5. Danan v.

CA
G.R. No. 132759, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 113
Ponente: Tinga / 2nd Division

FACTS: Petitioners are residents of Lubao, Pampanga, claiming to be cultivating a

landholding with a total area of about 300 has. owned by the Arrastia heirs. Respondent
Estrella Arrastia is the owner of the 4.4630 has. of the disputed land.

In 1976, Rustico leased the disputed property for twelve (12) years until crop
year 1987 to 1988. However, on September 27, 1986, herein petitioners, claiming to be
farmers, signed a resolution as Aniban ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura (AMA)
members to enter and lease the said property from the Arrastia heirs. The resolution
was endorsed by the then-Pampanga governor to the then-Minister of Environment and
Natural Resources, and on that basis, petitioners entered the disputed land and planted
thereon, even absent the consent of its owners. A confrontation took place on May 21,
1988, which led to the filing of charges against the petitioners.

Petitioners then sued before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication

Board (DARAB), with a prayer that Arrastia be prevented from destroying their crops
and from fencing the property, and instead, allow them to continue planting thereon. It
was submitted to DARAB that there were substantially significant plantings on the said
land, and another report was made indicating the recommendation of the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Lubao to disqualify the AMA members from
availing of the benefits under the CARP; hence, their motion for authority to cultivate
was denied. Their Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was likewise denied.

Arrastia instituted an action, on behalf of her co-heirs, against petitioners for

violation of Section 73(b) of R.A. No. 6657. The trial court, acting as a special agrarian
court (SAC), enjoined petitioners from entering and cultivating the property.
Petitioners, on the other hand, sued before the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (PARAD) against Arrastia, claiming that they were actual tillers of
the property who were forcibly evicted by private respondent through the use of armed
men. The Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee of San Rafael, Lubao confirmed that
petitioners were tenants or actual tillers of the land. The PARAD hearing officer then
granted the preliminary injunction restraining Arrastia from disturbing petitioners in
their tilling, and directed the MARO to act on the petition for the coverage of the
disputed property under the CARP.

PARAD ruled in favor of petitioners in saying that the property is covered by

CARP, that petitioners are qualified beneficiaries of it, and prohibited Arrastia from
disturbing their occupation. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision; hence,
this petition.

ISSUES: (1) Whether petitioners are qualified beneficiaries under the CARP.

RULING: (1) No, petitioners are not qualified beneficiaries under the CARP. Based on
the MARO report submitted, herein petitioners committed specific violations which
disqualify them from being qualified beneficiaries of CARP, and the same was not
denied by all the petitioners.

In denying the petition, the Court further held that: “Mere occupation or
cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert a tiller or farmworker
into an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws. The essential requisites of a
tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject
is agricultural land; (3) there is consent among the parties; (4) the purpose is
agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of
harvests. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship
between the parties. In the case at bar, it has not been sufficiently established that
private petitioners' occupation and cultivation of the disputed property was with the
consent of the landowners.”