CABALLES vs DAR

G.R. 78214, December 5, 1988

Facts:
• The landholding subject of the controversy was acquired by the spouses Arturo and Yolanda
Caballes, the latter being the petitioner herein, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed
by Andrea Alicaba Millenes

• The remainder of Lot No. 3109-C was subseconsequently sold to the said spouses by Macario
Alicaba and the other members of the Millenes family, thus consolidating ownership over the
entire (500-square meter) property in favor of the petitioner.

• In 1975, before the sale 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 owner, Andrea Millenes. The landowner likewise allowed Abajon to plant on a
portion of the land, agreeing that the produce thereof would be shared by both on a fitfy-
fifty basis.

• Abajon planted corn and bananas on the landholding. In 1978, he stopped planting corn but
continued to plant bananas and camote. During those four years, he paid the P2.00 rental for
the lot occupied by his house, and delivered 50% of the produce to Andrea Millenes.
• 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 of Lawaan in Talisay, Cebu but failed to reach an agreement. All
the efforts exerted by the landowners to oust Abajon from the landholding were in
vain as the latter simply refused to budge.

• On April 1, 1982, the landowner, Yolanda Caballes, executed an Affidavit stating

that immediately after she reprimanded Abajon for harvesting bananas and
jackfruit from the property without her knowledge, the latter, 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 and which was
docketed as Criminal Case No. 4003. Obviously, all the planting on the property,
including that of the banana plants, had been done by Abajon.
• From the said certification, the petitioner appealed to the then MAR, now the respondent
DAR. Acting on said appeal, the respondent DAR, through its then Minister Conrado Estrella,
reversed the previous certification in its Order 2 of February 3, 1986, declaring Criminal Case
No. 4003 as proper for trial as "the land involved is a residential lot consisting of only 60
square meters whereon the house of the accused is constructed and within the industrial
zone of the town as evinced from the Certification issued by the Zoning Administrator of
Talisay, Cebu.“

• Upon motion for reconsideration filed by Abajon, the respondent DAR, through its new
Minister, herein respondent Heherson Alvarez, issued an Orders dated November 15, 1986,
setting aside the previous Order 3 dated February 3, 1986, and certifying said criminal case as
not proper for trial, finding the existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties, and
that the case was designed to harass the accused into vacating his tillage.

• In the summary investigation conducted by the DAR, the former landowner, Andrea Millenes,
testified that Bienvenido Abajon dutifully gave her 50% share of the produce of the land
under his cultivation. The grandson of Andrea Millenes, Roger Millenes, corroborated the
testimony of the former, stating that he received said share from Abajon. Roger Millenes
further testified that the present owners received in his presence a bunch of bananas from
the accused representing ½ or 50% of the two bunches of bananas gathered after Caballes
had acquired the property. 4
 ISSUE

• Whether there is an existence of a tenancy

relationship between parties?
 RULING
There is none. The Higher Court laid down the essential requisites of a
tenancy relationship. All 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.

The fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship.

This does not automatically make the tiller-sharer a tenant thereof especially
when the area tilled is only 60 square meters and located in an urban area and in
the heart of an industrial or commercial zone. Tenancy status arises only if an
occupant of a parcel of land has been given its possession for the primary purpose
of agricultural production. The circumstances of this case indicate that the private
respondent's status is more of a caretaker who was allowed by the owner out of
benevolence or compassion to live in the premises and to have a garden of some
sort rather than a tenant. Agricultural production as the primary purpose being
absent in the arrangement is a clear proof that the private respondent was never a
tenant.
 The following are the essential requisites for the
existence of a tenancy relation:

a) The parties are the landholder and the tenant;

b) The subject is agricultural land;
c) There is consent by the landholder for the tenant to work on the land,
given either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly;
d) The purpose is agricultural production;
e) There is personal cultivation or with the help of the immediate farm
household; and
f) There is compensation in terms of payment of a fixed amount in money
and/or produce.
 ESTATE OF THE LATE ENCARNACION
VDA. DE PANLILIO vs DIZON
• Encarnacion Vda. De Panlilio is the owner of the disputed
landholdings over a vast tract of land, with an aggregate area of
115.41 hectares called Hacienda Masamat located in Masamat,
Mexico, Pampanga. Panlilio entered into a contract of lease over the
said landholdings with Paulina Mercado, wife of Panlilios nephew.
The contract of lease was subsequently renewed.

• Sometime in 1973, pursuant to the OLT under PD 27, the

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued thirty eight (38)
Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) to Panlilios tenants. The tenant-
awardees were made defendants in the instant consolidated
complaints filed by petitioner Lizares.
•
Sometime in 1973, pursuant to the OLT under PD 27, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued thirty eight (38)