No relationship

In case of an ejectment suit where the issue of agricultural tenancy is raised, is it still necessary to refer the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for preliminary determination of the existence of such tenancy relationship? This is one of the questions raised in this case of Fely.

The case involved a parcel of land originally owned by Fely’s mother, Zita, which Fely purchased on September 29, 1970. Pursuant to said sale, the Title to the property (TCT No. T-252339) was already registered in Fely’s name. But six years later or on March 25, 1976, Zita still entered into an agricultural lease agreement over the same parcel of land with Cardo. By virtue of this agreement, Cardo took possession and cultivated the land. After sometime the land was converted into a fishpond. Later on, Fely sent his son Pol to check on the status of the property. The confrontation between Pol and Cardo even led to violence when Cardo hacked Pol. Cardo also filed a criminal case of trespassing against Pol which was however dismissed.

Subsequently, Fely asked Cardo to vacate the land but Cardo refused. So on May 14, 1997, Fely and her husband filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) an ejectment suit against Cardo. With the assistance of the Legal Division of the DAR, Cardo asked for the dismissal of the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He alleged that he was a registered agricultural tenant and that the case should be referred first to the DAR for preliminary determination of the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship. Was Cardo correct?

No. Referral to the DAR is no longer necessary. PD 316 and PD 1038 which required the referral of a land dispute case to the DAR for the preliminary determination of the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship has been repealed by Section 76 of Republic Act No. 6657 in 1988. Thus the court may proceed to hear the case. However it still has to also ascertain that the case does not involve an agrarian dispute before taking cognizance thereof.

For a case to involve an agrarian dispute, the following essential requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship must be present: (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 by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of harvest or payment of rental.

In this case, there is no landowner-tenant relationship between the parties. Zita no longer owned the land at the time she entered into a lease agreement with Cardo on March 23, 1976. She already sold the land to her daughter Fely on September 29,1970. Since the sale, Zita no longer had an owner’s right to alienate or encumber the land, much less, to lease it. Without a valid leasehold agreement, there was no tenancy involved in this case, and the jurisdiction on the matter belonged to the regular courts. So the MTC was correct in denying Cardo’s motion to dismiss and later on render judgment in favor of Fely ordering Cardo to vacate the land and to surrender possession thereof to Fely; to pay Fely P5,000 per month as reasonable monthly compensation commencing March 1976 until possession is turned over to Fely and to restore the land to its former condition before it was converted into a fishpond (Gutierrez vs. Cabrera, G.R. 154064 February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 521).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]