Gabriel v.

Pangilinan Gabriel filed a complaint against Pangilinan claiming she is the owner of a 169,507 sqm fishpond in barrio Sta. rs!la, Pampanga. "n oral contract of lease with a #earl# rental was entered between them. $efendant was notified that the contract wo!ld be terminated, b!t !pon req!est was e%tended for another #ear. $efendant mo&ed for the dismissal of the complaint claiming that the trial co!rt had no '!risdiction. (t sho!ld properl# pertain to the )o!rt of "grarian *elations, there being an agric!lt!ral leasehold tenanc# relationship between the parties. pon opposition b# plaintiff, the motion was denied. +he defendant filed his answer that the land was originall# &erball# leased to him b# the plaintiff,s father, Potenciano for as long as the defendant wanted, s!b'ect to the condition that he wo!ld con&ert the ma'or portion into a fishpond and that which was alread# a fishpond be impro&ed at his e%pense, which wo!ld be reimb!rsed b# Potenciano Gabriel or his heirs at the termination of the lease. Plaintiff also ass!red him that he co!ld contin!e leasing as long as he wanted since she was not in a position to attend to it personall#. Parties were ordered to add!ce e&idence for the p!rpose of determining which )o!rt shall ta-e cogni.ance of the case. (t appears that the defendant ceased to wor- on planting fingerlings, repairing di-es and s!ch, personall# with the aid of helpers since he became ill and incapacitated. /is da!ghter, Pilar Pangilinan, too- o&er who said that she helps her father in administering the leased propert#, con&e#ing his instr!ctions to the wor-ers. 0%cepting Pilar who is residing near the fishpond, defendant1s other children are all professionals2 a law#er, an engineer, and a priest all residing in 3anila. 4one of these has been seen wor-ing on the fishpond. $efendant5 relationship between the parties is an agric!lt!ral leasehold tenanc# go&erned b# *ep!blic "ct 4o. 1199, as amended, p!rs!ant to section 65 of *ep!blic "ct 4o. 6788, and the present case is within the original and e%cl!si&e '!risdiction of the )o!rt of "grarian *elations. Plaintiff5 defendant ceased to wor- the fishpond personall# or with the aid of the members of his immediate farm ho!sehold 9Section 8, *ep!blic "ct 4o. 1199: the tenanc# relationship between the parties has been e%ting!ished 9Section 9, id.: and become of ci&il lease and therefore the trial co!rt properl# ass!med '!risdiction o&er the case. +rial )o!rt5 +he lease contract is a ci&il lease go&erned b# the 4ew )i&il )ode. 4o tenanc# relationship e%ists between the plaintiff and the defendant as defined b# *ep!blic "ct 4o. 1199. )o!rt is &ested with '!risdiction to tr# and decide this case. *econsideration b# the defendant was denied. /e appealed to this )o!rt. ISSUES: 1. ;ower co!rt erred in considering the relationship of appellee and appellant as that of a ci&il lease and not a leasehold tenanc# !nder *ep. "ct 4o. 1199 as amended. <. +he lower co!rt erred in not holding that the )o!rt of =irst (nstance is witho!t '!risdiction, the c!e being that of an agrarian relation in nat!re p!rs!ant to *ep "ct. 4o. 1199.

HELD: (mportant differences between a leasehold tenanc and a civil law lease . +he leasehold tenanc# is limited to agric!lt!ral land2 that of ci&il law lease ma# be either r!ral or !rban propert#. "s to attention and c!lti&ation, the law req!ires the leasehold tenant to personall# attend to, and c!lti&ate the agric!lt!ral land, whereas the ci&il law lessee need not personall# c!lti&ate or wor- the thing leased. "s to p!rpose, the landholding in leasehold tenanc# is de&oted to agric!lt!re, whereas in ci&il law lease, the p!rpose ma# be for an# other lawf!l p!rs!its. "s to the law that go&erns, the ci&il law lease is go&erned b# the )i&il )ode, whereas leasehold tenanc# is go&erned b# special laws. +he re!"isites for leasehold tenanc "nder the #gric"lt"ral $enanc #ct to e%ist5

1. land wor-ed b# the tenant is an agric!lt!ral land2 <. land is s!sceptible of c!lti&ation b# a single person together with members of his immediate farm ho!sehold2 6. m!st be c!lti&ated b# the tenant either personall# or with the aid of labor a&ailable from members of his immediate farm ho!sehold2 8. land belongs to another2 and 5. !se of the land b# the tenant is for a consideration of a fi%ed amo!nt in mone# or in prod!ce or in both +here is no do!bt that the land is agric!lt!ral land. (t is a fishpond and the "gric!lt!ral +enanc# "ct, which refers to >agric!lt!ral land>, specificall# mentions fishponds and prescribes the consideration for the !se thereof. +he mere fact that a person wor-s an agric!lt!ral land does not necessaril# ma-e him a leasehold tenant within the p!r&iew of Sec 8 of *ep!blic "ct 4o. 1199. /e ma# still be a ci&il law lessee !nless the other req!isites as abo&e en!merated are complied with. +he co!rt doesn1t want to decide on the second req!isite since it wasn1t raised. =or the third req!isite, the tenanc# agreement was se&ered in 1956 when he ceased to wor- the fishpond personall# beca!se he became ill and incapacitated. 4ot e&en did the members of appellant,s immediate farm ho!sehold wor- the land. ?nl# the members of the famil# of the tenant and s!ch other persons, whether related to the tenant or not, who are dependent !pon him for s!pport and who !s!all# help him to operate the farm enterprise are incl!ded in the term >immediate farm ho!sehold>. *ep!blic "ct 4o. 1199 is e%plicit in req!iring the tenant and his immediate famil# to worthe land. " person, in order to be considered a tenant, m!st himself and with the aid a&ailable from his immediate farm ho!sehold c!lti&ate the land. Persons, therefore, who do not act!all# wor- the land cannot be considered tenants2 and he who hires others whom he pa#s for doing the c!lti&ation of the land, ceases to hold, and is considered as ha&ing abandoned the land as tenant within the meaning of sections 5 and 7 of *ep!blic "ct. 4o. 1199, and ceases to en'o# the stat!s, rights, and pri&ileges of one. @e are, therefore, constrained to agree with the co!rt a q!o that the relationship between the appellee +rinidad Gabriel and appellant 0!sebio Pangilinan was not a leasehold tenanc# !nder *ep!blic "ct 4o. 1199. /ence, this case was not within the original and e%cl!si&e '!risdiction of the )o!rt of "grarian *elations.

(4 A(0@ ?= +/0 =?*0G?(4G, the decision of the )o!rt of =irst (nstance of Pampanga in its )i&il )ase 4o. 17<6, appealed from, is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.