rights must then yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest
on the time-honored justification, as in the case of the police power, that the
welfare of the people is the supreme law.||| (Association of Small Landowners
in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310,
79744 & 79777, [July 14, 1989], 256 PHIL 777-827)
4.Economic Viability of Small Landholdings
How Asia Works (Studwell)
World Bank Report 2008
Vermuelen Making the Most Agricultural Investment (IFAD, 2010)
5. Constitutional Issues
Association of Small Landholders of the Philippines vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
(G.R. No. 78742)
• (F) The people power revolution of 1986 did not change and indeed even
energized the thrust for agrarian reform. Thus, on July 17, 1987, President
Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of
the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued
lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was
followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation No. 131, instituting a
comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. No. 229, providing
the mechanics for its implementation. It bears repeating that the measures
challenged in these petitions contemplate more than a mere regulation of the
use of private lands under the police power. We deal here with an actual taking
of private agricultural lands that has dispossessed the owners of their property
and deprived them of all its beneficial use and enjoyment, to entitle them to the
just compensation mandated by the Constitution.
• There are traditional distinctions between the police power and the power of
eminent domain that logically preclude the application of both powers at the
same time on the same subject. The cases before us present no knotty
complication insofar as the question of compensable taking is concerned. To the
extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for
landowners, there is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of private
property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such
regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they
may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking
under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is
land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession
of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the
farmer-beneficiary. This is definitely an exercise not of the police power but of
the power of eminent domain.
• 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. Obviously, there is no need to expropriate where the owner is
willing to sell under terms also acceptable to the purchaser, in which case an
ordinary deed of sale may be agreed upon by the parties. It is only where the
owner is unwilling to sell, or cannot accept the price or other conditions offered
by the vendee, that the power of eminent domain will come into play to assert
the paramount authority of the State over the interests of the property owner.
Private rights must then yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest
on the time-honored justification, as in the case of the police power, that the
welfare of the people is the supreme law.
• For the proper exercise of eminent domain:
o Public use
o Just compensation - 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.
• There is compensable taking when the following conditions concur:
o (1) the expropriator must enter a private property;
o (2) the entry must be for more than a momentary period;
o (3) the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;
o (4) the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected; and (5) the utilization of the
property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
• Where the State itself is the expropriator, it is not necessary for it to make a
deposit upon its taking possession of the condemned property, as "the
compensation is a public charge, the good faith of the public is pledged for its
payment, and all the resources of taxation may be employed in raising the
amount."
• The determination of just compensation is a function addressed to the courts of
justice and may not be usurped by any other branch or official of the government.
The determination of the just compensation by the DAR is not by any means
final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party, for
Section 16 (f) clearly provides: Any party who disagrees with the decision may
 bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just
compensation. The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless
accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice will still have
the right to review with finality the said determination in the exercise of what
is admittedly a judicial function.
• We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain.
This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively
limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and
perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of
expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands
whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the
maximum retention limits allowed their owners. Such a program will involve not
mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous. Considering the vast areas
of land subject to expropriation under the laws before us, we estimate that
hundreds of billions of pesos will be needed, far more indeed than the amount of
P50 billion initially appropriated, which is already staggering as it is by our
present standards. The Court has not found in the records of the Constitutional
Commission any categorial agreement among the members regarding the
meaning to be given the concept of just compensation as applied to the
comprehensive agrarian reform program being contemplated. On the other
hand, there is nothing in the records either that militates against the
assumptions we are making of the general sentiments and intention of the
members on the content and manner of the payment to be made to the landowner
in the light of the magnitude of the expenditure and the limitations of the
expropriator. Therefore, payment of the just compensation is not always
required to be made fully in money.
• Title to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator
only upon full payment of the just compensation. The CARP Law, for its part,
conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the
deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible
bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. No outright change of
ownership is contemplated either. Hence, that the assailed measures violate due
process by arbitrarily transferring title before the land is fully paid for must also
be rejected.
The Landbank of the Philippines (RA 3844)
II. Agricultural Tenancy
1. RA 1199, as amended by RA 2263
Secs 3, 5(a), 5(b)
SECTION 3. Agricultural Tenancy Defined. — Agricultural tenancy is 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 5. Definitions of Terms. — As used in this Act:||| (Agricultural Tenancy Act
of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 1199, [August 30, 1954])
(a) A tenant shall mean a person who, himself and with the aid available from
within his immediate farm 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.
(b) 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 tenancy system.
2. RA 3844
Secs 4-38
SECTION 4. Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy. — Agricultural share tenancy, as
herein defined, is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy and shall be abolished:
Provided, That existing share tenancy contracts may continue in force and effect in any
region or locality, to be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of Republic
Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, until the end of the
agricultural year when the National Land Reform Council proclaims that all the
government machineries and agencies in that region or locality relating to leasehold
envisioned in this Code are operating, unless such contracts provide for a shorter period
or the tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the leasehold system: Provided, further,
That in order not to jeopardize international commitments, lands devoted to crops
covered by marketing allotments shall be made the subject of a separate proclamation
that adequate provisions, such as the organization of cooperatives, marketing
agreements, or other similar workable arrangements, have been made to insure efficient
management on all matters requiring synchronization of the agricultural with the
processing phases of such crops: Provided, furthermore, That where the agricultural
share tenancy contract has ceased to be operative by virtue of this Code, or where such a
tenancy contract has been entered into in violation of the provisions of this Code and is,
therefore, null and void, and the tenant continues in possession of the land for cultivation,
there shall be presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under the provisions of this
Code, without prejudice to the right of the landowner and the former tenant to enter into
any other lawful contract in relation to the land formerly under tenancy contract, as long
as in the interim the security of tenure of the former tenant under Republic Act
Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, and as provided in this Code,
is not impaired: Provided, finally, That if a lawful leasehold tenancy contract was entered
into prior to the effectivity of this Code, the rights and obligations arising therefrom shall
continue to subsist until modified by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Code.
SECTION 5. Establishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. — The agricultural
leasehold relation shall be established by operation of law in accordance with Section four
of this Code and, in other cases, either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly.
SECTION 6. Parties to Agricultural Leasehold Relation. — The agricultural leasehold
relation shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding, either as owner,
civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and the person who personally cultivates
the same.
SECTION 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. — The agricultural leasehold
relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue
working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The
agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot
be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided.
SECTION 8. Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. — The agricultural
leasehold relation established under this Code shall be extinguished by:
(1) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural
lessor;
(2) Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural lessee, written
notice of which shall be served three months in advance; or
(3) Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to the lessee, in the
event of death or permanent incapacity of the lessee.
SECTION 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity
of the Parties. — In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to
work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and
the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor
within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following:
(a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next
eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age: Provided, That in case the
death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural
year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year: Provided, further,
That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods
herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established.
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold
shall bind his legal heirs.
SECTION 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Expiration of
Period, etc. — The agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be
extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the
sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. In case the
agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding,
the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to
the obligations of the agricultural lessor.
SECTION 11. Lessee's Right of Pre-emption. — In case the agricultural lessor decides to
sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the
same under reasonable terms and conditions: Provided, That the entire landholding
offered for sale must be pre-empted by the Land Authority if the landowner so desires,
unless the majority of the lessees object to such acquisition: Provided, further, That where
there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said preferential right
only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of pre-emption under
this Section may be exercised within ninety days from notice in writing which shall be
served by the owner on all lessees affected.
SECTION 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption. — In case the landholding is sold to a third
person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to
redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That the entire
landholding sold must be redeemed: Provided, further, That where these are two or more
agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent
of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be
exercised within two years from the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over
any other right of legal redemption.
SECTION 13. Affidavit Required in Sale of Land Subject to Right of Pre-emption. — No
deed of sale of agricultural land under cultivation by an agricultural lessee or lessees
shall be recorded in the Registry of Property unless accompanied by an affidavit of the
vendor that he has given the written notice required in Section eleven of this Chapter or
that the land is not worked by an agricultural lessee.
SECTION 14. Right of Pre-emption and Redemption Not Applicable to Land to be
Converted into Residential, Industrial and Similar Purposes. — The right of pre-emption
and redemption granted under Sections eleven and twelve of this Chapter cannot be
exercised over landholdings suitably located which the owner bought or holds for
conversion into residential, commercial, industrial or other similar non-agricultural
purposes: Provided, however, That the conversion be in good faith and is substantially
carried out within one year from the date of sale. Should the owner fail to comply with
the above condition, the agricultural lessee shall have the right to repurchase under
reasonable terms and conditions said landholding from said owner within one year after
the aforementioned period for conversion has expired: Provided, however, That the tenure
of one year shall cease to run from the time the agricultural lessee petitions the Land
Authority to acquire the land under the provisions of paragraph 11 of Section fifty-one.
SECTION 15. Agricultural Leasehold Contract in General. — The agricultural lessor
and the agricultural lessee shall be free to enter into any kind of terms, conditions or
stipulations in a leasehold contract, as long as they are not contrary to law, morals or
public policy. A term, condition or stipulation in an agricultural leasehold contract is
considered contrary to law, morals or public policy:
(1) If the agricultural lessee is required to pay a rental in excess of that which is
hereinafter provided for in this Chapter;
(2) If the agricultural lessee is required to pay a consideration in excess of the
fair rental value as defined herein, for the use of work animals and/or farm implements
belonging to the agricultural lessor or to any other person; or
(3) If it is imposed as a condition in the agricultural leasehold contract: (a) that
the agricultural lessee is required to rent work animals or to hire farm implements from
the agricultural lessor or a third person, or to make use of any store or services operated
by the agricultural lessor or a third person; or (b) that the agricultural lessee is required
to perform any work or render any service other than his duties and obligations provided
in this Chapter with or without compensation; or (c) that the agricultural lessee is
required to answer for any fine, deductions and/or assessments. cd i
Any contract by which the agricultural lessee is required to accept a loan or to
make payment therefor in kind shall also be contrary to law, morals or public policy.
SECTION 16. Nature and Continuity of Conditions of Leasehold Contract. — In the
absence of any agreement as to the period, the terms and conditions of a leasehold
contract shall continue until modified by the parties: Provided, That in no case shall any
modification of its terms and conditions prejudice the right of the agricultural lessee to
the security of his tenure on the landholding: Provided, further, That in case of a contract
with a period an agricultural lessor may not, upon the expiration of the period, increase
the rental except in accordance with the provisions of Section thirty-four.
SECTION 17. Form and Registration of Contract. — Should the parties decide to reduce
their agreement into writing, the agricultural leasehold contract shall be drawn in
quadruplicate in a language or dialect known to the agricultural lessee and signed or
thumb-marked both by the agricultural lessee personally and by the agricultural lessor
or his authorized representative, before two witnesses, to be chosen by each party. If the
agricultural lessee does not know how to read, the contents of the document shall be read
and explained to him by his witness. The contracting parties shall acknowledge the
execution of the contract before the justice of the peace of the municipality where the land
is situated. No fees or stamps of any kind shall be required in the preparation and
acknowledgment of the instrument. Each of the contracting parties shall retain a copy of
the contract. The justice of the peace shall cause the third copy to be delivered to the
municipal treasurer of the municipality where the land is located and the fourth copy to
the Office of the Agrarian Counsel.
Except in case of mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud, an
agricultural contract reduced in writing and registered as hereinafter provided, shall be
conclusive between the contracting parties, if not denounced or impugned within thirty
days after its registration.
SECTION 18. Registration of Leasehold Contract. — The municipal treasurer shall,
upon receipt of his copy of the contract, require the agricultural lessee and agricultural
lessor to present their respective copies of the contract, and shall cause to be annotated
thereon the date, time and place of registration as well as its entry or registration
number.
SECTION 19. Registry of Agricultural Leasehold Contracts. — The Municipal Treasurer
of the municipality wherein the land is situated shall keep a record of all such contracts
drawn and executed within his jurisdiction, to be known as "Registry of Agricultural
Leasehold Contracts". He shall keep this registry together with a copy of each contract
entered therein, and make annotations on said registry of all subsequent acts relative to
each contract, such as its renewal, novation, cancellation, etc. No registration fees or
documentary stamps shall be required in the registration of said contracts or of any
subsequent acts relative thereto.
SECTION 20. Memorandum of Loans. — No obligation to pay money on account of loans
including interest thereon obtained by the agricultural lessee from the agricultural lessor
or his representative shall be enforceable unless the same or a memorandum thereof be
in writing in a language or dialect known to the agricultural lessee, and signed or thumb-
marked by him, or by his agent.
SECTION 21. Exemption from Lien and/or Execution. — The following shall be exempt
from lien and/or execution against the agricultural lessee:
 (1) Twenty-five per centum of the entire produce of the land under cultivation;
and
(2) Work animals and farm implements belonging to the agricultural lessee:
Provided, That their value does not exceed one thousand pesos. But no article or species
of property mentioned in this Section shall be exempt from execution issued upon a
judgment recovered for its price or upon a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage thereon.
SECTION 22. Use of Accepted Standards of Weights and Measures. — In all
transactions entered into between the agricultural lessee and the agricultural lessor
concerning agricultural products the official or, upon agreement of the parties, the
accepted standards of weights and measures shall be used.
SECTION 23. Rights of Agricultural Lessee in General. — It shall be the right of the
agricultural lessee:
(1) To have possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land;
(2) To manage and work on the land in a manner and method of cultivation and
harvest which conform to proven farm practices;
(3) To mechanize all or any phase of his farm work; and
(4) To deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance of quedans
and warehouse receipts for the produce due him.
SECTION 24. Right to a Home Lot. — The agricultural lessee shall have the right to
continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any home lot he may have occupied
upon the effectivity of this Code, which shall be considered as included in the leasehold.
SECTION 25. Right to be Indemnified for Labor. — The agricultural lessee shall have
the right to be indemnified for the cost and expenses incurred in the cultivation, planting
or harvesting and other expenses incidental to the improvement of his crop in case he
surrenders or abandons his landholding for just cause or is ejected therefrom. In addition,
he has the right to be indemnified for one-half of the necessary and useful improvements
made by him on the landholding: Provided, That these improvements are tangible and
have not yet lost their utility at the time of surrender and/or abandonment of the
landholding, at which time their value shall be determined for the purpose of the
indemnity for improvements.
SECTION 26. Obligations of the Lessee. — It shall be the obligation of the agricultural
lessee:
(1) To cultivate and take care of the farm, growing crops, and other
improvements on the landholding as a good father of a family and perform all the work
therein in accordance with proven farm practices;
(2) To inform the agricultural lessor within a reasonable time of any trespass
committed by third persons upon the farm, without prejudice to his direct action against
the trespasser;
(3) To take reasonable care of the work animals and farm implements delivered
to him by the agricultural lessor and see that they are not used for purposes other than
those intended or used by another without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural
lessor: Provided, however, That if said work animals get lost or die, or said farm
implements get lost or are destroyed, through the negligence of the agricultural lessee,
he shall be held responsible and made answerable therefor to the extent of the value of
the work animals and/or farm implements at the time of the loss, death or destruction;
(4) To keep his farm and growing crops attended to during the work season. In
case of unjustified abandonment or neglect of his farm, any or all of his expected produce
may, upon order of the Court, be forfeited in favor of the agricultural lessor to the extent
of the damage caused thereby;
(5) To notify the agricultural lessor at least three days before the date of
harvesting or, whenever applicable, of threshing; and
(6) To pay the lease rental to the agricultural lessor when it falls due.
SECTION 27. Prohibitions to Agricultural Lessee. — It shall be unlawful for the
agricultural lessee:
(1) To contract to work additional landholdings belonging to a different
agricultural lessor or to acquire and personally cultivate an economic family-size farm,
without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor with whom he had entered
first into household, if the first landholding is of sufficient size to make him and the
members of his immediate farm household fully occupied in its cultivation; or
(2) To employ a sub-lessee on his landholding: Provided, however, That in case
of illness or temporary incapacity he may employ laborers whose services on his
landholding shall be on his account.
SECTION 28. Termination of Leasehold by Agricultural Lessee During Agricultural
Year. — The agricultural lessee may terminate the leasehold during the agricultural year
for any of the following causes:
(1) Cruel, inhuman or offensive, treatment of the agricultural lessee or any
member of his immediate farm household by the agricultural lessor or his representative
with the knowledge and consent of the lessor;
(2) Non-compliance on the part of the agricultural lessor with any of the
obligations imposed upon him by the provisions of this Code or by his contract with the
agricultural lessee;
 (3) Compulsion of the agricultural lessee or any member of his immediate farm
household by the agricultural lessor to do any work or render any service not in any way
connected with farm work or even without compulsion if no compensation is paid;
(4) Commission of a crime by the agricultural lessor or his representative against
the agricultural lessee or any member of his immediate farm household; or
(5) Voluntary surrender due to circumstances more advantageous to him and his
family.
SECTION 29. Rights of the Agricultural Lessor. — It shall be the right of the agricultural
lessor:
(1) To inspect and observe the extent of compliance with the terms and conditions
of their contract and the provisions of this Chapter;
(2) To propose a change in the use of the landholding to other agricultural
purposes, or in the kind of crops to be planted: Provided, That in case of disagreement as
to the proposed change, the same shall be settled by the Court according to the best
interest of the parties concerned: Provided, further, That in no case shall an agricultural
lessee be ejected as a consequence of the conversion of the land to some other agricultural
purpose or because of a change in the crop to be planted;
(3) To require the agricultural lessee, taking into consideration his financial
capacity and the credit facilities available to him, to adopt in his farm proven farm
practices necessary to the conservation of the land, improvement of its fertility and
increase of its productivity: Provided, That in case of disagreement as to what proven
farm practice the lessee shall adopt, the same shall be settled by the Court according to
the best interest of the parties concerned; and
(4) To mortgage expected rentals.
SECTION 30. Obligations of the Agricultural Lessor. — It shall be the obligation of the
agricultural lessor:
(1) To keep the agricultural lessee in peaceful possession and cultivation of his
landholding; and
(2) To keep intact such permanent useful improvements existing on the landholding at
the start of the leasehold relation as irrigation and drainage systems and marketing
allotments, which in the case of sugar quotas shall refer both to domestic and export
quotas, provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding.
SECTION 31. Prohibitions to the Agricultural Lessor. — It shall be unlawful for the
agricultural lessor:
(1) To dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding except upon
authorization by the Court under Section thirty-six. Should the agricultural lessee be
dispossessed of his landholding without authorization from the Court, the agricultural
lessor shall be liable for damages suffered by the agricultural lessee in addition to the
fine or imprisonment prescribed in this Code for unauthorized dispossession; cdasia
(2) To require the agricultural lessee to assume, directly or indirectly, the
payment of the taxes or part thereof levied by the government on the landholding;
(3) To require the agricultural lessee to assume, directly or indirectly, any part
of the rent, "canon" or other consideration which the agricultural lessor is under
obligation to pay to third persons for the use of the land;
(4) To deal with millers or processors without written authorization of the lessee
in cases where the crop has to be sold in processed form before payment of the rental; or
(5) To discourage, directly or indirectly, the formation, maintenance or growth of
unions or organizations of agricultural lessees in his landholding, or to initiate, dominate,
assist or interfere in the formation or administration of any such union or organization.
SECTION 32. Cost of Irrigation System. — The cost of construction of a permanent
irrigation system, including distributory canals, may be borne exclusively by the
agricultural lessor who shall be entitled to an increase in rental proportionate to the
resultant increase in production: Provided, That if the agricultural lessor refuses to bear
the expenses of construction the agricultural lessee or lessees may shoulder the same, in
which case the former shall not be entitled to an increase in rental and shall, upon the
termination of the relationship, pay the lessee or his heir the reasonable value of the
improvement at the time of the termination: Provided, further, That if the irrigation
system constructed does not work, it shall not be considered as an improvement within
the meaning of this Section.
SECTION 33. Manner, Time and Place of Rental Payment. — The consideration for the
lease of the land shall be paid in an amount certain in money or in produce, or both,
payable at the place agreed upon by the parties immediately after threshing or processing
if the consideration is in kind, or within a reasonable time thereafter, if not in kind.
In no case shall the agricultural lessor require the agricultural lessee to file a bond, make
a deposit or pay the rental in advance, in money or in kind or in both, but a special and
preferential lien is hereby created in favor of the agricultural lessor over such portion of
the gross harvest necessary for the payment of the rental due in his favor.
SECTION 34. Consideration for the Lease of Riceland and Lands Devoted to Other
Crops. — The consideration for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops
shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five per centum of the average normal
harvest during the three agricultural years immediately preceding the date the leasehold
was established after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting,
threshing, loading, hauling and processing, whichever are applicable: Provided, That if
the land has been cultivated for a period of less than three years, the initial consideration
shall be based on the average normal harvest during the preceding years when the land
was actually cultivated, or on the harvest of the first year in the case of newly-cultivated
lands, if that harvest is normal: Provided, further, That after the lapse of the first three
normal harvests, the final consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest
during these three preceding agricultural years: Provided, furthermore, That in the
absence of any agreement between the parties as to the rental, the maximum allowed
herein shall apply: Provided, finally, That if capital improvements are introduced on the
farm not by the lessee to increase its productivity, the rental shall be increased
proportionately to the consequent increase in production due to said improvements. In
case of disagreement, the Court shall determine the reasonable increase in rental.
SECTION 35. Exemption from Leasehold of Other Kinds of Lands. — Notwithstanding
the provisions of the preceding Sections, in the case of fishponds, saltbeds, and lands
principally planted to citrus, coconuts, cacao, coffee, durian, and other similar permanent
trees at the time of the approval of this Code, the consideration, as well as the tenancy
system prevailing, shall be governed by the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Eleven
hundred and ninety-nine, as amended.
(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the terms
and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of this Code unless his failure is
caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;
(3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a purpose
other than what had been previously agreed upon;
(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as determined
under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;
(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is
substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated through the fault
or negligence of the agricultural lessee;
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due:
Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop failure to the extent
of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be
a ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due that particular
crop is not thereby extinguished; or
(7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of the terms
of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.
SECTION 37. Burden of Proof. — The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful
cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor.

SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any SECTION 38. Statute of Limitations. — An action to enforce any cause of action under
agreement as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall this Code shall be barred if not commenced within three years after such cause of action
continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his accrued.
dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory
if after due hearing it is shown that:
3. Elements
1. Parties are owner/possessor and tenant
(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will
2. Subject is agricultural land
personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the landholding, if suitably located, 3. Consent
into residential, factory, hospital or school site or other useful non-agricultural purposes: 4. Purpose is agricultural production
Provided; That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation 5. Consideration
equivalent to five years rental on his landholding in addition to his rights under Sections 6. Personal cultivation
twenty-five and thirty-four, except when the land owned and leased by the agricultural
lessor, is not more than five hectares, in which case instead of disturbance compensation Cayetano and Tiongson vs CA (G.R. No. L-62626)
• The essential requisites of tenancy relationship are:
the lessee may be entitled to an advanced notice of at least one agricultural year before
o 1) the parties are the landholder and the tenant;
ejectment proceedings are filed against him: Provided, further, That should the o 2) the subject is agricultural land;
landholder not cultivate the land himself for three years or fail to substantially carry out o 3) there is consent;
such conversion within one year after the dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed o 4) the purpose is agricultural production; and
that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have the right to demand possession of the o 5) there is consideration
land and recover damages for any loss incurred by him because of said dispossession. • Whatever "visions" the owners may have had in 1946, the fact remains that the
land has always been officially classified as "residential" since 1948. The areas
surrounding the disputed six hectares are now dotted with residences and,
 apparently, only this case has kept the property in question from being
developed together with the rest of the lot to which it belongs. The fact that a
caretaker plants rice or corn on a residential lot in the middle of a residential
subdivision in the heart of a metropolitan area cannot by any strained
interpretation of law convert it into agricultural land and subject it to the
agrarian reform program.
• As defined under Section 5(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 1199 as amended,
Macaya may not be considered a tenant and Manotok as a landholder.
Significant, as the trial court noted, is that the parties have not agreed as to
their contributions of the several items of productions such as expenses for
transplanting, fertilizers, weeding and application of insecticides, etc. It should
also be noted that from 1967 to the present, Macaya did not deliver any cavans
of palay to the petitioners as the latter felt that if Macaya could no longer deliver
the twenty (20) cavans of palay, he might as well not deliver any. The decision
of the petitioners not to ask for anymore contributions from Macaya reveals that
there was no tenancy relationship ever agreed upon by the parties. Neither can
such relationship be implied from the facts as there was no agreed system of
sharing the produce of the property.
• The last requisite is consideration. This is the produce to be divided between the
landholder and tenant in proportion to their respective contributions. We agree
with the trial court that this was also absent. It bears reemphasizing that from
1946 to 1956, there was no agreement as to any system of sharing the produce
of the land. The petitioners did not get anything from the harvest and private
respondent Macaya was using and cultivating the land free from any charge or
expense. The situation was rather strange had there been a tenancy agreement
between Don Severino and Macaya. From 1957 to 1964, Macaya was requested
to contribute (10) cavans a year for the payment of the realty taxes. The receipts
of these contributions are evidenced by exhibits which clearly show that the
payment of the cavans of palay was Macaya's contribution for the payment of
the real estate taxes; that the nature of the work of Macaya is that of a watchman
or guard (bantay); and, that the services of Macaya as such watchman or guard
(bantay) shall continue until the property shall be converted into a subdivision
for residential purposes.
Caballes vs DAR (G.R. No. 78214)
• 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. The absence of one
does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter
thereon, a de jure tenant. This is so because unless a person has established his
status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered
by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws.
• Therefore, the fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy
relationship. Certainly, it is not unusual for a landowner to accept some of the
produce of his land from someone who plants certain crops thereon. This is a
typical and laudable provinciano trait of sharing or patikim, a native way of
expressing gratitude for favor received. This, however, does not automatically
make the tiller-sharer a tenant thereof specially when the area tilled is only 60,
or even 500, square meters and located in an urban area and in the heart of an
industrial or commercial zone at that. Tenancy status arises only if an occupant
of a parcel of land has been given its possession for the primary purpose of
agricultural production. The circumstances of this case indicate that the private
respondent’s status is more of a caretaker who was allowed by the owner out of
benevolence or compassion to live in the premises and to have a garden of some
sort at its southwestern side rather than a tenant of the said portion.
Agricultural production as the primary purpose being absent in the
arrangement, it is clear that the private respondent was never a tenant of the
former owner, Andrea Millenes. Consequently, Sec. 10 of RA 3844, as amended,
does not apply. Simply stated, the private respondent is not a tenant of the
herein petitioner.
Hilario vs. IAC (G.R. No. 70736)
• The requirements set by law for the existence of a tenancy relationship, to wit:
o (1) The parties are the landholder and tenant;
o (2) The subject is agricultural land;
o (3) The purpose is agricultural production; and
o (4) There is consideration; have not been met by the private respondent.
• From the foregoing, it is clear that Corazon Pengson did not give her consent to
Baltazar to work on her land consisting of only 1,740 square meters. We agree
with the CAR when it said. 'The law accords the landholder the right to initially
choose his tenant to work on his land. For this reason, tenancy relationship can
only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder through lawful
means and not by imposition or usurpation. So the mere cultivation of the land
by usurper cannot confer upon him any legal right to work the land as tenant
and enjoy the protection of security of tenure of the law.
• The disputed lots were acquired at a foreclosure sale from the Philippine
National Bank. They were purchased as residential lots and the deed of sale
describes them as "residential." The inspection and appraisal report of the PNB
classified the land as residential. The declaration of real property on the basis of
which taxes are paid and approved by the Acting Provincial Assessor of Bulacan
classifies the land as residential. The tax declarations show that the 841 square
meter lot is assessed for tax purposes at P25,236.00 while the 899 square meter
lot is assessed at P26,920.00. The owner states that the land has only bananas
and pomelos on it. But even if the claim of the private respondent that some corn
was planted on the lots is true, this does not convert residential land into
agricultural land.
• A lot inside the poblacion should be presumed residential, or commercial or non-
agricultural unless there is clearly preponderant evidence to show that it is
agricultural.
• The respondent court also failed to note that the alleged tenant pays no rental
or share to the landowners. Baltazar made a vague allegation that he shared 70-
30 and 50-50 of the produce in his favor. The former owner flatly denied that she
ever received anything from him.
Qua vs CA (G.R. No. 95318) – Personal Cultivation
 • The situation obtaining in this case still lacks three of the afore-enumerated
requisites, namely: Agricultural production, personal cultivation and sharing of
harvests.
• It is clear from the foregoing that the source of livelihood of private respondents
is not derived from the lots they are allegedly tenanting. This conclusion is
further supported by private respondent Carmen Carillo’s assertion that the
auto repair shop was constructed with the consent of petitioner’s predecessor-in-
interest for whom her husband served as a driver-mechanic.
• Under the foregoing, private respondent Carmen Carillo is not entitled to be
considered an agricultural tenant. Therefore, she may be not allowed the use of
a home lot, a privilege granted by Section 35 of Republic Act No. 3844, as
amended, in relation to Section 22 (3) of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, only
to persons satisfying the qualifications of agricultural tenants of coconut lands.
From private respondents’ manner of caring for the lots, it is also apparent that
making the same agriculturally viable was not the main purpose of their
occupancy, or else they should have immediately replanted coconut trees in place
of those that did not survive. Indeed, the location of their auto repair shop being
near the poblacion and along the highway, private respondents chose to neglect
the cultivation and propagation of coconuts, having earned, through the
automobile repair shop, more than enough not only for their livelihood but also
for the construction of two other dwelling houses thereon. It is also intimated by
the Regional Trial Court that there is no direct evidence to confirm that the
parties herein observed the sharing scheme allegedly set-up between private
respondents and petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest.
Guerrero vs. CA (G.R. No. L-44570) – Cultivation
• The law defines “agricultural tenancy” 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.
• A farmhand or agricultural laborer is “any agricultural salary or piece worker
but is not limited to a farmworker of a particular farm employer unless this Code
expressly provides otherwise, and any individual whose work has ceased as a
consequence of, or in connection with, a current agrarian dispute or an unfair
labor practice and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular
employment.”
• Cultivation is another important factor in determining the existence of tenancy
relationships. It is admitted that it had been one Conrado Caruruan, with others,
who had originally cleared the land in question and planted the coconut trees,
with the respondent coming to work in the landholding only after the same were
already fruit bearing. The mere fact that it was not respondent Benitez who had
actually seeded the land does not mean that he is not a tenant of the land. The
definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling, plowing or harrowing
of the land. It includes the promotion of 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. Unlike rice, the
planting of coconut seedlings does not need harrowing and plowing. Holes are
merely dug on the ground of sufficient depth and distance, the seedlings placed
in the holes and the surface thereof covered by soil. Some coconut trees are
planted only every thirty to a hundred years. The major work in raising coconuts
begins when the coconut trees are already fruit-bearing. Then it is cultivated by
smudging or smoking the plantation, taking care of the coconut trees, applying
fertilizer, weeding and watering, thereby increasing the produce. The fact that
respondent Benitez, together with his family, handles all phases of farmwork
from clearing the landholding to the processing of copra, although at times with
the aid of hired laborers, thereby cultivating the land, shows that he is a tenant,
not a mere farm laborer.
4. Right of security of tenure
Talavera vs CA (G.R. No. 77830)
• “Extinguishment of agricultural leasehold relation.—The agricultural leasehold
relation established under this Code shall be extinguished by:
o (1) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the
agricultural lessor;
o (2) Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural lessee,
written notice of which shall be served three months in advance; or
o (3) Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to the lessee,
in the event of death or permanent incapacity of the lessee.
• The petitioners invoke voluntary surrender under Paragraph 2 of Section 8 as
the reason for the end of the tenancy relationship. Voluntary surrender, as a
mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations, does not require any court
authorization considering that it involves the tenant’s own volition. To protect
the tenant’s right to security of tenure, voluntary surrender, as contemplated
by law, must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent evidence.
The tenant’s intention to surrender the landholding cannot be presumed, much
less determined by mere implication. Otherwise, the right of a tenant to
security of tenure becomes an illusory one.
• Standing by itself, the March 30, 1973 Casunduan indicates, as contended by the
petitioners, a voluntary relinquishment of tenancy rights. It states that on his
own initiative, Jose Laxamana went to the Talaveras and requested that he be
allowed to sell his “puesto cung asican” or “the plot I am farming” to the couple.
A subscribing witness, Ermela Lumanlan testified on the voluntary sale of
tenancy rights for P1,000.00, her signing as a witness at the bottom of the
contract, and Laxamana’s signing the document. The argument of the private
respondent that under Section 28 of the Agrarian Reform Code, a voluntary
surrender to be valid must be “due to circumstances more advantageous to him
and his family” is double-edged. There appears no question that Laxamana
needed money to pay for the expenses incident to the illness of his wife which led
to her death. The money was to his advantage. The agreement was prepared by
petitioner Visitacion A. Talavera. Laxamana could hardly sign his own name.
He was clearly at a disadvantage in the execution of the contract and the wording
of the agreement. The intention to give up the landholding must be gleaned from
evidence in addition to the document which was signed by an ignorant and
illiterate peasant in an hour of emotional stress and financial need.
Endaya vs. CA (G.R. No. 88113)
• R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as amended by R.A. No. 6839 (1971), which is the relevant
law governing the events at hand, abolished share tenancy throughout the
Philippines from 1971 and established the agricultural leasehold system by
operation of law. Section 7 of the said law gave agricultural lessees security of
tenure by providing the following: “The agricultural leasehold relation once
established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue
working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The
agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and
cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein
provided.” 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 extinguishment of the agricultural leasehold relation.
• Hence, transactions involving the agricultural land over which an agricultural
leasehold subsists resulting in change of ownership, e.g., sale, or transfer of legal
possession, such as lease, will not terminate the rights of the agricultural lessee
who is given protection by the law by making such rights enforceable against the
transferee or the landowner’s successor in interest.
• In the instant case, private respondent has been cultivating the subject farm
landholding with a fifty-fifty (50-50) sharing arrangement with the Spouses San
Diego, petitioners predecessors-in-inter-est. The passage of R.A. 6839 in 1971,
amending R.A. 3844 (1963), secured to private respondent all the rights
pertaining to an agricultural lessee. The execution of a lease agreement between
the Spouses San Diego and Regino Cassanova in 1974 did not terminate private
respondent’s status as an agricultural lessee. The fact that private respondent
knew of, and consented to, the said lease contract by signing as witness to the
agreement may not be construed as a waiver of his rights as an agricultural
lessee. On the contrary, it was his right to know about the lease contract since,
as a result of the agreement, he had to deal with a new person instead of with
the owners directly as he used to. No provision may be found in the lease contract
and the renewal contract even intimating that private respondent has waived
his rights as an agricultural lessee.
Milestone Realty vs CA (G.R. No. 135999) – succession
• Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3844 is clear and unequivocal in providing for the
rules on succession to tenancy rights. A close examination of the provision leaves
no doubt as to its rationale of providing for continuity in agricultural leasehold
relation in case of death or incapacity of a party. To this end, it provides that in
case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his
landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and
the person who can cultivate the land-holding personally.
• As an owner, Carolina has the right to dispose of the property without other
limitations than those established by law. This attribute of ownership is
impliedly recognized in Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, where
the law allows the agricultural lessor to sell the landholding, with or without the
knowledge of the agricultural lessee and at the same time recognizes the right
of preemption and redemption of the agricultural lessee. Thus, the existence of
tenancy rights of agricultural lessee cannot affect nor derogate from the right of
the agricultural lessor as owner to dispose of the property. The only right of the
agricultural lessee or his successor in interest is the right of preemption and/or
redemption.
• As the owner, it is within her right to execute a deed of sale of said landholding,
without prejudice however to the tenancy rights and the right of redemption of
Delia Razon Peña. In Manuel, we held that the tenancy relationship is not
affected or severed by the change of ownership. The new owner is under the
obligation to respect and maintain the tenant’s landholding. In turn, Delia Razon
Peña, as the successor tenant, has the legal right of redemption. This right of
redemption is statutory in character. It attaches to a particular landholding by
operation of law.
Villaviza vs Panganiban (G.R. No. L-19760) – Prescription of action
• A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under Republic Act 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.
5. Right of pre-emption and redemption
Basbas vs Entena (G.R. No. L-21812)
• In legal preemption or redemption under the Civil Code of the Philippines,
written notice of the sale to all possible redemptioner is indispensable. Mere
knowledge of the sale, acquired in some other manner by the redemptioner, is
not sufficient.
• Article 1623 of the Civil Code does not prescribe any particular form of notice, or
distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner. So long, therefore, as the
latter is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the 30-day
period for redemption starts running. In the case at bar, the redemptioner admit
that their coowner-vendor gave them a copy of the deed of sale of his undivided
share in favor of respondent spouses. The furnishing of this copy was equivalent
to the giving of written notice required by law; it came from the vendor and made
available in writing the details or finality of the sale. As a necessary
consequence, the 30-day period for the legal redemption began to run from the
date of receipt of said deed of sale.
• Bona fide redemption necessarily imports a reasonable and valid tender of the
entire repurchase price. There is no cogent reason for requiring the vendee to
accept payment by installments from a redemptioner, as it would ultimately
result in an indefinite extension of the 30-day redemption period, when the
purpose of the law in fixing a short and definite term is clearly to avoid prolonged
and anti-economic uncertainty as to ownership of the thing sold.
• The right of redemption pertaining to a co-owner should be exercised by means
of a valid payment or tender of the redemption price within the thirty-day period.
The buyer of the co-owner’s share cannot be compelled to accept payment of the
redemption price in installments. The diligence of the co-owner in asserting
willingness to redeem is immaterial. Timeliness and completeness of payment
or tender are the things that matter.
6. Lawful Consideration

Tan vs Pollescas (G.R. No. 145568)
• Section 7 of RA 3844 as amended provides that once there is a leasehold
relationship, as in the present case, the landowner cannot eject the agricultural
tenant from the land unless authorized by the court for causes provided by law.
RA 3844 as amended expressly recognizes and protects an agricultural leasehold
tenant’s right to security of tenure. Section 36 of RA 3844 as amended
enumerates the grounds for dispossession of the tenant’s landholding, to wit:
SEC. 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions.—Notwithstanding any
agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee
shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when
his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final
and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
o (1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon
recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited for
residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes:
Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance
compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests
on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years;
o (2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the
terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of this Code
unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;
o (3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a
purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon;
o (4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as
determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;
o (5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is
substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated
through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lessee;
o (6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls
due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop
failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous
event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession,
although the obligation to pay the rental due that particular crop is not
thereby extinguished; or
o (7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of
the terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.
• For non-payment of the lease rental to be a valid ground to dispossess the
agricultural lessee of the landholding, the amount of the lease rental must first
of all be lawful. If the amount of lease rental claimed exceeds the limit allowed
by law, non-payment of lease rental cannot be a ground to dispossess the
agricultural lessee of the landholding. Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended
mandates that “not x x x more than” 25% of the average normal harvest shall
constitute the just and fair rental for leasehold. In this case, the Tan Heirs
demanded Reynalda to deliver 2/3 of the harvest as lease rental, which clearly
exceeded the 25% maximum amount prescribed by law. Therefore, the Tan Heirs
cannot validly dispossess Reynalda of the landholding for non-payment of rental
precisely because the lease rental claimed by the Tan Heirs is unlawful. Even
assuming Reynalda agreed to deliver 2/3 of the harvest as lease rental, Reynalda
is not obliged to pay such lease rental for being unlawful. There is no legal basis
to demand payment of such unlawful lease rental. The courts will not enforce
payment of a lease rental that violates the law. There was no validly fixed lease
rental demandable at the time of the harvests. Thus, Reynalda was never in
default.
• Reynalda and the Tan Heirs failed to agree on a lawful lease rental. Accordingly,
the DAR must first fix the provisional lease rental payable by Reynalda to the
Tan Heirs pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 34 of RA 3844 as
amended. Until the DAR has fixed the provisional lease rental, Reynalda cannot
be in default in the payment of lease rental since such amount is not yet
determined. There can be no delay in the payment of an undetermined lease
rental because it is impossible to pay an undetermined amount. That Reynalda
is not yet in default in the payment of the lease rental is a basic reason why she
cannot be lawfully ejected from the Land for non-payment of rental.
• Only in the instances stated in Sections 8 and 28 of RA 3844 as amended can
leasehold relation be terminated. These provisions read: SEC. 8.
Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation.—The agricultural
leasehold relation established under this Code shall be extinguished by:
o (1) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the
agricultural lessor;
o (2) Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural lessee,
written notice of which shall be served three months in advance; or
o (3) Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to the lessee,
in the event of death or permanent incapacity of the lessee. SEC. 28.
• Termination of Leasehold by Agricultural Lessee During Agricultural Year.—
The agricultural lessee may terminate the leasehold during the agricultural year
for any of the following causes:
o (1) Cruel, inhuman or offensive treatment of the agricultural lessee or
any member of his immediate farm household by the agricultural lessor
or his representative with the knowledge and consent of the lessor;
o (2) Non-compliance on the part of the agricultural lessor with any of the
obligations imposed upon him by the provisions of this Code or by his
contract with the agricultural lessee;
o (3) Compulsion of the agricultural lessee or any member of his
immediate farm household by the agricultural lessor to do any work or
render any service not in any way connected with farm work or even
without compulsion if no compensation is paid;
o (4) Commission of a crime by the agricultural lessor or his
representative against the agricultural lessee or any member of his
immediate farm household; or
o (5) Voluntary surrender due to circumstances more advantageous to
him and his family.
7. Share tenancy, abolition
RA 1199, Sec 4
Section 4. Systems of Agricultural Tenancy; Their Definitions. - Agricultural tenancy is lands, inasmuch as the vested rights of a share tenant to security of tenure would
classified into leasehold tenancy and share tenancy. be adversely affected thereby .
• Agricultural Tenancy Act (RA 1199) and the Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA
3844) have not been entirely repealed by the Code of Agrarian Reform (RA 6389)
Share tenancy exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for
even if the same have been substantially modified by the latter. However, even
agricultural production wherein one party furnishes the land and the other his labor, assuming such an abrogation of the law, the rule that the repeal of a statute
with either or both contributing any one or several of the items of production, the tenant defeats all actions pending under the repealed statute is a mere general
cultivating the land personally with the aid of labor available from members of his principle. Among the established exceptions are when vested rights are affected
immediate farm household, and the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and obligations of contract are impaired.
and the tenant in proportion to their respective contributions.
8. Latest A.O. on Leasehold
Leasehold tenancy exists when a person who, either personally or with the aid
of labor available form members of his immediate farm household, undertakes to
cultivate a piece of agricultural land susceptible of cultivation by a single person together
with members of his immediate farm household, belonging to or legally possessed by,
another in consideration of a fixed amount in money or in produce or in both.

Hidalgo vs Hidalgo (G.R. No. L-25326)

• The very essence of the Agricultural Land Reform Code is the abolition of
agricultural share tenancy as proclaimed in its title. Section 4 of the Code
expressly-outlaws agricultural share tenancy as "contrary to public policy."
section 2 of the Code expressly declares it to be the policy of the State to
"establish owner cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm as the basis
of Philippine agriculture and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in
agriculture to industrial development; to achieve a dignified existence for the
small farmers free from pernicious institutional restraints and practices; x x x
and to make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible
citizens, and a source of strength in our democratic society."
Guerrero vs. CA (G.R. No. L-44570)
• The law defines “agricultural tenancy” 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.
• With petitioner reference to this case, “share tenancy” exists whenever two
persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural production wherein one
party furnishes the land and the other his labor, with either or both contributing
any one or several of the items of production, the tenant cultivating the land
with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household,
and the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant in
proportion to their respective contributions.
• An agreement which states that the rights 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 by
R.A. 3844, which abolished share tenancy and which does not include coconut