1. Carag v.

Court of Appeals, (151 SCRA 44):

In the case of Matienzo v. Servidad (107 SCRA 276) we defined a tenant,
pursuant to section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 1199, as a person who,
himself, and 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 under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a
price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the
leasehold tenancy system.
Morever, Sec. 5(a) of Rep. Act No. 1199 provides:
"Immediate farm household includes the members of the family of the
tenant, and such other person or persons, whether related to the tenant or
not, who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him
operate the farm enterprise."
It can be gathered from the above definitions that the essential requisites
of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landholder and the
tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the
purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6)
there is sharing of harvests. (See Tiongson v. Court of Appeals, 130 SCRA
482; Guerrero v. Court of Appeals, 142 SCRA 136).
2. CABALLES vs. DAR
G.R. No. 78214 December 5, 1988
YOLANDA
CABALLES,
petitioner,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, HON. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ and
BIENVENIDO ABAJON, respondents.
FACTS:
The landholding situated at Lawaan Talisay, Cebu which consists of only sixty
(60) square meters was acquired by the spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes by
virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 24, 1978 executed by Andrea
Millenes .
In 1975, before the sale of the land in favor of the Caballes spouses, private
respondent Bienvenido Abajon constructed his house on a portion of the said
landholding, paying a monthly rental of P2.00 to the previous owner, Andrea
Millenes. Millenes likewise allowed Abajon to plant on a portion of the land,
agreeing that the produce thereof would be shared by both on a fifty-fifty basis.
From 1975-1977, Abajon planted corn and bananas on the landholding. In 1978,
he stopped planting corn but continued to plant bananas and camote.
Sometime in March 1979, after the property was sold, the new owners, Arturo
and Yolanda Caballes, told Abajon that the poultry they intended to build would
be close to his house and pursuaded him to transfer his dwelling to the opposite
or southern portion of the landholding. Abajon offered to pay the new owners
rental on the land occupied by his house, but his offer was not accepted. Later,

the new owners asked Abajon to vacate the premises, saying that they needed
the property. But Abajon refused to leave. The parties had a confrontation before
the Barangay Captain but failed to reach an agreement. All the efforts exerted by
the landowners to oust Abajon from the landholding were in vain as Abajon
simply refused to budge.
On April 1, 1982, Yolanda Caballes, executed an Affidavit stating that
immediately after she reprimanded Abajon for harvesting bananas and jackfruit
from the property without her knowledge, Abajon, with malicious and ill intent, cut
down the banana plants on the property worth about P50.00. A criminal case for
malicious mischief was filed against Abajon. (Obviously, all the planting on the
property, including that of the banana plants, had been done by Abajon.)
CONTENTION OF THE STATE:
DAR, through its new Minister, Heherson Alvarez, held that said criminal case is
not proper for trial, since there is the existence of a tenancy relationship between
the parties, and that the case was designed to harass Abajon into vacating his
tillage. The Caballes are legally bound to respect the tenancy of Abajon, since
Abajon is still considered as an agricultural tenant even if he is cultivating only a
60-square meter portion of the commercial lot of the Caballes.
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER:
Public respondents, DAR & Hon. Alvarez, gravely erred in holding that the
criminal case is not proper for trial and hearing by the court since the private
respondent, Abajon, is not an agricultural tenant. (The criminal case for malicious
mischief filed against Abajon should be declared as proper for trial so that
proceedings in the lower court can resume.)
RESOLUTION: The SC dismissed the criminal case. They held that The private
respondent can not be held criminally liable for malicious mischief in cutting the
banana trees because, as an authorized occupant or possessor of the land, and
as planter of the banana trees, he owns said crops including the fruits thereof.
The private respondent's possession of the land is not illegal or in bad faith
because he was allowed by the previous owners to enter and occupy the
premises. In other words, the private respondent worked the land in dispute with
the consent of the previous and present owners. Consequently, whatever the
private respondent planted and cultivated on that piece of property belonged to
him and not to the landowner. Thus, an essential element of the crime of
malicious mischief, which is "damage deliberately caused to the property of
another," is absent because the private respondent merely cut down his own
plantings.
3. Bernardo v. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439 [1988]),
Security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they
value as life itself and deprivation of their landholdings is tantamount to
deprivation of their only means of livelihood. Also, under Section 10 of the

same Act, the law explicitly provides that the leasehold relation is not
extinguished by the alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the
landholding. The only instances when the agricultural leasehold
relationship is extinguished are found in Section 8, 28 and 36 of the Code
of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines. The donation of the land did not
terminate the tenancy relationship. However, the donation itself is valid.
4.De Jesus v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72282, July 24, 1989, 175
SCRA 559 :
R.A. No. 3844, or the Agricultural Land Reform Code, was enacted by Congress
to institute landreforms in the Philippines. It was passed to establish ownercultivatorship and the family size farmas the basis of Philippine agriculture; to
achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers freefrom pernicious industrial
restraints and practices; as well as to make the small farmers moreindependent,
self-reliant and responsible citizens and a source of genuine strength in our
democratic society. R.A. 3844 and R.A. 6389, being social legislations, are
designed to promote economic and socialstability and must be interpreted
liberally to give full force and effect to their clear intent, not only infavor of the
tenant-farmers but also of landowners
5. Zamoras vs Su, Jr. ,184 SCRA 248 , 1990 Facts:
Victoriano Zamoras, was hired Roque Su, Jr., as overseer of his coconut land in
Dapitan. He was made to supervise the coconut plantation and the sale of copra.
He was paid a salary plus 1/3 of the proceeds of the sales of the copra. Another
one-third of the proceeds went to the tenants and the other third to Su. Sometime
in 1981, Su entered into a loan with a certain Anito and authorized her to harvest
coconuts from his property while his loan was outstanding. Zamoras was then
laid-off temporarily until Su could obtain a loan from the Development Bank of the
Philippines with which to pay Anita. He was no longer allowed to work as
overseer of the plantation and without his knowledge and consent, Anita,
harvested the coconuts without giving him his one-third share of the copra sales.
Zamoras filed a complaint against Su, and Anita for illegal termination and breach
of contract with damages with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the Ministry of
Labor and Employment in Zamboanga City. The Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision holding that Zamoras, as overseer of the respondent's plantation, was a
regular employee whose services were necessary and desirable to the usual
trade or business of his employer and was thus illegally dismissed. Upon appeal
to the NLRC, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was reversed. It held that the
relationship between the parties was that of a landlord-tenant, hence, jurisdiction
over the case rests with the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Issue:
WON Zamoras is an employee of Su, Jr. and thus jurisdiction of the case is with
the NLRC.
Ruling:
Since Zamoras is an employee, not a tenant of Su, it is the NLRC, not the Court
of Agrarian Relations,that has jurisdiction to try and decide Zamoras complaint

for illegal dismissal. It was held that Su hired Zamoras not as a tenant but as
overseer of his coconut plantation. There is no evidence that Zamoras cultivated
any portion of Su's land personally or with the aid of his immediate farm
household. The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are not present.
Rather those of an employer-employee relationship exists between them. These
are the following: 1. Zamoras was selected and hired by Su as overseer of the
coconut plantation; 2. His duties were specified by Su; 3. Su controlled and
supervised the performance of his duties. He determined to whom Zamoras
should sell the copra produced from the plantation. And 4. Su paid Zamoras a
salary of P2,400 per month plus one-third of the copra sales every two months as
compensation for managing the plantation.
6. Baranda v. Baguio, 189 SCRA 194 [1990
The essential requisites of tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent;
(4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6)
there is sharing of harvests. All these requisites must concur in order to create a
tenancy relationship between the parties.