LIST OF CASES

Luz Farms v. The Honorable Secretary of DAR (192 SCRA 51,

1
1990)
2 PNR vs. Del Valle, G.R. No. L-29381, September 30, 1968
3 Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil 461
4 Morta vs. Occidental, G.R. No. 123417 (June 10, 1999)
5 The Heirs of Jose Juanite vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138016
6 Hon. Antonio M. Nuesa vs. CA, G.R. No. 132048, March 6, 2002
7 Almuetes vs. Andres, G.R. No. 122276, November 20, 2001
Spouses Atuel, et.,al., vs. Spouses Bernabe Valdez, G.R. No.
8
139561, June 10, 2003
9 Chico vs. CA, 284 SCRA 33 (1998)
Laguna Estates Development Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No.
10
119357, July 5, 2002
G.R. No. 86889 December 4, 1990
LUZ FARMS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent

FACTS:
Luz Farms, petitioner, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry
business. Petitioner herein questions the constitutionality of some provisions of RA
6657, specifically Section 11 which defines "commercial farms" as "private agricultural
lands devoted to commercial, livestock, poultry and swine raising".

ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 11 is constitutional.

RULING:
NO.

Livestock or poultry raising is not similar to crop or tree farming. Land is not the
primary resource in this undertaking and represents no more than five percent (5%) of
the total investment of commercial livestock and poultry raisers. Indeed, there are many
owners of residential lands all over the country who use available space in their
residence for commercial livestock and raising purposes, under "contract-growing
arrangements," whereby processing corporations and other commercial livestock and
poultry raisers. Lands support the buildings and other amenities attendant to the raising
of animals and birds. The use of land is incidental to but not the principal factor or
consideration in productivity in this industry. Including backyard raisers, about 80% of
those in commercial livestock and poultry production occupy five hectares or less. The
remaining 20% are mostly corporate farms.

It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A. 6657 which
includes "private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine
raising" in the definition of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the extent that the aforecited
agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the
State. There is simply no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage
of agrarian reform.
G.R. No. L-29381 September 30, 1969.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS and PANTALEON BINGABING, petitioners, vs.
HON. VALERIANO A. DEL VALLE, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of
Agrarian Relations and PAMPILO DOLTZ, respondents

FACTS:
PNR, a government-owned corporation, is the registered owner of 3 strips of land
with a uniform width of 30 meters. These strips of land lie within the municipalities of
Oas and Polangui, Province of Albay. The center of the land, measuring 10-12 meters,
is where the rail tracks are installed. On both sides of the track, measuring 2-5 meters is
where the telephone posts and maintenance materials are placed by PNR. These lands
on the sides of the track are the subject of this case.

In 1963, PNR leased the unused lands for agricultural purposes to Pantaleon
Bingabing. However, the possession did not take place because Pampilo Doltz already
claims to be a tenant of the subject land. The petitioners filed a suit for recovery of
possession against Doltz. The CFI however dismissed the case on the grounds of lack
of jurisdiction. The CAR took over the case.

Petitioners herein contend that the subject land is not an agricultural land
therefore the CAR does not have jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the land here involved is an agricultural land within the meaning
of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code?

RULING:
NO.

The term "agricultural land" as understood in the Agricultural Tenancy Act and
the Agricultural Land Reform Code is nor as broad in meaning as it is known in the
constitutional sense. As interpreted in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, the phrase
"agricultural land," constitutionally speaking, includes all lands that are neither mineral
nor timber lands and embraces within its wide sweep not only lands strictly agricultural
or devoted to cultivation for agricultural purposes but also commercial, industrial,
residential lands and lands for other purposes. On the other hand, 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.

The strips of land owned by Philippine National Railways (PNR) which are on
both sides of its railroad track, are part of its right of way for its railroad operations but
temporarily leased, are not agricultural lands within the purview of the Agricultural
Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code, such as would come within the
jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
G.R. No. L-630 November 15, 1947
ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO, petitioner and appellant, vs. THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS, CITY OF MANILA, respondent and appellee.

FACTS:
Alexander A. Krivenko, alien, bought a residential lot from the Magdalena Estate,
Inc., in December of 1941, the registration of which was interrupted by the war. In May,
1945, he sought to accomplish said registration but was denied by the register of deeds
of Manila on the ground that, being an alien, he cannot acquire land in this jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
Whether or not aliens may acquire private or public agricultural lands, including
residential lands.

RULING:
NO.

Under section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution, "natural resources, with the
exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated," and with respect to public
agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. But this constitutional
purpose conserving agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be
defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in
favor of aliens. It is partly to prevent this result that section 5 is included in Article XIII,
and it reads as follows: "Sec. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines."

This constitutional provision closes the only remaining avenue through which
agricultural resources may leak into aliens' hands. It would certainly be futile to prohibit
the alienation of public agricultural lands to aliens if, after all, they may be freely so
alienated upon their becoming private agricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citizens.
Undoubtedly, as above indicated, section 5 is intended to insure the policy of
nationalization contained in section 1. Both sections must, therefore, be read together
for they have the same purpose and the same subject matter. It must be noticed that
the persons against whom the prohibition is directed in section 5 are the very same
persons who under section 1 are disqualified "to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain in the Philippines." And the subject matter of both sections is the same, namely,
the non-transferability of "agricultural land" to aliens. Since "agricultural land" under
section 1 includes residential lots, the same technical meaning should be attached to
"agricultural land" under section 5. It is a rule of statutory construction that "a word or
phrase repeated in a statute will bear the same meaning throughout the statute, unless
a different intention appears." The only difference between "agricultural land" under
section 1, and "agricultural land" under section 5, is that the former is public and the
latter private. But such difference refers to ownership and not to the class of land. The
lands are the same in both sections, and, for the conservation of the national patrimony,
what is important is the nature or class of the property regardless of whether it is owned
by the State or by its citizens.

If, as conceded by all the members of this Court, residential lands of the public
domain should be considered as agricultural lands to be protected as part of the
national patrimony, there can be no reason why residential lands of private ownership
should not deserve the same consideration and protection. There is absolutely no
difference in nature, character, value or importance. to the nation between a residential
land of the public domain and a residential land of private ownership, and, therefore,
both should equally be considered as agricultural lands to be protected as part of the
national patrimony. Specially is this so where, as indicated above, the prohibition as to
the alienation of public residential lots may become superfluous if the same prohibition
is not equally applied to private residential lots. Indeed, the prohibition as to private
residential lands will eventually become more important, for time will come when, in
view of the constant disposition of public lands in favor of private individuals, almost all,
if not all, the residential lands of the public domain shall have become private residential
lands.
 The constitutional intent is made more patent and is strongly implemented by an
Act of the National Assembly passed soon after the Constitution was approved. We are
referring again to Commonwealth Act No. 141. Prior to the Constitution, there were in
the Public Land Act No. 2874 provisions contained in sections 120 and 121 thereof
which granted to aliens the right to acquire private agricultural lands only by way of
reciprocity. Then came the Constitution, and Commonwealth Act No. 141 was passed
containing sections 122 and 123 which strike out completely the right of reciprocity
granted to aliens. This, undoubtedly, is to conform to the absolute policy contained in
section 5 of Article XIII of the Constitution, which, in prohibiting the alienation of private
agricultural lands to aliens, grants them no right of reciprocity.
G.R. No. 123417 June 10, 1999
JAIME MORTA, SR. and PURIFICACION PADILLA, petitioners, vs. JAIME
OCCIDENTAL, ATTY. MARIANO BARANDA, JR., and DANIEL CORRAL,
respondents

FACTS:
Petitioners Jaime Morta, Sr. and Purificacion Padilla filed 2 cases against
respondents Jaime Occidental, Atty. Mariano Baranda, Jr. and Daniel Corral. The
petitioners alleged that through instigation, the respondent gathered their crops and
produce and destroyed thei banana and pineapple plants. In their answer, respondents
claimed that petitioners were not the owners of the land in question. They alleged that
the torrens titles of the land indicated a certain Gil Opiana as the registered owner.
Respondent claims that he is the bona fide tenant of the land.

The MTC ruled in favor of the Petitioners. Respondents appealed to the RTC
questioning the trial court's jurisdiction contending that the case was cognizable by the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). The RTC and CA ruled in
favor of the Respondents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.

RULING:
NO.

For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy
relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a
dispute, it would be essential to 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 shared between the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee.

In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals, we held that the jurisdiction of the

Department of Agrarian Reforms 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.

Whoever is declared to be the rightful owner of the land, the case can not be
considered as tenancy-related for it still fails to comply with the other requirements.
Assuming arguendo that Josefina Opiana-Baraclan is the owner, then the case is not
between the landowner and tenant. If, however, Morta is the landowner, Occidental can
not claim that there is consent to a landowner-tenant relationship between him and
Morta. Thus, for failure to comply with the above requisites, we conclude that the issue
involved is not tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB.
G.R. No. 138016 January 30, 2002
THE HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE (Namely: NICOLASA OSLOB Vda. De JUANITE, FE
JUANITE HEINEN, LUZ JUANITE LAM, HOMER JUANITE, THELMA JUANITE
REDOBLE, MAMERTO JUANITE, HERMINIO JUANITE, MA. ELENA JUANITE,
ERMERALDINA JUANITE and JOSIENICK JUANITE) and NICOLASA OSLOB Vda.
De JUANITE, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. EDILBERTO
ROMERO and FELISA MERCADO, MACARIO SANCHEZ, EFREN PANIA and PIO
YONSON, respondents

FACTS:
The spouses Edilberto Romero and Felisa Romero owned a piece of agricultural
land in Alegria, Surigao del Norte. On different dates, the Romeros sold separate
portions thereof to Efren Pania, Macario Sanchez and Pio Yonson. Claiming to be the
agricultural tenants of the land in question, Jose Juanite (now deceased) and his wife,
Nicolasa O. Juanite, filed a complaint with the Provincial Agricultural Reform
Adjudication Board (PARAB), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), against the
spouses Edilberto and Felisa Mercado and their vendees for the cancellation of the
sales adverted to and for the Juanites to exercise their right of redemption pursuant to
RA No. 3844.

Edilberto Romero, et al., as defendants, filed their answer with special and
affirmative defenses. They alleged that the Romeros, being the owners of the property,
had the perfect right to sell any portion thereof to any person. They strongly denied the
allegation of the Juanites that the latter were their tenants.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners were tenants of the Romero spouses
(respondents) as to entitle them to the right of redemption.
RULING:
YES.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that 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. 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.

However, we agree with the petitioners that with the landowners' admission that
petitioners were tenants on the subject landholding, the element of "sharing harvest" is
assumed as a factual element in that admission. In their answer to the complaint,
respondents denied the tenant and landlord relationship, but failed to rebut the evidence
adduced by petitioners that they were tenants.
G.R. No. 132048 March 6, 2002
HON. ANTONIO M. NUESA in his capacity as the Regional Director of DAR Region
III and RESTITUTO RIVERA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (14th
Div.), HON. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD
(DARAB) and JOSE VERDILLO, respondents.

FACTS:
The Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an "Order of Award" in favor of private
respondent Jose Verdillo over 2 parcels of agricultural land of the Buenavista Estate,
San Ildefonso, Bulacan under certain conditions. After twenty-one years, private
respondent filed an application with the DAR for the purchase of said lots claiming that
he had complied with the conditions set forth in the Order. Petitioner Restituto Rivera
filed a letter of protest against private respondent claiming that he had been in
possession of the land and had been cultivating the same. Petitioner had filed his own
application for said parcels in opposition to that of private respondent.

After DAR's investigation, it was found out that private respondent violated the
conditions of the Order of Award thus resulting to its cancellation. Aggrieved by the
cancellation of his award, private respondent then filed a petition with the Provincial
Adjudication Board. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack of
jurisdiction. The DARAB however chose to resolve the case in favor of private
respondent. The CA agreed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners' claim that the
Board (DARAB) acted in grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of its
jurisdiction.
RULING:
YES.

P.D. 946 provides that matters involving the administrative implementation of the
transfer of the land to the tenant-farmer under P.D. No. 27 and amendatory and related
decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations, shall be exclusively cognizable by
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, including: xxx (5) issuance, recall or cancellation of
certificates of land transfer in cases outside the purview of P.D. No. 816.

The revocation by the Regional Director of DAR of the earlier Order of Award by
the Secretary of Agriculture falls under the administrative functions of the DAR. The
DARAB and its provincial adjudicator or board of adjudicators acted erroneously and
with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the case, then overturning the
decision of the DAR Regional Director and deciding the case on the merits without
affording the petitioner opportunity to present his case.

As held by this Court in Centeno vs. Centeno, "the DAR is vested with the
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." The DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction "to
determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or
incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
under R.A. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. 3844 as amended by R.A. 6389,
P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations."

Under Section 3(d) of R.A. 6657 (CARP Law), "agrarian dispute" is defined to
include "(d) ...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. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners
to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants
stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant,
or lessor and lessee."

In the case at bar, petitioner and private respondent had no tenurial, leasehold,
or any agrarian relations whatsoever that could have brought this controversy between
them within the ambit of the abovecited provision. Consequently, the DARAB had no
jurisdiction over the controversy and should not have taken cognizance of private
respondent's petition in the first place.
G.R. No. 122276 November 20, 2001
RODRIGO ALMUETE and ANA ALMUETE, petitioners, vs. MARCELO ANDRES
and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents

FACTS:
The subject parcel was awarded by the then National Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) to petitioner Rodrigo Almuete. Since then,
Rodrigo Almuete exercised exclusive possession of the property, cultivating it and
planting thereon narra, fruit trees, rice, corn and legumes. Several years after,
respondent Marcelo Andres claims ownership over the said land and filed a case in
DAR and won it.

Petitoners filed an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession in the

RTC where the the court ruled in their favor and reversed the decision of the DAR.
Respondent appealed in the CA contending the jurisdiction of the RTC and herein
reversed the decision of RTC.

Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the decision contending that this
case is not as "Agrarian Dispute," hence, it does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the DARAB, but to the RTC. The CA denied the motion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

RULING:
YES.
 The action filed by petitioners before the trial court was for recovery of
possession and reconveyance of title. The issue to be resolved was who between
petitioner Rodrigo Almuete and respondent Marcelo Andres has a better right to the
subject property considering that both of them are awardees of the same property. It
was thus a controversy relating to ownership of the farmland, which is beyond the ambit
of the phrase "agrarian dispute." No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged
between petitioners and respondent, let alone that which would so characterize the
relationship as an agrarian dispute. In fact, petitioner and respondent were contending
parties for the ownership of the same parcel of land.

"Agrarian dispute" is defined under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657, as:
(d) Agrarian Dispute refers 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. It includes any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of
transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian
reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm
operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited to
cases involving a tenancy relationship between the parties. The following elements are
indispensable to establish a tenancy relationship: (1) The parties are the landowner and
the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) The subject matter of the relationship is an
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. 139561 June 10, 2003
SPOUSES FEDERICO ATUEL and SARAH ATUEL and SPOUSES GEORGE
GALDIANO and ELIADA GALDIANO, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES BERNABE
VALDEZ and CONCHITA VALDEZ, respondents

FACTS:
Atty. Manuel D. Cab ("Cab") is the registered owner of two parcels of land in
Poblacion, Sibagat, Agusan del Sur with an area of 125,804 square meters ("Cab
Property"). In 1964, Cab appointed Federico Atuel ("Atuel") as administrator of the Cab
Property. In 1978, Cab leased a 1.25-hectare portion of the Cab Property to Bernabe
Valdez. In 1982, Cab allowed the Spouses Federico and Sarah Atuel ("Spouses Atuel")
and the Spouses George and Eliada Galdiano ("Spouses Galdiano") to occupy a 2,000-
square meter portion of the Cab Property. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses
Galdiano constructed their respective houses on this 2,000-square meter lot ("Subject
Lot").

In 1985, the Cab Property was classified as residential. In 1988, Cab informed
Valdez that their lease had already expired and should vacate the same. In response,
Valdez claimed that he is now the owner of the land leased in accordance with PD 27.

Respondents filed a case in DARAB for recovery of possession with damages. In

their answer, petitioners claim that respondents have no right over the subject land.
DARAB ruled in favor of the respondents. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Spouses Valdez are entitled to seek redress from the DARAB
in recovering possession of the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot from the Spouses Atuel
and the Spouses Galdiano.

RULING:
NO.

For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a tenancy
relations between the parties. This Court held in Morta, that in order for a tenancy
agreement to take hold over a dispute, it is essential to 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 shared between the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.

In the instant case, the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano are not and do
not claim to be the owners of the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot where their houses
are constructed. They also do not claim ownership to any other portion of the PD 27
Land. They and the Spouses Valdez have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian
relations whatsoever that will bring this controversy within Section 3(d) of RA No. 6657.
The instant case is similar to Chico v. CA, where this Court ruled that the DARAB had
no jurisdiction over a case which did not involve any tenurial or agrarian relations
between the parties. Since the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the present controversy,
it should not have taken cognizance of the Spouses Valdez's complaint for recovery of
possession. Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general
jurisdiction.
G.R. No. 122704 January 5, 1998
PEDRO CHICO, represented by WILFREDO CHICO, as Attorney-in Fact, Petitioner,
vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and MARTIN MANANGHAYA and LEONILA
MANANGHAYA, Respondents

FACTS:
Petitioner, claiming to be lawful owners of a lot located in Baliuag, Bulacan, filed
an action for the recovery of possession of the property with the RTC against
respondents. In their answer, respondents claim that they are tenants of the land. The
RTC ruled in favor of petitioner.

However, the repondents initiated a petition for certiorari in CA alleging that the
RTC's decision should be void due to lack of jurisdiction, that the case is an agrarian
dispute where the DARAB should take cognizance. The CA ruled in faor of the
respondents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the dispute between the parties is agrarian in nature.

RULING:
NO.
 The complaint filed by petitioner before the trial court is one for recovery of
possession, also known as accion publiciana, and it is this averment of the complaint
that has conferred jurisdiction on that court. 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 shared
between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. 3 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. These conditions
have not been met in the case at bar.

The records of the case would fail to show any juridical tie binding between
private respondents and petitioner or their predecessors-in-interest, let alone that which
would so characterize the relationship as an agrarian dispute.
G.R. No. 119357 July 5, 2000
LAGUNA ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD (DARAB), et al., respondents

FACTS:
The 234.76 hectares of agricultural land was awarded by respondent DARAB to
farmers-beneficiaries, private respondents herein, namely: Rosa T. Amante, et al.,
Rogelio O. Ayende, et al. and Juan T. Amante, et al.

The location of the land was isolated, giving only one road access to the
property. Petitioners CSE and LEDC prohibited and denied private respondents from
utilizing the subject road network. The private respondents filed a motion in DARAB an
order for the petitioner to grant them access to the subject road.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction to grant private respondents who are
beneficiaries of an agrarian reform program or tenants of adjoining landholdings a right
of way over petitioners' network of private roads intended for their exclusive use.

RULING:
NO.
 We resolve the issue in favor of petitioners. The DARAB has no jurisdiction over
such issue. "For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy
relationship between the parties." In Heirs of Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals,
citing Morta, Sr. vs. Occidental, we held :
"For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy
relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold
over a dispute, it would be essential to 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 shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee."

Obviously, the issue of a right of way or easement over private property without
tenancy relations is outside the jurisdiction of the DARAB. This is not an agrarian
issue. Jurisdiction is vested in a court of general jurisdiction.