Download Agrarian Law Compiled Case Digests PDF

TitleAgrarian Law Compiled Case Digests
TagsJurisdiction Certiorari Lease Leasehold Estate Estoppel
File Size158.8 KB
Total Pages28
Document Text Contents
Page 1

AGRARIAN LAW CASE DIGESTS
CRUZ—DAVID—DELOS SANTOS—GATACELO—ISMAEL—LAZARO

MEDINA—MONTES—MONZON—ROMANO—TIBURCIO
1. CORPUZ vs. GROSPE (CRUZ)
G.R. No. 135297
June 8, 2000

FACTS:
Petitioner Gavino Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary under the Operation
Land Transfer Program of the Department of Agrarian Reform. He was
issued a Certificate of Land Transfer over two parcels of agricultural
land. In order to pay for the hospitalization of his wife, he mortgaged
the subject land in favor of Virginia de Leon. When the contract
expired, he again mortgaged it to respondent Hilaria Grospe for a
period of four years. The parties executed a contract, which allowed
the respondents to cultivate the land during the duration of the
mortgage or until December 05, 1990.

Corpuz subsequently instituted a complaint which alleged that the
Grospe's had entered the disputed land by force and destroyed the
palay that he had planted on it. However according to the Grospes,
Corpuz had already executed a "waiver of rights' over the landholding
in favor of the spouses in consideration of 54k.

PARAB adjudicator Ernesto Tabar ruled that Corpuz abandoned and
surrendered the landholding to the Samahang Nayon of Nueva Ecija.
Said Samahang Nayon even passed Resolution No. 16 and 27
recommending the reallocation of said lots to the Grospes, who were
the most qualified farmers-beneficiaries. DARAB and CA affirmed the
decision

ISSUES:
1.Whether or not the 'waiver of rights' is contrary to agrarian law
2. Whether or not Corpuz had abandoned his landholding
3. Whether or not Corpuz had voluntarily surrendered his landholding

HELD:
1. Yes. The sale or transfer of rights over a property covered by a
certificate of land transfer is void except when the alienation is made
in favor of the government or through hereditary succession. This
ruling is intended to prevent a reversion to the old feudal system in
which the landowners reacquire vast tract of land thus, negating the
government's program of freeing the tenant from the bondage of the
soil.

2. No. Corpuz’ surrendered of possession did not amount to an
abandonment because there was an obligation on the part of the
Grospe's to return the possession of the landholding upon full payment

Page 2

AGRARIAN LAW CASE DIGESTS
CRUZ—DAVID—DELOS SANTOS—GATACELO—ISMAEL—LAZARO

MEDINA—MONTES—MONZON—ROMANO—TIBURCIO
of the loan. There was no clear, absolute or irrevocable intention to
abandon.

3. Yes. Corpuz' intention to surrender the landholding was clear and
unequivocal. He signed his concurrence to the Samahang Nayon
Resolutions. His voluntary surrender to the samahang nayon qualifies
as a surrender or transfer to the government because such action
forms part of the mechanism for the disposition and reallocation of of
farmholdings of tenant farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries of
pd 27.

2. ESTOLAS vs. MABALOT (DAVID)

G.R. No. 133706

May 7, 2002

FACTS:

On November 11, 1973, a Certificate of Land Transfer was issued in
favor of respondent over a 5,000 square meter lot located in Barangay
Samon, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan. Sometime in May, 1978, needing
money for medical treatment, respondent passed on the subject land
to the petitioner for the amount of P5,800.00 and P200.00 worth of
rice. According to respondent, there was only a verbal mortgage;
while according to petitioner, a sale had taken place. Acting on the
transfer, the DAR officials in Sta. Maria, Pangasinan authorized the
survey and issuance of an Emancipation Patent, leading to the
issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in favor of the petitioner.
Respondent filed a Complaint against the petitioner redeeming the
subject land and the case was referred to the Department of Agrarian
Reform.

On July 8, 1988, the DAR’s District Office submitted an investigation
report finding that respondent merely gave the subject land to
petitioner as guarantee for the payment of a loan and recommending
that the CLT remain in the name of respondent and that the money
loan be returned to petitioner.

Another investigation was conducted on the matter which led to the
Order dated March 9, 1989, issued by DAR Regional Director Antonio
M. Nuesa. In the said Order, the DAR found the act of respondent in
surrendering the subject land in favor of petitioner as constituting

Page 15

AGRARIAN LAW CASE DIGESTS
CRUZ—DAVID—DELOS SANTOS—GATACELO—ISMAEL—LAZARO

MEDINA—MONTES—MONZON—ROMANO—TIBURCIO
Reform Officer (MARO) to prepare the leasehold contract in their favor;
declaring the deeds of sale executed by the Romero spouses in favor
of Efren Pania, Macario Sanchez and Pio Yonsonnull and void; and
directing the latter to vacate the premises.

On appeal, the DARAB reversed. In its decision dated April 21, 1998 ,
it declared that the Juanites were not tenants on the subject
landholding; and hence, had no right of redemption.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners were tenants of the Romero spouses
(respondents) as to entitle them to the right of redemption.

HELD:
The court affirmed the decision of PARAB. The PARAB declared the
petitioners to be tenants on the basis of the following evidence:

a) certification of 28 persons to the effect that spouses Juanite had
been working on the land as tenants;
b) in the deed of absolute sale signed by Edilberto Romero as vendor,
he stated that spouses Juanite were his tenants;
c) the spouses Juanite had been in possession and cultivating the land
since 1969.

Without any evidence to support its finding, the DARAB reversed the
finding of the PARAB and found that petitioner Juanites were not
tenants because they failed to submit evidence that they
were sharing the harvests of the with the landowners, respondent
Romero spouses. SC agreed with the Court of Appeals that the
essential requisites of a 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. The absence of one
does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator
thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. Unless a person has
established his status as a dejure 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.

Similer Documents