1961-2001 Justice Milagros German

8/10/2019 1961-2001 Justice Milagros German

1/142

JUSTICE MILAGROS A. GERMAN'S

INDEX OF SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN AGRARIAN CASES FROM

JANUARY 1961 TO 2001

A

ABANDONMENT

Gavino Corpus vs. Sps. Geronimo Grospe

G.R. No. 135297, June 8, 2000

Abandonment requires a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or

claim or to desert a right or property.

Rosello vs. Reyes99 SCRA 1

After the Trial Court found as per its decision that the tenant was not ejected

by the landowner but that he voluntarily abandoned his landholding, it is incorrect for

the Court to order his reinstatement

Teodoro vs. Macaraeg

27 SCRA 8-9

Tenant's offer to surrender leasehold on the condition that one named by him

should be accepted as his successor does not constitute abandonment.

ACTIONS

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997

266 SCRA 406

All actions pursued under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DAR, in

accordance with 50 of R.A. No. 6657, must be commenced in the PARAD of the

province where the property is located and the DARAB only has appellate jurisdiction

to review the PARAD's orders, decisions and other dispositions.

Tongson vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992

215 SCRA 428

Under Section 11, R.A. No. 1199, an action for accounting may be filed by the

tenant within three (3) years from the date of the threshing of the crop in question.

Laureto vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 95838, August 7, 1992

212 SCRA 397
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4966http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4966http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4966http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4966http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4898http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4898http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4898http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4898http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3843http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3843http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3843http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3843http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3843http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3843http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3662http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3662http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3662http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3662http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3662http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3662http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3662http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3662http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3662http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3843http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3843http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3843http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4898http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4898http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4966http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4966


2/142

An action for violation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 816 falls within the original

and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations (Sec. 5, P.D. 816), now

the Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 19, par. 7, B.P. 129).

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Lucia Mapa vda. de la Cruz, et al. vs. Adjuto Abille

G.R. No. 130196, February 26, 2001

Where there is no showing, as in the case at bar, that there was fraud,

collusion, arbitrariness, illegality, imposition or mistake on the part of a department

head, in rendering his questioned decisions or of a total lack of substantial evidence to

support the same, such administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and

respect and will not be interfered with.

ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS

Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997

280 SCRA 298

It applies "where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into

play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under

a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of anadministrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral

of such issues to the administrative body for its review."

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996

263 SCRA 758

The DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be granted jurisdiction

over cases of eminent domain and over criminal cases.

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995

249 SCRA 149

Administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative

enactment for settled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony

with the provisions of the law.

ADMISSION

Dequito vs. Llamas

66 SCRA 504-505


3/142

Admission by party of voluntary surrender of landholding for a consideration

in sworn affidavit has a considerable effect.

The party is bound by his voluntary admissions and declarations against his

own interest appearing in his affidavit and this Court will not allow him to return his

back to it.

AFFIDAVITS

Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992

216 SCRA 25

Section 16 of P.D. No. 946 states that in the hearing, investigation and

determination of any question or controversy, affidavits and counter-affidavits may be

allowed and are admissible in evidence.'

Candido vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 107493, February 1, 1996

253 SCRA 79

An affidavit that has not been formally offered during the proceedings in the

trial court is not among the matters which the law mandatorily requires to be taken

judicial notice of.

AGRARIAN DISPUTE

Heirs of the Late Hermon Rey Santos vs. CA, et al.

March 7, 2000

There is no agrarian dispute where both parties are contending for the

ownership of the subject property.

AGRARIAN RELATIONS

Jaime Corpin vs. Amor S. Vivar

G.R. No. 137350, June 19, 2000

A Regional Trial Court's finding that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship

between the parties, which was based on the documents attached by a party to his

memoranda in the RTC but not presented to the municipal trial court, must be set

aside due to insufficiency of evidence.

Bicol Federation of Labor vs. Cuyugan65 SCRA 195

Term "agrarian relations" construed; the term embraces every situation where

an individual provides his personal labor over a parcel of agricultural land belonging
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3670http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3670http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3670http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3670http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3670http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3670http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/8967http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/8967http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/8967http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/8967http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4073http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4073http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4073http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4073http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5044http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5044http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5044http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5044http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5044http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5044http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4073http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4073http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/8967http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/8967http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3670http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3670http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3670


4/142

to another for the purpose principally of agricultural production, and where the

former, for his labor input and other sundry contributions, is compensated either in

wages or a share in the produce, or is obliged to pay lease rentals to the landowner.

AGRICULTURAL LANDS

De la Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

25 SCRA 480

In the classification of Agricultural Lands, in order to fix the consideration for

the use of ricelands in leasehold system, the use of the term "years" in Sec. 46 (a),

R.A. No. 1199 is taken to mean "agricultural year" as the phrase is understood in

Sections 32-33 of the same law.

Ilusorio vs. Santos4 SCRA 705

Determination of classes of land; since Republic Act No. 1199 establishes a

particular manner for determining whether land is first or second class, no other

method is acceptable.

Philippine National Railways vs. Valle

29 SCRA 573

Under Section 3 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and Section 166 (1) of the

Agricultural Land Reform Code, agricultural land means land devoted to agricultureor to any growth.

AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONS

Oarde vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997

280 SCRA 235

The law is explicit on requiring the tenant and his immediate family to workthe land (Bonifacio vs. Dizon, 177 SCRA 294), and the lessee cannot hire many

persons to help him cultivate the land.

Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 105760, July 7, 1997

275 SCRA 72

The agricultural lessee's rights are enforceable against the transferee or the

landowner's successor-in-interest.

Cuao vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 107159, September 26, 1994

237 SCRA 124
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4916http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4916http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4916http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4916http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5052http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5052http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5052http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5052http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3730http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3730http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3730http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3730http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3730http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3730http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3742http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3742http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3742http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3742http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3742http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3742http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3742http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3742http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3742http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3730http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3730http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3730http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5052http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5052http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4916http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4916


5/142

The fact that a tenant or an agricultural lessee may have been assisted by farm

laborers hired by the landowners, on occasional or temporary basis, does not preclude

the element of "personal cultivation" essential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold

relationship.

Bernas vs. Court of AppealsG.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993

225 SCRA 119

Whatever was the true nature of his designation, Benigno, was the LEGAL

POSSESSOR of the property and the law expressly grants him, as legal possessor,

authority and capacity to institute an agricultural leasehold lessee on the property he

legally possessed.

Endaya vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 88113, October 23, 1992

215 SCRA 110

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

extinguishments of the agricultural leasehold relation.

AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP

Angel Chico vs. CA, et al.

G.R. No. 134735; December 5, 2000

Pre-requisite conditions; a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or

agricultural lessee; b) the subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land; c)

there is consent between the parties to the relationship; d) the purpose of the

relationship is to bring about agricultural production; e) there is personal cultivation

on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and f) the harvest is shared between the

landowner and the tenant of agricultural lessee.

AGRICULTURAL TENANCY

Qua vs. Court of Appeals

198 SCRA 237, June 11, 1991

Private respondent Carmen Carillo is not entitled to be considered an

agricultural tenant. Therefore, she may not be allowed the use of a homelot, a

privilege granted by Section 35 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, in relation to Section

22(3) of R.A. No. 1199, as amended, only to persons satisfying the qualifications of

agricultural tenants of coconut lands.

Zamoras vs. Su, Jr.

184 SCRA 248, April 6, 1990


6/142

Tenants, as defined in Pres. Decree No. 1517 does not include those whose

possession of the property is under litigation.

De los Reyes vs. Espineli

30 SCRA 574

Agricultural tenancy defined; 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.

Carag vs. Court of Appeals

151 SCRA 44

Definition of tenancy pursuant to Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199; a person who byhimself, or with the aid available from within his immediate 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 or for a price certain or

ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.

Matienzo vs. Servidad

107 SCRA 276

Definition of tenancy pursuant to Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199; a person who by

himself, or with the aid available from within his immediate 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 or for a price certain or

ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.

AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT

Tongson vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992

215 SCRA 428

In case of share tenancy, the sharing system on crops other than rice is

provided in Sec. 41, R.A. No. 1199 otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act

as amended by R.A. No. 2263.

Whether the sharing is in accordance with stipulations or customs of the place,

the law provides that the tenant's share for his labor in the production shall not be less

than 30% of the harvest after deducting the expenses for harvesting and/or initial

processing.

AGRICULTURAL WORKER

Hernandez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5031http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5031http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5031http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5031http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5201http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5201http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5201http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5201http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5017http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5017http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5017http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5017http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3514http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3514http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3514http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3528http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5017http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5017http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5201http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5201http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5031http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5031


7/142

189 SCRA 758, September 21, 1990

Agricultural Worker, defined; An agricultural worker is an agricultural wage,

salary or piece worker.

Jalandoni, Jr. vs. Arsenal189 SCRA 56, July 30, 1990

Private respondent is clearly an agricultural worker or farm laborer.

Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (COCOMA) vs. Court of Appeals

164 SCRA 568-569

An agricultural worker is not a whit different from a farm worker. From the

definition of a "farm worker" thus fashioned, it is quite apparent that there should be

an employer-employee.


30 SCRA 576

A "farm worker" is any agricultural wage, salary or piece worker, but it is not

limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless this Code explicitly

states otherwise, and any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in

connection with, a current agrarian disputes or an unfair labor practice and who has

not obtained substantially equivalent and regular employment.

Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals

142 SCRA 137

"Farmhand" or "agricultural worker" defined; "any agricultural salary or piece

worker but is not limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless this

Code explicitly states otherwise, and any individual whose work has ceased as a

consequence of, or in connection with, a current agrarian disputes or an unfair labor

practice and who has not obtained substantially equivalent and regular employment.

AGRICULTURAL YEAR

De Santos vs. Santos

2 SCRA 820

"Agricultural year" defined. "Agricultural year" is the period of time

necessary for the raising of seasonal agricultural products, including the preparation

of the land, and the sowing, planting and harvesting the crop . . .".

Ilusorio vs. Santos

4 SCRA 704-705

Agricultural year: period covered; Each crop period is considered anindependent agricultural year.


8/142

AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS

Locsin vs. Valenzuela

194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991

The lease rentals paid by the tenant-farmers prior to such full payment by theLand Bank to the old landowner would be credited no longer as rentals but rather as

amortization payments of the price of the land.

Locsin vs. Valenzuela

194 SCRA 195, February 19, 1991

Lot No. 2-C-A-3 having been declared part of the land reform area and

subjected to Operation Land Transfer the payment made on and after 21 October

1972 by the private respondent tenants-farmers constituted amortization payments on

the cost of the land.

APPEALS

Roberto Mito vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 126099, March 12, 2001

Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

An appeal is a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided

by law.

De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

169 SCRA 289, January 20, 1989

Being an agricultural lessee, petitioner under Sec. 16 of PD 946 has the right to

appeal as a pauper and should not have been required to pay the docket fee.

Santiago vs. Court of Appeals

179 SCRA 188-189, November 8, 1989

The Court of Appeals has the discretion to require or not to require the parties

to submit simultaneous memoranda. In case of non-requirement, neither party canrightfully claim that he has been deprived of his day in court, considering that the

filing of a memorandum is not an indispensable part and considering further that no

injustice is done, inasmuch as both parties stand on the same footing where no one

enjoys any advantage over the other.


169 SCRA 288, January 20, 1989

Fact that petitioner intentionally did not pay the docket fee because having

been allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant he is not required to pay is in accord with

Sec. 16 of PD 946.


169 SCRA 288, January 20, 1989
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3954http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3954http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3954http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3954http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3458http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3458http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3458http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3458http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3458http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3458http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3954http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3954http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3463


9/142

An appeal cannot be perfected if the corresponding docket fee is not paid.

Angel vs. Inopiquez

169 SCRA 129, January 13, 1989

The rule is that once appeal is perfected, the trial court loses its jurisdictionover the case and to issue the writ of execution.


169 SCRA 288-280, January 20, 1989

Under PD 946, an agricultural lessee is entitled to the rights of a pauper and/or

indigent litigant and to continue to enjoy such status in the appellate courts until the

case is terminated.


169 SCRA 289, January 20, 1989

The right to appeal is an essential part of the judicial system and litigants

should not be deprived of their right to do so.

De Santos vs. Santos

2 SCRA 820

Appeal and error: court of agrarian relations: motion for reconsideration not

required. Neither Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, nor the Rules of Court of

Agrarian Relations, which took effect on 1 January 1956, requires an aggrieved party

to seek a reconsideration of its judgment or order before taking an appeal to theSupreme Court.

Ilusorio vs. Santos

4 SCRA 705

Extinctive prescription is a defense that is waived if not pleaded in due time

and may not be invoked for the first time on appeal.

Macandile vs. Macalino

85 SCRA 329

The special civil action of certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal even after

the period of appeal has lapsed.

Puertollano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

156 SCRA 188

The appeal is not premature because the petitioner abandoned their motion for

reconsideration and opted for the remedy of appeal by filing a notice of appeal.

Santos vs. De Guzman

1 SCRA 1048

Appeal: where original decision was incomplete, period for appeal is counted

from receipt of supplemental decision.
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3501http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3501http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3501http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3501http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4756http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4756http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4756http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4756http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4973http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4973http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4973http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4973http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5310http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5310http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5310http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5310http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4714http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4714http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4714http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4714http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4714http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4714http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5310http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5310http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4973http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4973http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4756http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4756http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3500http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3501http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3501


10/142

Tiu vs. Court of Appeals

37 SCRA 100

Private respondent's only claim to justify continued occupancy of the premises

in question refers to the right of petitioner to own the leased premises, claiming

petitioner is not a Filipino citizen. This claim is based on a defense which isunavailable to him. His appeal may therefore be considered frivolous and made solely

for delay.

Angliongto, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

116 SCRA 659

As the Court of Appeals made a legal inference from a set of facts, its

conclusion being one of law is reviewable by the Supreme Court.

Tumulin vs. Court of Appeals

48 SCRA 450

Execution of decision of agrarian court pending appeal; this action of the

appellate court is not in accord with the spirit of our agrarian laws.

Canturna vs. Court of Appeals

70 SCRA 563-564

Failure of public counsel to include material dates showing timeliness of the

appeal interposed on behalf of an agricultural tenant may be excused where it would

subserve the ends of justice and it was subsequently shown that appeal was actually

filed on time.

Anduiza vs. Dy-Kia

29 SCRA 199

Only final orders of agrarian court are appealable.

Arellano vs. Court of Appeals

48 SCRA 131

Respondent's argument that their appeal was perfected on time because it was

made within ten (10) days from notice of the resolution denying the motion forreconsideration, is misconception of the applicable rule. The rule allowing a party a

period of ten (10) days from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration was filed

within the fifteen day period from notice of decision.

Teruez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

134 SCRA 414

Whether or not person is a tenant is a question of fact. It is therefore

reviewable on appeal to the Supreme Court from Intermediate Appellate Court.

Yabut vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

142 SCRA 124


11/142

When appeal is deemed perfected; The appeal is not perfected on the date the

notice of appeal was filed but on the expiration of the last day to appeal.

APPROPRIATION LAW

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian

Reform

175 SCRA 345, July 14, 1989

An appropriation law is one of the primary and specific purpose of which is to

authorize the release of public funds from the treasury. Proclamation No. 131 is not

an appropriation measure. The creation of the fund is only incidental to the main

objective of the proclamation, which is agrarian reform.

ATTORNEY'S FEES

Oarde vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. Nos. 104774-75, October 8, 1997

280 SCRA 236

Award of attorney's fees depends upon the circumstances of each case and lies

within the discretion of the court.

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of AppealsG.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996

262 SCRA 246

The matter of attorney's fees cannot be touched once and only in the

dispositive portion of the decision, the text itself must expressly state the reason why

attorney's fees are being awarded.

While the judicial discretion in the award of attorney's fees is not entirely left

out, the same, as a rule, must have a factual legal or equitable justification, the matter

cannot and should not be left to speculation and conjecture.

Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals

179 SCRA 5 (1989) citing Espiritu v. Court of Appeals, 20 SCRA 530 (Castillo vs.

Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 530, January 27, 1992

The award of attorney's fees by the trial court is unwarranted since the action

appears to have been filed in good faith.

Magbanua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

137 SCRA 327-328

The petitioners are also entitled to attorney's fees but the size of fees as well asthe damages is subject to the sound discretion of the court.

Ilusorio vs. Santos

4 SCRA 705
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3854http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3854http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3854http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3854http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3854http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3854http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3466http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3466http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3466http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3466http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3466http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4761http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3466http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3466http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3466http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3854http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3854http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3854http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3719http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556


12/142

The imposition of attorney's fees lies in the discretion of the Court of Agrarian

Relations under Article 2208, No. 11, of the New Civil Code, and is authorized under

Section 55 of Republic Act No. 1199, that applies to tenancy relations those

provisions of existing laws not consistent with said Act.

B

BANKS

Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

143 SCRA 300-301

The Land Bank cannot be ordered to pay DBP the loan obtained thereat by thelandowner whose lands were expropriated under P.D. 27 as said loan has nothing to

do with the PNB loan and DBP is not a party to the suit.

Vda. de Ortiz vs. Land Bank of the Philippines

148 SCRA 685-686

The Land Bank is not obliged to pay interest from October 21, 1972 the date of

effectivity of P.D. 27 up to the date the bank paid the acquisition price for lands

bought under the Land Reform Program.

Mallari vs. Court of Appeals161 SCRA 504

It is not necessary for the lessee to make a tender of payment and/or

consignation of the amount of the redemption price. A certification issued by the

Land Bank that it will finance the redemption of the property in question is sufficient.

C

CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT

Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

162 SCRA 391

The certificate of employment submitted by the petitioner does not indicate

Roaring's hours of work in the said corporation so "as to establish that it is physically

impossible for him to do the work of a tenant.

CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER

Vinzons-Magana vs. Estrella
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5289http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5289http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5289http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5289http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5187http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5187http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5187http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5187http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5272http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5272http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5272http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5272http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5295http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5295http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5295http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5295http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3493http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3493http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3493http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5295http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5295http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5272http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5272http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5187http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5187http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5289http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5289


13/142

201 SCRA 537, September 13, 1991

Mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the

farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein.

Curso vs. Court of Appeals128 SCRA 568

Actions for forfeiture of certificates of land transfer for failure to pay lease

rentals for more than two years fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of

the Court of Agrarian Relations.

Miranda vs. Court of Appeals

141 SCRA 303

Certificate of land transfer; the nullification of said certificate may be had only

in a case directly attacking its validity but never collaterally.

Curso vs. Court of Appeals

128 SCRA 568

P.D. No. 816 imposed the sanction of forfeiture where the "agricultural lessee .

. . deliberately refuses and/or continues to pay rentals or amortization payments when

they fall due for a period of two (2) years." Petitioners cannot be said to have

deliberately refused to pay the lease rentals. They acted in accordance with the MAR

Circular, which implements P.D. 816, and in good faith.

CERTIORARI

Chico vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 122704, January 5, 1998

284 SCRA 33

Certiorari; Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot be a substitute for lost appeal.

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. Nos. 113220-21, January 21, 1997266 SCRA 404

The Court of Appeals could direct, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction,

the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to resolve an application for a

writ of preliminary injunction within a specified period a 10-day period, counted

from receipt of a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, can by no means be

considered arbitrary or hasty.

Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992

216 SCRA 25

Settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for

review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.


14/142

CHANGE OF TENANCY SYSTEM

De la Paz vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

25 SCRA 480

The tenant shall have the right to change the tenancy contract from one of

share tenancy to leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from the crop sharing

arrangement to another of the share tenancy.

De Borja vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

79 SCRA 558

Section 14, R.A. No. 1199 which grants to the share tenant the right to convert

the relationship to leasehold is constitutional.

Ilusorio vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

17 SCRA 16

Republic Act 1199 is a remedial legislation promulgated pursuant to the social

justice precepts of the Constitution and in the exercise of the police power of the State

to promote the common wealth. It is a statute relating to public subjects within the

domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public rights

and public welfare of the entire community affected by it.

Ibaviosa vs. Tuazon

21 SCRA 1439

In a long line of decisions, this Court has already declared Section 14 of

Republic Act 1199 providing for a change in tenancy relationship constitutional.

Cruz vs. Pangan

11 SCRA 300

The petition of the new tenant for a change in the tenancy system cannot be

defeated by a change in ownership with personal cultivation where the latter change is

tainted with bad faith.

Uichanco vs. Gutierrez

14 SCRA 231

Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, giving the tenant the right to

change the tenancy from share to leasehold, is constitutional

Where the parties in 1956 entered into a verbal tenancy relationship and as the

law then existing gave the tenant the right to demand a leasehold arrangement in

exchange for the share tenancy, that right should be deemed included in their contract

of tenancy.

De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

11 SCRA 171


15/142

The right granted to a tenant to change the contract from share tenancy to

leasehold cannot be considered unreasonable or oppressive.

Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 authorizing tenant to change from share

to leasehold tenancy is constitutional and valid.

Marcelo vs. Matias

25 SCRA 816

The right of the tenant to change the tenancy contract from one share tenancy

to the leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop-sharing arrangement to

another of the share tenancy, as provided in Section 14 of R.A. No. 1199 is a

constitutional right that has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

Enriquez vs. Cabangon

18 SCRA 81

The validity and constitutionality of the right of the tenant to change the

tenancy system under Section 14 of the Rice Tenancy Act has already been passed

upon and upheld by the Supreme Court in final decisions (Ramos vs. Court of

Agrarian Relations, L-19555, May 29, 1964; Vda. de Macasaet, vs. Court of Agrarian

Relations, et al., L-19750, July 17, 1964).

Reyes vs. Santos

18 SCRA 28

Section 14 of Agricultural Tenancy Law is constitutional.

Tinio vs. Macapagal

19 SCRA 421

Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 is constitutional.

Vda. De Macasaet vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

11 SCRA 521

Section 14 of the Rice Share Tenancy Act, giving the tenant the right to change

the tenancy system from share to leasehold is valid, being a privilege granted to the

tenant under the exercise of the police power of the state in order to remedy an acutesocio-economic problem existing in the country.

CIVIL LAW LEASE

Gabriel vs. Pangilinan

58 SCRA 590

Civil law lease distinguished from agricultural tenancy.There are important

differences between a leasehold tenancy and a civil law lease. The subject matter ofthe leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land; that of civil law lease may be

either rural or urban property. As to attention and cultivation, the law required the

leasehold tenant to personally attend to, and cultivate the agricultural land, whereas


16/142

the civil law lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing leased. As to

purpose, the landholding in leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture, while in civil

lease, the purpose may be for any lawful pursuits. As to the law that governs, the civil

law lease is governed by the Civil Code, whereas leasehold tenancy is governed by

special laws.

CLASSIFICATION

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian

Reform

175 SCRA 347, July 14, 1989

Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to

each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same

particulars.

Quiban vs. Butalid

189 SCRA 106, August 27, 1990

A compromise agreement is not valid and binding when a party in the case has

not signed the same. If any person signs for and in behalf of such party without being

duly authorized to do so, the said agreement is void and has no legal effect.

Quillian vs. Court of Appeals

169 SCRA 280, January 20, 1989

Parties to a contract should abide in good faith with their contractual

commitments.

Salen vs. Dinglasan

198 SCRA 623, June 28, 1991

Contracts solemnly and deliberately entered into may not be overturned by

inconclusive proof or by reason of mistakes of one of the parties to which the other in

no way has contributed.

Torres vs. Ventura

187 SCRA 99, July 21, 1990

Parties are to be placed in status quo which was the condition prevailing prior

to the execution of the void contract.

De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

175 SCRA 561, July 24, 1989

Under the law on contracts, vitiated consent does not make a contract

unenforceable but merely voidable.

Magno vs. Blanco

171 SCRA 703, April 10, 1989
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3628http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3628http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3628http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3628http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3475http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3475http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3475http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3475http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3485http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3485http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3485http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3485http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3608http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3608http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3608http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3608http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3508http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3508http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3508http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3508http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3544http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3544http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3544http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3544http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3544http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3544http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3508http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3508http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3608http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3608http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3485http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3485http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3475http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3475http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3628http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3628http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3556


17/142

Where the decision of the appellate court did not order the appellant where

anything for or to pay any amount to the appellee, but merely specified the value of

the contract between the parties and defined their rights thereunder, there was nothing

to be executed under such decision, and it was error for the lower court to direct

appellee to ask for execution thereof.

COCONUT LANDS


30 SCRA 576

Coconut land is considered agricultural land under both the Agricultural Land

Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code.

Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals142 SCRA 137

An agreement which states that the right 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 which does not

include coconut lands, inasmuch as the vested rights of a share tenant to security of

tenure would be adversely affected thereby.

Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals

142 SCRA 138

Mere fact that a person was not the one who seeded the land with coconuts

does not mean that he could not be a tenant thereof.

Robles vs. Batacan

154 SCRA 644

Nature of work performed by the respondents' father is that of a tenant on the

land.

Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals

113 SCRA 521

Share tenants in coconut lands can redeem the same when landowner sells

them.

COMMISSIONERS REPORT

Republic of the Philippines vs. CA, et al.

G.R. No. 139592; October 5, 2000

In the absence of any irregularity in the survey and inspection of the subject

properties, and none is alleged, the report of the commissioners deserves full faith and

credit.


18/142

COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW

Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. Secretary, Department of Agrarian Reform

G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997274 SCRA 30

Provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn are

excluded from the coverage of CARL.

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 118180, September 20, 1996

262 SCRA 246

The CARL (Rep. Act 6657) was not intended to take away property without

due process of law. Nor is it intended to impair the obligation of contracts. In thesame manner must E.O. 407 be regarded. It was enacted two (2) months after private

respondents had legally fulfilled the condition in the contract of conditional sale by

the payment of all installments on their due dates. These laws cannot have retroactive

effect unless there is an express provision in them to that effect.

Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform

G.R. No. 103302, August 12, 1993

225 SCRA 278

Coverage; Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover

regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and privateagricultural lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land"it is referred to as "land

devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral,

forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."

Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

G.R. No. 100091, October 2, 1992

215 SCRA 86

Private respondents, not being tenants nor proven to be landless peasants,

cannot qualify as beneficiaries under the CARP.

Under Section 73 of R.A. No. 6657, persons guilty of committing prohibited

acts of forcible entry or illegal detainer do not qualify as beneficiaries and may not

avail themselves of the rights and benefits of agrarian reform.

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge Br. V, CFI of Bulacan

119 SCRA 223-224

A judgment rendered upon a compromise "is in the nature of a contract and is

in effect an admission by the parties that the judgment is a just determination of their


19/142

rights on the facts of the case, had they been proved," and it has upon the parties "the

effect and authority of res judicata."

Jasmin vs. Valera

137 SCRA 214

A compromise agreement entered into in an ejectment case against an

agricultural tenant based on non-payment of rentals, subleasing, and others, is valid

where tenant agree to vacate, in consideration, among others, of condonation of his

unpaid rentals.

Velasquez vs. Magat

158 SCRA 206

Compromise agreement of August 21, 1972 not subject to resolutory term;

occupancy of the land as tenant extinguished as of the end of December 1972. The

end of December marked the end of the relation, not its continuation or resumption.

Algabre vs. Court of Appeals

28 SCRA 1131

The Court of Agrarian Relations decisions on the matter are to the effect that

by virtue of the power granted to it by Section 7 of Republic Act 1267, as amended by

R.A. No. 1409 (creating the CAR), as well as by the Agricultural Tenancy Act of

1954 itself (Sec. 21, Rep. Act No. 1199 as amended by Rep. Act 2263), it had

authority to approve Compromise Agreements although made out of court and

without its intervention, the principal reason for this stand being that "the Court

merely would be achieving the purposes for which it was created to maintain

harmonious relations between the parties and/or prevent future disputes between

them, more effectively."

Jasmin vs. Valera

137 SCRA 213

A court-approved compromise agreement to vacate an agricultural landholding

entered into by the lessee in consideration of condonation of all his back rentals and

his right to all crops harvested for the main crop, is valid and enforceable.

Osmea vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

17 SCRA 828

Even more than a contract (which may be enforced by ordinary action for

specific performance) the compromise agreement is part and parcel of the judgment,

and may therefore, be enforced as such by a writ of execution (Serrano vs. Miave, L-

14678, March 31, 1965).

Vda. De Guilas vs. David

23 SCRA 762-763

Tenancy agreement between the tenant and a third party is not binding upon

the landowner, and subsequently, the latter sued them to surrender the land pursuant


20/142

to a compromise agreement entered into between the tenant and the landowner, the

third party cannot invoke the provision on security of tenure of agricultural tenants.

Gabayan vs. Navarro

124 SCRA 608

Where the parties to an agrarian case decide to execute a compromise

agreement the same is approved without need to resolved the jurisdictional issue

raised.

CONCEPTS OF TENANCY

Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals

118 SCRA 484

Tenancy is not purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant

does upon the land. it is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the

understanding when the farmer is installed, and as in this case, their written

agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even

more important.

Gabriel vs. Pangilinan

58 SCRA 591

To fall under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, land must be worked by tenant or

immediate farm household. Persons, therefore, who do not actually work the landcannot be considered tenants and a person who hires others to do work ceases to be a

tenant.

CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS

Villaflor vs. Reyes

22 SCRA 385

One of the conclusive presumptions prohibits the tenant from denying the titleof his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant

between them.

CONTEMPT OF COURT

Ayog vs. Cusi, Jr.

118 SCRA 494

No contempt of court is committed by a party who plowed the land anddestroyed the standing crops of one of the herein petitioners who is not a party-

defendant in the ejectment case below. Petitioner's remedy is not contempt but a civil

and/or criminal action.
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5248http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5248http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5248http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5248http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5159http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5159http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5159http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5159http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5004http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5004http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5004http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5004http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5192http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5192http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5192http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5192http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5192http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5192http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5004http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5004http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5159http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5159http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5248http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5248


21/142

Del Rosario vs. Chingcuangco

18 SCRA 1151

Where respondent Court's writ of execution had been carried out by placing the

respondent in possession of the land before the writ of preliminary injunction

restraining the implementation of said writ of execution was issued by the appellatecourt, the respondent and the plaintiff may not be held in contempt of court.

CONSUMMATED SALE OF LAND

Padasas vs. Court of Appeals

82 SCRA 251-252

We hold that the sale contemplated under Sec. 12, Rep. Act 3844 must refer to

a consummated sale, not a conditioned sale; it must be a sale that divests the title andownership of the owner over the land and not merely a conditional sale as in the case

at bar where the title and improvements on the land remained with DBP.

CONTRACTS

Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 95684, October 9, 1997

280 SCRA 300

Nonpayment, at most, gives him only the right to sue for collection. Generally,

in a contract of sale, payment of the price is a resolutory condition and the remedy of

the seller is to exact fulfillment or, in case of a substantial breach, to rescind the

contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code.

Payment of realty taxes does not necessarily prove ownership must less

stimulation of said contracts.

Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 123905, June 9, 1997

273 SCRA 152

An offer must be clear and definite, while an acceptance must be unconditional

and unbounded, in order that their concurrence can give rise to a perfected contract.

CONTRACTS, TENANCY

Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

4 SCRA 1152

A comparison between the provisions of Section 12 of Agricultural Tenancy

Act (R.A. No. 1199) and those of Act No. 4054 leaves no room for doubt that the

enumeration of the authorized acknowledging officers in section 12 of the prevailing
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4982http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4982http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4982http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4982http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5095http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5095http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5095http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5095http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3660http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3660http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3660http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3660http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3660http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3660http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4718http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4718http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4718http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4718http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4718http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4718http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3945http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3660http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3660http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3660http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5095http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/5095http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4982http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4982


22/142

statute is a deliberate legislative reform designed to exclude the intervention of

Notaries Public in tenancy contracts that should be made fully effective.

Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

4 SCRA 1151

Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1199, which provides that written contracts

between landlords and tenants "shall be conclusive evidence of what has been agreed

upon between the contracting parties, if not denounced or impugned within thirty

days after its registration," does not apply to contracts violative of the law itself.


79 SCRA 557

Under Section 6 of Act No. 4054, in the absence of a specific stipulation on the

duration of a tenancy contract, the same shall be understood to last only during one

agricultural year: said section 6 leaves no room for interpretation.


79 SCRA 558

Ambiguous provision in a contract is adversely interpreted against the party

responsible therefore.

Novesteras vs. Court of Appeals

149 SCRA 48

The title, label or rubric given to a contract cannot be used to camouflage thereal import of an agreement as evinced by its main provisions. Moreover, it is basic

that a contract is what the law defines it to be.

Teodoro vs. Macaraeg

27 SCRA 7-8

Label of contract cannot be used to camouflage real import of an agreement.

Castro vs. Court of Appeals

99 SCRA 722-723

A person who signed annually for three consecutive years a contract for hired

labor cannot later be heard to claim that he is a tenant.

Castro vs. Court of Appeals

99 SCRA 723

Contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties.

Evangelista vs. Court of Appeals

158 SCRA 42

The fact that the lease contracts did not stipulate personal cultivation indicates

the intent of the parties to establish only a civil lease relationship.


23/142

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

129 SCRA 222-223

Where so-called labor contract was not really honored by the parties as

respondent did not receive salaries but a share in the produce or the cash equivalent of

his share in lump, his relationship is one of tenancy and not employment.

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

129 SCRA 224

The court is aware of the practice of the landowners, by way of evading the

provisions of tenancy laws, to have their tenants sign contracts or agreements

intended to camouflage the real import of their relationship.

Estrada vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

4 SCRA 1232

Crop other than rice is to be divided according to contract, or, in its absence,

custom of the place.

Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals

87 SCRA 264

Fact that tenant did not immediately vacate portion of his landholding does

not make the surrender thereof by means of contract less voluntary.

Santos vs. Vda. De Cerdenola

5 SCRA 823

An implied contract of tenancy is created if a landholder, represented by his

overseer, permits the tilling of the land by another for a period of six years.

Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware Co.

38 Phil. 501

Label of contract cannot be used to camouflage real import of an agreement.

Ilusorio vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

17 SCRA 26

The prohibition contained in constitutional provisions against impairing the

obligati

Documents

1961-2001 Justice Milagros German