any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy, stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership. “tenancy relationship”

ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES landowner

1) Parties tenants

2) Subject matter is agricultural land

3) Consent of parties

4) Purpose is agricultural production

5) Personal cultivation by tenant

6) Sharing of harvest between parties All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make

one a tenant.

Isidro v. CA

Private resp is owner of land; Sister of priv resp allowed Isidro to

occupy swampy portion subject to condition to vacate upon demand

Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed against Isidro;

RTC dismissed bec land is agricultural and so agrarian;

SC: Jurisdiction over subject matter

determined from allegations of complaint Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense

of tenancy relationship and only after hearing that, if tenancy is shown, the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

Case involving agri land does not automatically make such case agrarian

Six requisites not present; No contract to cultivate; Petitioner failed to substantiate claim that

he was paying rent for use of land

SUPLICO v. CA Suplico is a lessee of rice land Private respondent was allowed by Suplico to till the land

while Suplico will provide the farm implements and thereafter Suplico was to receive cavans from the palay by way of rental

years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv. resp. from the property

So private respondent filed an action for damages against Suplico in CAR

Resp. Owner intervened in case and alleged the absence of contractual relationship

Trial court declared private respondent as agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA.

SC: SC found no reasons to disturb findings

i. 1. private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a farmhouse just like what a farm tenant normally would

ii. Private resp. and wife were personally plowing, planting, weeding and harvesting.

iii. Management was left entirely to private respondent

iv. Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico.

2. MONSANTO v. ZERNA: tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing

Sps. Zerna were charged with qualified theft for the taking of coconuts owned by petitioner.

They were acquitted but required Zerna to return P1,100 to Monsanto on the ground that Monsanto did not consent to harvest of coconut.

Who is entitled to P1,100 proceeds of copra sale. This falls under DARAB

There is Agrarian dispute:

1. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts

2. private respondents were overseers at time of taking by virtue of Agreement .

Cont. of Monsanto v. Zerna

tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing, expressly or impliedly

- here there was agreement which contradicts petitioner’s contention that private respondents are mere overseers. Being overseers does not foreclose their being tenants.

3. Petitioner allowed respondent to plant coconut, etc.

4. Harvests: receipts of remittance by respondent

Monsanto v. Zerna

Petitioner is claiming the amount of P1,100 as balance from proceeds of copra sale.

Private respondents contend that this P1,100 is their compensation pursuant to tenurial arrangements.

Since this amount is intertwined with the resolution of agra dispute, CA correctly ruled that DARAB has jurisdiction.

RTC has only jurisdiction over criminal and it acted beyond when it ruled that agri tenancy between parties. This belongs to DARAB.

BEJASA v. CA

FACTS:

• Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she

leased to Malabanan. • Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it, with

all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan. • Bejasas continued to stay on the land and did not give any

consideration for its use, be it in the form of rent or a shared harvest

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in

favor of the Bejasas

SC: Court found that there was no tenancy relationship

between the parties. There was no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay on the land . There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of tenancy were met in this case

BEJASA v. CA :

No proof of sharing in harvest - while Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasa’s word was

presented to prove this. Besides testimony was suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa testified that he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owner’s share, yet at one time, he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% for owner.

- landowners never gave consent

citing Chico vs. CA , 284 534 – “self serving statement are inadequate, proof must be adhered”

-even assuming that landowner agreed to lease it for P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove tenancy . Consideration should be harvest sharing.

VALENCIA v. CAFACTS:• Valencia, owner of land, leased the property for five (5)years to

Fr. Andres Flores under a civil law lease concept;• lease with prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the land

without Valencia’s written consent. • During the period of his lease, private respondents were

instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia• After lease, Valencia demanded vacate but refused;• Private respondents were later awarded with CLTs after they

filed application with DAR;• CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA.

ISSUE: Tenancy/Can a contract of civil law lease prohibit a civil law

lessee from employing a tenant on the land subject matter of the lease agreement?

SC: • An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not

make the case an agrarian dispute. The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the claimant to security of tenure.

• A tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. With respect to the lease agreement between Valencia and Fr. Flores, the lessee did not have any authority to sublease Valencia's property due to the prohibition in their lease agreement

• R.A. No. 3844, as amended, does not automatically authorize a civil law lessee to employ a tenant without the consent of the landowner. The lessee must be so specifically authorized;

• A different interpretation would create a perverse and absurd situation where a person who wants to be a tenant, and taking advantage of this perceived ambiguity in the law, asks a third person to become a civil law lessee of the landowner. Incredibly, this tenant would technically have a better right over the property than the landowner himself

ALMUETE v. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership)

Facts: Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land Unknown to Almuete, Andres was awarded homestead

patent due to investigation report that Almuete was unknown and waived his rights; Andres also represented that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for radiophone set and that Masiglat sold to him for a carabao and P600.

Almuete filed an action for recovery of possession and reconveyance before trial court.

Issue is who between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property.

SC:

This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so, beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute

No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged between petitioners and respondent.

RTC was competent to try the case.

PASONG BAYABAS v. CA : “no evidence”

Development of land: converted from agricultural to residential as approved by DAR.

Petitioners, claimed actual tillers of land, filed complaint for damages alleging surreptitious conversion; priv resp denied cultivation; waiver of rights was executed by some

SC : no tenancy no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are

tenants; waiver of rights constitutes abandonment no substantial evidence that private respondent is landlord No possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner. Cultivation / possession not proven

Pasong Bayabas

As to the remaining twenty and more other complainants, it is unfortunate that they have not shown that their cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim to till have been by authority of a valid contract of agricultural tenancy.

On the contrary, as admitted in their complaint a number of them have simply occupied the premises in suit without any specific area of tillage being primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives

ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA : “tenancy is not presumed”

Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent Petitioner is claiming tenancy DARAB considered petitioner a tenant; CA reversed

SC: Tenancy is not presumed.

No evidence to prove consent of parties and sharing of harvest

SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to prove the existence of the following elements: (a) the consent of the parties and (b) the sharing of harvests

HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA

FACTS: Jugalbot was issued EP; EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp before

DARAB and seek cancellation of title and recovery possession; on appeal, DARAB upheld but CA reversed

HEIRS OF JUGALBOT v. CA

SC: Absence of tenancy relationship. taking of property violated due process (CA was correct in

pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due process because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to the proper party); no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of the property;

By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due process

no concrete evidence of cultivation; No proof was presented except for their self-serving statements Independent evidence, aside from self-serving

statements, is needed. plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of US Army

and migrated to US and returned only in 1998, wife and daughter were residents of California

Land involved is residential and not agricultural because of zoning ordinance

Coverage

Section 4:

All alienable and disposable public lands All private lands devoted to or suitable to

agriculture

Schedule of implementation – Sec. 5

“The distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten years from effectivity hereof.”

Sec. 63: “The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the period of ten years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 299. xxx.”

RA 8542: amended Sec. 63 as follows: “The amount needed to implement this Act until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund.”

RA 9700, Sec. 21:

“The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00)”