"RULINGS IN AGRARIAN CASES" BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY AUGUSTO P.

QUIJANO DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM HOW TO ESTABLISH TENANCY The fact that defendants did not at all question the plaintiff's tenancy over their respective land in question for several years, there is an implied admission or consent to the establishment of tenancy relationship between the parties. The relationship may be considered established where the landowner knew of the cultivation of the land by the farmer and he tolerated the same(PACHECO VS. DESIDERIO, CA G.R. NOS. SP-06078-CAR, FEBRUARY 25, 1977). For establishment of tenancy relationship, it is not essential that the landowner has personal knowledge of the cultivation by another, in the concept of tenant of his landholding. It is sufficient that he is chargeable with knowledge, through his overseer or agent of such cultivation and he tolerates the same (LONTOC VS. VDA. DE ASIS, CA-G.R. NO. 39331-12, JULY 13, 1968). We emphasize that, it is not necessary that consent be given wholeheartedly, as consent given out of pity is sufficient(POLIDARIO SR., VS. BROGONIO, ET AL., CA-G.R. NO. 46702-R, MARCH 9, 1972). Nor lack of written contract is an obstacle to the establishment of the relation of landlord and tenant under the Tenancy Law. It is enough that there be mutual consent for the tenant to cultivate for a consideration, in writing, expressly or impliedly(JAMORA VS. DIAMCAY, CA-G.R. NO. 47379-R, APRIL 13, 1972). As long as the legal possession of the land constitutes a person as a tenantfarmer by virtue of an express or implied lease, such an act is binding on the owner of the property even if he himself may not have given his consent to such arrangement. (CO VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, 162 SCRA 392). The fact that complainant has a hut erected on the landholding shows he is a tenant since only tenants are entitled to a homelot where he can built his house thereon as an incident to his right as a tenant (CRUZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 129 SCRA 222). AGRARIAN DISPUTE Any controversy relating to terms, tenure or condition of employment, or concerning an association or representation of persons in negotiating, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms on conditions to employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm employers and

employees (LAW OF AGRARIAN REFORM, BY RECAREDO P. BARTE, 1991 EDITION, P. 26). ABANDONMENT/MORTGAGE/VOLUNTARY SURRENDER Herein respondent-appellant had voluntarily abandoned her landholdings in litigation after she has sublet it without the consent and knowledge of the landowner (COSCOS VS. ESTATE SIBUGON, ET AL., CA-G.R. NO. 05658, FEBRUARY 28, 1977). Persons therefore, who do not actually work the land cannot be considered tenants, and who hires others whom he pays for doing the cultivation of the land, ceases to hold and is considered as having abandoned the land as tenant; and ceases to enjoy the status, right and privileges of one (GABRIEL VS. PANGILINAN, 58 SCRA 590). The gauge in the determination of whether petitioner-appellant has abandoned or surrendered the subject landholding, is the simultaneous and subsequent acts indicative of her intention to do so. There is no such thing as presumptive voluntary surrender of abandonment by implication, and most certainly, not from vague and doubtful evidence. If there should be a waiver of a right, public policy demand that the same be clearly and convincingly established by competent and sufficient evidence (BARRAMEDA VS. OCA, ET AL., CAG.R. NO. 07164-SP; POLICARPIO NISNISAN, ET AL., VS. CA, ET AL., GR NO. 126425). Abandonment has been invariably construed to include two essential elements: (1) the intention to abandon, and (2) the physical act or acts of abandonment. The primary elements of abandonment are the intention to abandon and the external act by which intention is carried into effect. The intention to abandon is considered the first and permanent inquiry (MONTEMAYOR, 1ST EDITION 1964, P. 232). TENANCY EMANCIPATION PATENT Anyone who wishes to contest the rights of the farmer to land given to him by the government in accordance with our agrarian laws has the burden of proving that the farmer does not deserve the government grant. The above findings notwithstanding and assuming that petitioner really waived his tenancy rights in favor of private respondent, this case should still be void for being made in violation of Presidential Decree No. 27 (TORRES VS. VENTURA G.R. NO. 86044, July 2, 1990). CLOA/CLT/EP It being so, We rule that the EPs' previously issued to defendant-appellee partakes the nature of a "public document which is entitled to full and credit in the

absence of competent evidence that its due execution was tainted with defects and irregularities that could warrant declaration of its nullity (ANCHUELO VS. IAC, 147 SCRA 434). The mere issuance of the Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein. It is only after compliance with the conditions set forth in PD No. 27 which entitled him to an Emancipation Patent (EP) that he acquires a vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding (PAGTALUNAN VS. TAMAYO, 183 SCRA 252). It must be emphasized that once a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) has been issued to a tenant covering a property under the supervision of and in compliance with the implementing rules and regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform, he is thereby deemed to be the owner of the agricultural land in question. There is no more landlord and tenant relationship and all that remains is for the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the valuation of the land in accordance with existing rules and regulations for purpose of compensation to the landowner (QUIBAN VS. BUTALID, 189 SCRA 106). Nullification of a CLT maybe had only in a case directly attacking its validity but never collaterally (MIRANDA VS. CA, GR NO. L-59730, FEBRUARY 11, 1986). An Emancipation Patent holder acquires the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding a right which has becomes fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy (PAGTALUNAN VS. TAMAYO, 183 SCRA 253). E.P. TORRENS TITLE 1. Certificate of Title cannot be altered, amended or cancelled except in a DIRECT PROCEEDING in accordance with law (WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ASSOCIATION ET AL., VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 210 SCRA 165). 2. Torrens Title is generally a conclusive evidence of ownership of the land (CHING VS. CA, 181 SCRA 9). 3. When EP is issued then he acquires a vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding (PAGTALUNAN VS. TAMAYO, 183 SCRA 252). 4. The government recognizing the worthy purpose of the TORRENS SYSTEM, should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the condition laid down by the law are satisfied (REPUBLIC VS. UMALI, 171 SCRA 647). TORRENS

Lands under Torrens Title cannot be acquired by prescription (Sec. 39, Act No. 196; Rosario vs. Auditor General, L-1187, April 30, 1958). TENANCY PERSONAL CULTIVATION For one to be considered a tenant, he must NECESSARILY WORK THE LAND HIMSELF although he may avail of the labor of his immediate farmhousehold (SABIDORIO, ET AL., VS. UGAY, C.A.-G.R. No. SP-01495, July 25, 1973). DCN 0808 = When he went to Saudi Arabia and left farmwork to his wife, he was clearly no longer taking advantage of the assistance of his farm household (ESTABILLO VS. RUIZ, CA-G.R. NO. 42019-20-R, January 12, 1972; CRUZ VS. MARCELO, CA-G.R. NO. SP-05933, May 30, 1977). In the following cases involving a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE (DIMANAWA VS. PLANA, ET AL., CA-G.R. NO. SP-02004, January 7, 1975) a BUS CONDUCTOR (BALANAY VS. RAFAEL, C.A.-G.R. NO. SP-01746-CAR, August 2, 1976) a FULL TIME MACHINE OPERATOR (MAGALANG VS. YAP, C.A.-G.R. NO. SP-03163, April 14, 1977), and a JEEPNEY DRIVER (ESCUETA VS. GERODIAS, ET AL., CA-G.R. NO. SP06963, March 30, 1978, the COURT of APPEALS found it hard to believe that these people could still have the time to work the land personally. IF THE LAW ABHORS ABSENTEE OWNERS, MORE SO WITH ABSENTEE TENANTS (BUENO VS. BASCO, C.A.-G.R. NO. 07644-CAR, May 31, 1978). Failure to comply with one's obligation as a tenant is tantamount to abandonment (LIMBO VS. BRAGADO, C.A.-G.R. NO. SP-05891, March 28, 1977). TENANCY The six (6) essential requisites for the establishment of tenancy relationship are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The parties are the LANDOWNER and the TENANT; The SUBJECT is AGRICULTURAL LAND; There is CONSENT; The PURPOSE is AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION; There is PERSONAL CULTIVATION; There is SHARING OF HARVEST. CABALLES VS. DAR - 168 SCRA 247 QUA VS. CA 198 SCRA 236; GRAZA VS. CA 163 SCRA 39

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 (CASTILLO VS. COURT OF APPEAL, 205 SCRA 529). Tenant is defined as the "person who personally cultivates the same (landholding) (Sec. 6, R.A. 3844)" Absent the element of personal cultivation, one cannot be a tenant, (CASTILLO VS. CA) (REYES VS. ESPINELI, 30 SCRA 574) At most he can be considered a CIVIL LAW LESSEE because the civil law lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing leased (GABRIEL VS. PANGILINAN, 58 SCRA 590). The fact of sharing alone, is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship; . . . (CABALLES VS. DAR 168 SCRA 247) Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder through lawful means and not by imposition or usurpation (HILARIO VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, 148 SCRA 573). Consequently, the mere cultivation of the land by a usurper cannot confer upon him any legal right to work the land as tenant and enjoy the protection of security of tenure of the law (HILARIO VS. IAC, SUPRA). The caretaker of the land may be considered as the cultivator of the land and, hence, a tenant (LATAG VS. BANOG, 16 SCRA 88). The cultivator is necessarily tasked with duties that amount to cultivation (COCOMA VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 164 SCRA 568). Cultivation is an important factor in determining the existence of tenancy relationship. However, the mere fact that it was not the plaintiff who had actually seeded the land does not mean that they are not tenants of the land. The definition of cultivation is not limited merely to the tilling, plowing or harvesting of the land. It includes the promotion of growth and the case of the plants or husbanding the ground to forward the products of earth by general industry (GUERRERO VS. CA, 142 SCRA 136, May 30, 1986; COCOMA VS. CA, 164 SCRA 568). 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 laws (PRUDENTIAL BANK VS. HON. FILEMON GAPULTOS, ET AL., 181 SCRA 159). INTRUDER It is a settled rule that tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful owner and not by the imposition or usurpation by any intruder or usurper (GRAZA VS. COURT OF APPEALS 163 SCRA 41; BERENGUER VS. COURT OF APPEALS 164 SCRA 432).

Mere cultivation by a usurper cannot confer upon him any legal right to work on the land as a tenant and thereby involve the protective mantle of security of tenure under the law (GONZALES VS. ALVAREZ, ET AL., G.R. NO. 77401, February 7, 1990). Parenthetically, mere cultivation of the land by a usurper cannot confer upon him any legal right to work on the land as tenant and enjoy the protection of security of tenure of the land (ANTONIO VS. NATIVIDAD, G.R. NO. L-14631, March 30, 1962; SPOUSES TIONGSON VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 130 SCRA 482 (1984) ). Indeed, tenancy IS NOT A UNILATERAL RELATIONSHIP deriving substance only from what an alleged tenant does upon the land. It is basically a legal relationship of mutual accord by and between him and the owner of the land (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, in this case, their written agreements, provided, these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even more important (TUAZON VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 118 SCRA 484). There are no SQUATTERS in agricultural lands, squatters are only found in URBAN COMMUNITIES, not in rural areas (onPD 772) (PEOPLE VS. HON. VICENTE ECHAVES, 95 SCRA 663). The court is aware of the practice of landowners, by way of evading the provisions of tenancy laws to have their tenants sign contracts of agreements intended to camouflage the real import of their relationship (CRUZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 129 SCRA 224; VDA DE DONATO).