G.R. No. 185669 February 1, 2012 JUAN GALOPE, Petitioner, vs.

CRESENCIA
BUGARIN, Represented by CELSO RABANG, Respondent. FACTS: Respondent
owns a parcel of land located in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. NT-229582. Petitioner farms the land. In Barangay Case No. 99-
6, respondent complained that she lent the land to petitioner in 1992 without an
agreement, that what she receives in return from petitioner is insignificant, and that she
wants to recover the land to farm it on her own. Petitioner countered that respondent
cannot recover the land yet for he had been farming it for a long time and that he pays
rent ranging from P4,000 to P6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest. The case was
not settled. Represented by Celso Rabang, respondent filed a petition for recovery of
possession, ejectment and payment of rentals before the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Rabang claimed that respondent lent the land to
petitioner in 1991 and that the latter gave nothing in return as a sign of gratitude or
monetary consideration for the use of the land. Rabang also claimed that petitioner
mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who allegedly possesses the land. Provincial
Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner is a tenant entitled to
security of tenure. The Adjudicator said substantial evidence prove the tenancy
relationship between petitioner and respondent. It was also noted that Jose Allingag
affirmed petitioners possession and cultivation of the land; that Allingag also stated
that petitioner hired him only as farm helper; and that respondents own witness, Cesar
Andres, said that petitioner is a farmer of the land. On appeal, DARAB found no
tenancy relationship between the parties and stressed that the elements of consent
and sharing are not present. The DARAB noted petitioners failure to prove his
payment of rentals by appropriate receipts, and said that the affidavits of Allingag,
Rolando Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz are self-serving and are not concrete proof to
rebut the allegation of nonpayment of rentals. The DARAB added that respondents
intention to lend her land to petitioner cannot be taken as implied tenancy for such
lending was without consideration. CA also affirmed DARABs that no tenancy
relationship exists; that the elements of consent and sharing are not present; that
respondents act of lending her land without consideration cannot be taken as implied
tenancy; and that no receipts prove petitioners payment of rentals. ISSUE: Whether or
not there exists a tenancy relationship between the parties? HELD: The essential
elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner
and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter of the relationship is
agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) the
purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is
personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) the harvest
is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
Thus, all the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present. Respondent
is the landowner; petitioner is her tenant. The subject matter of their relationship is
agricultural land, a farm land. They mutually agreed to the cultivation of the land by
petitioner and share in the harvest. The purpose of their relationship is clearly to bring
about agricultural production. After the harvest, petitioner pays rental consisting of
palay or its equivalent in cash. Respondents motion to supervise harvesting and
threshing, processes in palay farming, further confirms the purpose of their agreement.
Lastly, petitioners personal cultivation of the land is conceded by respondent who
likewise never denied the fact that they share in the harvest.
G.R. No. 161796
FACTS: At the heart of the controversy is a large tract of land, denominated as Lot No.
23 of the Montalban Cadastre (Lot 23), located in Brgy. Mascap, Montalban, Rizal with
an area of 1,645 hectares, more or less. Lot 23 was originally registered in the name of
Alfonso Doronilla (Doronilla) under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 7924 of the
Rizal Registry. On June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283,
carving out a wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo, Rizal and
reserving the segregated area for townsite purposes, "subject to private rights, if any
there be." In its pertinent parts, Proclamation 1283 reads: "Excluding from the
Operation of Executive Order No. 33 dated July 26, 1904, as Amended by Executive
Orders Nos. 14 and 16, Both Series of 1915, which Established the Watershed
Reservation Situated in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Island of Luzon,
a Certain Portion of the Land Embraced therein and Reserving the Same, Together
with the Adjacent Parcel of Land of the Public Domain, for Townsite Purposes Under
the Provisions of Chapter XI of the Public Land Act" Upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources x x x, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, do hereby exclude from the operation of Executive Order
No. 33 dated July 26, 1904, as amended x x x, which established the Watershed
Reservation situated in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Island of Luzon,
certain portions of land embraced therein and reserve the same, together with the
adjacent parcel of land of the public domain, for townsite purposes under the
provisions of Chapter XI of the Public Land Act, subject to private rights, if any there
be, and to future subdivision survey in accordance with the development plan to be
prepared and approved by the Department of Local Government and Community
Development. Then came the amendatory issuance, Proclamation 1637 dated April 18,
1977, thereby increasing the size of the reservation, designated as "Lungsod Silangan
Townsite" (LS Townsite), by 20.312 hectares and revising its technical description so
as to include, within its coverage, other lands in the municipalities of San Mateo and
Montalban, Rizal to absorb "the population overspill in Greater Manila Area," but again
"subject to private rights, if any there be," thus: Upon recommendation of the Secretary
of Natural Resources x x x, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines,
do hereby amend Proclamation No. 1283, dated June 21, 1974 which established the
townsite reservation in the municipalities of Antipolo and San Mateo, Province of Rizal,
Island of Luzon, by increasing the area and revising the technical descriptions of the
land embraced therein, subject to private rights, if any there be. CA ruled with a
decision on September 19, 2003,setting aside the Decision of the DARAB, in effect
nullifying all the individual farm lots awards thus made by the DARAB ostensibly in
favor of the named intervenor-appellees and necessarily all other unnamed awardees.
The decretal portion of the CA decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the present petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. The challenged
Decision of the DARAB in DARAB Case No. 4176 (Reg. Case No. IV-RI-0057-92) is
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The DARAB is hereby ordered to reconvey to
petitioner [Araneta] the subject portions of petitioners property embraced in TCT No. N
-70860, earlier awarded to intervenorsappellees under their individual EPs now
covered by their respective certificates of title, in accordance with pertinent
administrative issuances of DARAB.
ISSUE: Whether the subject agricultural landholding is exempt from CARP coverage,
being non-agricultural, pursuant to Proclamation Nos. 1283, as amended, over and
above the statutory emancipation of the tenants from the bondage of the soil under
P.D. No. 27? The issue of whether such lands of the Lungsod Silangan Townsite are
covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, the Supreme Court
categorically declared, viz: We now determine whether such lands are covered by the
CARL. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial
agreement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands. As to
what constitutes agricultural land, it is referred to as land devoted to agricultural
activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
confirm this limitation. Agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable and
suitable agricultural lands and do not include commercial, industrial and residential
lands. "Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo
Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as agricultural lands. These
lots were intende d for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon
approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas
in question continued to be developed as a low-cost housing subdivision, albeit at a
snails pace. x x x "Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the
coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses
prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR. In
its Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands
to Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR itself defined agricultural land; thus x x x Agricultural
land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not
classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and
zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to June 15, 1988 for residential,
commercial or industrial use..
G.R. No. 149548 December 14, 2010 ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs.
DAMBA-NFSW and the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents. x - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 167505 DAMAYAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWANG BUKID SA ASYENDA ROXAS-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
SUGAR WORKERS (DAMBA-NFSW), Petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT.
OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co., INC. AND/OR ATTY. MARIANO AMPIL,
Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 167540 KATIPUNAN NG
MGA MAGBUBUKID SA HACIENDA ROXAS, INC. (KAMAHARI), ET AL., Petitioners,
vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co., INC.,
Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 167543 DEPARTMENT OF
LAND REFORM, FORMERLY DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR),
Petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO, INC., Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 167845 ROXAS & CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. DAMBA-NFSW, Respondent. x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 169163 DAMBA-NFSW REPRESENTED BY
LAURO V. MARTIN, Petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO., INC., Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 179650
DAMBA-NFSW, Petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO., INC., Respondent. FACTS: This
resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed on January 13, 2010 by Roxas & Co., Inc.
(Roxas & Co.) and the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed on January 29, 2010 by
Damayan ng Manggagawang Bukid sa Asyenda Roxas-National Federation of Sugar
Workers (DAMBA-NFSW) and Katipunan ng mga Magbubukid sa Hacienda Roxas,
Inc. (KAMAHARI), et al., which both assail the Courts December 4, 2009 Decision in
these consolidated cases. ISSUE: Whether the subject lands are exempt from
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage? HELD: Roxas & Co.
cannot have it both ways. It must either zealously argue its legal position if it believes it
to be meritorious or altogether abandon it if it has reservations. Its Motion to Hold in
Abeyance the Resolution of its earlier Motion for Reconsideration effectively coaxes
the Court to wait for the outcome of its TIEZA application and ultimately delay the final
resolution of these consolidated cases. On Roxas & Co.s Motion for Reconsideration,
no substantial arguments were raised to warrant a reconsideration of the Decision. The
Motion contains merely an amplification of the main arguments and factual matters
already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its Decision. In the
Courts considered view, nothing more is left to be discussed, clarified or done in these
cases since all the main issues raised have been passed upon and definitely resolved.
Roxas & Co. raises the fringe issue that DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7 (Series of
2004) has no force and effect since the said DAR Memorandum Circular was not
published and filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register. The
contention fails. It should be stressed that there is no need for the publication and filing
of the said DAR Memorandum Circular with the ONAR as it is merely an administrative
interpretation. Roxas & Co. is merely nitpicking on the issue. Since the DAR had
initially issued CLOAs to the farmerbeneficiaries of the nine parcels of land in Hacienda
Palico, the assailed Decision merely reiterated the original designation of the affected
individuals as farmer-beneficiaries who should be entitled to disturbance compensation
before the cancellation of their respective CLOAs is effected. This is in pursuance of
the directive of DAR Administrative Order No. 6 (Series of 1994) which mandates the
payment of disturbance compensation before Roxas & Co.s application for exemption
may be completely granted. Since subject landholding has been validly determined to
be CARP-exempt, therefore, the previous issuance of the CLOA of oppositors-movants
is erroneous. Hence, similar to the situation of the abovequoted Supreme Court
Decision, oppositors-movants only hold the property in trust for the rightful owners of
the land and are not the owners of subject landholding who should be notified of the
exemption application of applicant Roxas & Company, Incorporated.1avvphi1 Finally,
this Office finds no substantial basis to reverse the assailed Orders since there is
substantial compliance by the applicant with the requirements for the issuance of
exemption clearance under DAR AO 6 (1994).
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Roxas & Co., Inc. and the
Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by DAMBA-NFSW and KAMAHARI are
DENIED for lack of merit.