SPOUSES TITUS L. ENDAYA and GLENDA TRINIDAD; SPOUSES RICO L.

ENDAYA and NANETTE AQUINO; and

G.R. No. 88113

Romero, J.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari in the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas (Branch 6) and holding the private respondent is an agricultural lessee in the
land of petitioner whose security of tenure must be respected by the latter.

The Spouses Natividad Trinidad and Cesar San Diego owned a piece of agricultural land which is devoted to rice and
corn. As far back, private respondent has been cultivating this land as a tenant of the spouses San Diego under 50-50
sharing agreement.

On May 2, 1972, a lease contract was executed between the spouses San Diego and Regino Cassanova for a period of
four years. The lease contract obliged Cassanova to pay P400 per hectare per annum and gave him authority to oversee
the planting of crops on the land. Private respondent signed this lease contract as one of the two witnesses.

The lease contract was renewed and was raised to P600 again private respondent signed the contract as witness.

During the duration of the lease contract private respondent continually cultivated the land and share equally to
Cassanova the net produce.

On January 6, 1980, The spouses San Diego sold the land to petitioners. Private respondent continued to farm the land
although after the sale petitioners immediately told private respondent to vacate the land.

After persistent demand for private respondent to vacate the land, private respondent then filed a complaint with the
Regional Trial Court of Tanaunan, Batangas praying that he be declared the agricultural tenant of petitioners.

The RTC ruled in favor of Petitioners holding that private respondent is not an agricultural lessee of the land now owned
by petitioners.

Private respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeals, the latter reversed the decision and declared private
respondent to be the agricultural lessee of the subject landholding.

Hence, this petition wherein private respondent’s status as an agricultural lessee and his security of tenure are being
disputed by petitioners.

Issue: WON Respondent Pedro Fideli is an Agricultural Lessee of the land owned by petitioners.

Ruling: Yes. Respondent is an Agricultural Lessee over the land owned by petitioners. Section 10 RA no. 3844 as
amended provides that, the agricultural leasehold relation under this code shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of
the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the
landholding. In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding, the
purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural
lessor.

The Transactions involving the agricultural land over which an agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change of
ownership, e.g., sale, or transfer of legal possession, such as lease, will not terminate the rights of the agricultural lessee
who is given protection by the law by making such rights enforceable against the transferee or the landowner’s successor
in interest.

In this case, private respondent has been cultivating the subject farm landholding with a fifty-fifty (50-50) sharing
arrangement with the Spouses San Diego, petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest. The passage of R.A. 6839 in 1971,
amending R.A. 3844 (1963), secured to private respondent all the rights pertaining to an agricultural lessee. The
execution of a lease agreement between the Spouses San Diego and Regino Cassanova in 1974 did not terminate
private respondent’s status as an agricultural lessee. The fact that private respondent knew of, and consented to, the said
lease contract by signing as witness to the agreement may not be construed as a waiver of his rights as an agricultural
lessee. On the contrary, it was his right to know about the lease contract since, as a result of the agreement, he had to
deal with a new person instead of with the owners directly as he used to. No provision may be found in the lease contract
and the renewal contract even intimating that private respondent has waived his rights as an agricultural lessee.
POLICARPIO NISNISAN AND ERLINDA NISNISAN, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PACITA MANCERA, WENCESLAO MANCERA and SILVESTRE POLANCOS, respondents

G.R. No. 126425

MARTINEZ, J.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the decision of
the Court of Appeals affirming en toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bansalan, Davao Del Sur, which
dismissed petitioners’ complaint for reinstatement of tenancy holding, filed against private respondents’ spouses Pacita
and Wenceslao Mancera.

Spouses Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan are the owners of a parcel of land located at Dolo, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur.
Petitioner Policarpio Nisnisan, son of Gavino Nisnisan, has been cultivating one hectare of the aforesaid land since 1961.

Gavino Nisnisan and Petitioner Policarpio Nisnisan entered a leasehold tenancy contract which stipulates a sharing
agreement of 1/3:2/3 of the harvest, the bigger share given to the latter.

On December 28, 1978 Gavino Nisnisan sold two hectares of their land, including the tenated by Petitioners-spouses
Policarpio and Erlinda Nisnisan, to private respondents-spouses Wenceslao and Pacita Mancera.

As a result of the sale petitioners-spouses were ousted from their landholding. Petitioners-spouses instituted an action for
reinstatement of tenancy against respondent-spouses Mancera only to be dismissed later on.

Gavino Nisnisan then demanded the Mancera spouses to repurchase the said land but the latter refused.

Spouses Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan together with petitioners-spouses Policarpio and Erlinda Nisnisan then filed a
complaint with the Regional Trial Court.
Complaints:
(a) repurchase of the subject land under the Public Land Act,
(b) declaration of nullity of the instrument of sale and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-15954,
(c) reinstatement of tenancy holding
(d) damages.

The Trial Court then dismissed the complaint ruling that petitioners-spouses tenancy is repudiated by the affidavit
executed by Gavino Nisnisan to the effect that the subject land is not tenanted.

The Ruling of the Trial Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Aggrieved hence the petition.

Issue: WON petitioners Spouses Policarpio and Erlinda Nisnisan voluntarily surrendered their tenancy holding.

Ruling: No. Spouses Nisnisan did not voluntarily surrender their tenancy holding.
Section 8 of RA no. 3844 provides that the Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation shall be extinguished by:
(1) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural lessor;
(2) Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural lessee, written notice of which shall be served three months
in advance;
(3) Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to the lessee, in the event of death or permanent incapacity of
the lessee.

In this case the above elements for leasehold holding are absent and petitioner-spouses have sufficiently shown that they
are the tenants of the spouses Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan through a document of “Pinagsabutan Sa Abang sa Yuta”.
Private respondents failed to present any evidence to show that petitioners-spouses surrendered their landholding
voluntarily after the private respondents purchased the subject property. Moreover, the filing of the complaint for
reinstatement of leasehold tenancy by petitioners-spouses against private respondents before the CAR militates against
the private respondents' claim that petitioners-spouses voluntarily surrendered their landholding to them.
FRANCISCO ESTOLAS, petitioner, vs. ADOLFO MABALOT, respondent.

G.R. No. 133706

PANGANIBAN, J.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals.

On November 11, 1973, a CLT was issued to respondent located in Barangay Samon, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan. In May
1978, respondent needing money for a medical treatment passed on the subject land to petitioner. Respondent claim that
there was only a verbal mortgage, while according to petitioner a sale had taken place.

The DAR officials in Sta. Maria, Pangasinan authorized the survey and issuance of an Emancipation Patent leading to the
issuance of a TCT in favor of the petitioner.

Respondent then filed a complaint against petitioner before the Barangay Lupon in Pangasinan for the purpose of
redeeming the subject land.

The DAR’s district office Atty. Linda Peralta submitted her investigation finding that respondent merely gave the subject
land to petitioner as a guarantee for payment of a loan he had incurred and that the CLT remains in the name of
respondent and that the money returned to petitioner.

However, petitioner insisted that the subject land was sold to him by respondent, petitioner then requested DAR to cancel
the CLT to respondent’s name, further DAR also found out that the act of respondent in surrendering the subject land in
favor of petitioner as constituting abandonment.

Respondent prayed for redemption but was denied. Respondent also request for reinvestigation but was denied.

Respondent then appealed the case to DAR central office which reversed the assailed order of the DAR regional director.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied, he then filed to and appeal to the Office of the President
which was dismissed. Petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Hence, this recourse.

Issue: Did respondent abandon the subject property, thereby making it available to other qualified farmer-grantees?

Ruling: No. Respondent did not abandon the subject property thus it is not available to other qualified farmer-grantees.
PD 27 provides that title to land acquired pursuant to its mandate or to that of the Land Reform Program of the
government shall not be transferable except to the grantee’s heirs by hereditary succession, or back to the government by
other legal means.

In this case, there was no valid transfer in favor of the government. It was petitioner himself who requested the DAR to
cancel respondent’s CLT and to issue another one in his favor. Respondent’s land was not turned over to the government
or to any entity authorized by the government to reallocate the farm holdings of tenant-farmers who refuse to become
beneficiaries of PD 27. Petitioner cannot, by himself, take over a farmer-beneficiary’s landholding, allegedly on the ground
that it was abandoned. The proper procedure for reallocation must be followed to ensure that there was indeed an
abandonment, and that the subsequent beneficiary is a qualified farmer-tenant as provided by law.
CRC 1447, INC, petitioner vs. Rosalinda Calbatea et al.

GR No. 237102
March 04, 2020

Reyes, J. Jr. J.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the rules of court, seeking to reverse and set aside the
decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the order of the RTC of Dinalupihan, Bataan, Branch 5.

The portion of the state is originally owned by Liberty Hizon Vda. De Luna (Hizon) and Eufemia Rivera (Rivera). Said
estate was the subject of a notice of coverage pursuant to CARP or CARL. An application for conversion of said property
from agricultural to industrial was filed.

Rivera filed a petition before the DAR, which sought extension to comply with the condition of developing the property.

The Subject property was purchased by CRC 1447 Inc. and registered under its name as evidence a TCT of the registry
of deeds of Bataan.

the DAR issued an Order denying Rivera's petition for extension and instead, directing the issuance of a Notice of
Coverage over the entire estate which includes the subject property. Thus, petitioner received a Notice of Coverage.

Petitioner then filed a petition to lift said Notice of Coverage before the DAR. While this was pending, petitioner sent
demand letters to respondents for them to vacate the subject property. But was denied by the DAR, Petitioner then file a
motion for reconsideration but likewise denied.

Petitioner then filed a complaint for recovery of Possession before the RTC against herein respondents, who claimed to
be actual occupants and potential agrarian reform beneficiaries of the subject landholding.

Respondents sought the dismissal of said petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, or referral of the same to the DAR
for determination and certification that the issue involves an agrarian dispute or matter pursuant to the Supreme Court
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) as the subject matter of the case involves an agrarian dispute.

Petitioner argued that the case does not involve agrarian dispute.

RTC Ruling: The case is dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction

CA Ruling: The appeal is denied.

Petitioner undaunted maintains their position that the RTC not the DAR has jurisdiction over the case for recovery of
possession.

Hence the present petition.

Issue: WON the courts a quo correctly dismissed the case for recovery of possession on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling: Yes. Both the RTC and the CA are correct in dismissing the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Under
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 129-A,22 the DARAB was created, which was designated to assume the powers and functions
of the DAR with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases, and matters relating to the implementation of the
CARP and other agrarian laws. Further, the DARAB's jurisdiction is not limited to agrarian disputes where tenancy and
leasehold agreement issues between the parties are raised. There is nothing under Section 1(a), Rule II of the 2009
DARAB Rules of Procedure which limits the jurisdiction of the DARAB only to agricultural lands under the administration
and disposition of the DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines. As above stated, all cases involving agrarian matters,
which include issues on the management, cultivation, or use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARL, are within the
jurisdiction of the DARAB.

Hence in this case, the subject of petitioner's Complaint undoubtedly involves the use of an agricultural land, which is the
subject of the implementation of the CARP. Verily, the RTC and the CA correctly found that the case falls squarely within
the jurisdictional ambit of the DARAB.
NATALIA REALTY, INC., AND ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CORP., petitioners, vs.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SEC. BENJAMIN T. LEONG and DIR. WILFREDO LEANO, DAR REGION
IV, respondents.

G.R. No. 103302

BELLOSILLO, J.:

Facts: Petitioner Natalia Realty Inc. is the owner of three contiguous located in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal.
Presidential Proclamation no. 1637 set aside hectares of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and
Montalban as areas to absorb the overspill of population coming from the metropolis.

Petitioner estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC) is the developer of Natalia Properties. Thus, the Natalia
Properties became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.

On June 15, 1988, The CARL went into effect. The DAR then issued a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped potions of
the Antipolo Hills subdivision. Natalia immediately registered its objection to the notice of coverage.

Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA) filed a complaint against NATALIA and EDIC before the DAR
Regional Adjudicator to restrain petitioners from developing areas under cultivation by SAMBA members. Petitioners then
moved to dismiss the complaint; it was denied.

Petitioners then elevated their cause to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) but the latter remanded the case to the
regional adjudicator for further proceedings.

NATALIA then wrote respondent secretary of Agrarian Reform reiterating its request to set aside notice of coverage. But
none responded.

NATALIA and EDIC both impugned abuse of discretion to respondent DAR for including undeveloped portions of the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of the CARL.

Issue: WON the lands of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision are covered by CARL.

Ruling: No. The lands are not covered by CARL. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover, regardless
of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands." Further, "agricultural land," 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." 

In this case, the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as
“agricultural lands.” These lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of
their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. The enormity of the resources needed for developing a subdivision
may have delayed its completion, but this does not detract from the fact that these lands are still residential lands and
outside the ambit of the CARL.

Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL.

Thus, it was an erroneous to include the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of
CARL.
CELSO VERDE, petitioner, vs. VICTOR E. MACAPAGAL, AIDA MACAPAGAL, RECTOR E. MACAPAGAL, HECTOR
MACAPAGAL, FLORIDA M. GUIRIBA, REDENTOR E. MACAPAGAL, NESTOR E. MACAPAGAL and ZENAIDA E.
MACAPAGAL, respondents.

G.R. No. 151342              

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Facts: Vicente F. Macapagal and Irenea R. Estrella were the owners of agricultural land subject of this dispute, situated in
Palapala, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. After their demise the said land was passed on to their children.

On July 14, 1995, respondents initiated an action for ejectment against petitioner before the provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board in Malolos, Bulacan. They alleged that petitioner mortgaged the subject land without their knowledge
and consent t Aurelio Dela Cruz upon the condition that the latter would be the one to work on one-half of said property.
They further argue that mortgaging the property to Dela Cruz constituted abandonment which is a ground for termination
of agricultural leasehold.

On August of the same year, petitioner filed his answer denying the material allegations of the complaint, he claimed that
he only hired the services of Dela Cruz and the latter’s carabao because from 1993 to 1994 he (petitioner) did not have
the means to own a beast of burden. Petitioner also appended his answer with a sworn statement of Dela Cruz.

During the last hearing of the case, the parties are required to submit their respective position papers. In a decision the
Provincial Adjudicator Erasmo SP. Cruz dismissed the case for lack of merit.

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.

Undaunted, respondents filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the decision of the
DARAB.

Hence, the recourse of petitioner raises.

Issue: WON petitioner’s hiring Dela Cruz’s service and that of his carabao, the agricultural lease relationship between the
parties in this case ceased to exist.

Ruling: No. The Agricultural Lease between parties did not cease to exist. Under Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 1199, a
tenant is required to perform the following tasks:

1. The preparation of the seedbed which shall include plowing, harrowing, and watering of the seedbed, the scattering of
seeds, and the care of the seedlings.
2. The plowing, harrowing, and watering of the area he is cultivating, except final harrowing of the field as an item of
contribution specified in Section thirty-two of this Act.
1. The maintenance, repair and weeding of dikes, paddies, and irrigation canals in his holdings.
2. The pulling and bundling of the seedlings preparatory to their transplanting.
3. Care of the growing plants.
4. Gathering and bundling of the reaped harvest.
5. The piling of the bundles into small stacks.
6. The preparation of the place where the harvest is to be stacked.
7. Gathering of the small stacks and their transportation to the place where they are to be stacked.
8. Piling into a big stack preparatory to threshing.

Further, Cultivation does not refer solely to the plowing and harrowing of the land. The fact that a tenant or an agricultural
lessee for that matter employs farm laborers to perform some aspects of farm work does not preclude the existence of an
agricultural leasehold relationship provided an agricultural lessee does not leave the entire process of cultivation in the
hands of hired helpers.

In this case, the fact that the tenant did not do all the farm work himself but temporarily or on an emergency basis utilized
the services of others to assist him, was not taken to mean that the tenant had thereby breached the requirement imposed
by the statute. Moreover, it is not shown that except for dela Cruz, who admitted being hired by petitioner because of his
carabao, petitioner made use of the services of other farm laborers. Even the affidavits executed by respondents’
witnesses referred solely to dela Cruz and to no other person as having worked on the land in dispute thus bolstering
petitioner’s stance that Dela Cruz’s service was engaged only for the use of his carabao which petitioner could not afford
to have at that time.
BIENVENIDO T. BUADA, ISAIAS B. QUINTO, NEMESIO BAUTISTA, ORLANDO R. BAUTISTA FREDDIE R.
BAUTISTA, CARLITO O. BUADA, GERARDO O. BUADA, ARMANDO M. OLIVA, ROGELIO F. RAPAJON, AND
EUGENIO F. FLORES, petitioners, VS. CEMENT CENTER, INC., respondent

G.R. No. 180374

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals which granted respondent’s
petition for review and nullified and set aside the decisions of the Regional Adjudicator and of the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) dismissing the complaint for confirmation of voluntary Surrender and Damages filed
by respondent.

Respondent filed a Complaint for Confirmation of Voluntary Surrender and Damages against petitioners with DARABm
Region 1 in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. They claimed that petitioners entered into a Compromise Agreement with
respondent whereby the former, for and in consideration of the sum of P3,000.0 each, voluntarily surrendered their
respective landholdings. Despite the demands, petitioner refused to vacate the subject landholdings.

Petitioners alleged that respondent induce them to sign a Compromise Agreement by representing that the subject
landholdings are no longer viable for agricultural purposes. They alleged that respondent promised them that they will be
paif for P3,000.00 each after they surrender the land for its conversion. They also claimed that respondent promised to
hire them to work on the project that was planned for the converted land.

Ruling of the Regional Adjudicator: The case is dismissed for lack of merit.

Respondent the filed an appeal to the DARAB which was denied, and the assailed decision is affirmed.

Respondent alleging that the DARAB gravely erred and committed grave abuse of discretion filed a petition for review to
the CA which was granted.

Respondents are ordered to vacate the subject landholdings upon payment by the petitioner to them of the amount of
P3,000 pesos each representing their disturbance compensation.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was then denied.

Hence, this petition.

Issue: WON petitioners as tenants-farmers intended to absolutely and voluntarily surrender their tenancy rights over the
subject landholdings.

Ruling: No. Petitioners has no intention to surrender their tenancy rights over the subject landholdings.
Section 8 of RA 3844 Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. -- The agricultural leasehold relation established
under this Code shall be extinguished by:
(1) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural lessor;
(2) Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural lessee, written notice of which shall be served three
months in advance; or
(3) Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to the lessee, in the event of death or permanent incapacity of
the lessee.

Voluntary surrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations, does not require any court authorization
considering that it involves the tenant's own volition. To protect the tenant's right to security of tenure, voluntary surrender,
as contemplated by law, must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent evidence.

In this case, the compromise Agreement between petitioners and respondents did not constitute the “voluntary surrender”
contemplated by law. It was not shown why petitioners as tenant-farmers would voluntarily give up their sole source of
livelihood. There was likewise no showing that the money was indeed advantageous to petitioners' families as to allow
them to pursue other sources of livelihood. To stress, tenancy relations cannot be bargained away except for the strong
reasons provided by law which must be convincingly shown by evidence in line with the State's policy of achieving a
dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional restraints and practices.

Thus, the alleged voluntary surrender of petitioners of their tenancy rights for the sum of P3,000.00 each could not
constitute as “voluntary surrender” within the contemplation of law.
GERARDO RUPA SR., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and MAGIN SALIPOT, Respondents

G.R. No. 80129

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the affirming the dismissal by the RTC of Masbate,
Branch 46, of the Complaint for Redemption with Damages filed by herein petitioner against private respondent Salipot.

Rupa claimed that he had been a tenant of a parcel of coconut land formerly owned by Vicente Lim and Patrocinia Yu Lim
for more than twenty (20) years now, sharing the harvests on a 50%-50% basis. Also, that he is the overseer over four
parcels of coconut land owned by the Lim spouses. However, without any prior written notice, the land tenanted by the
petitioner was sold to Magin Salipot for P5,000.00 in January 1981. Petitioner averred that he only learned of the sale on
February 16, 1981, and that he sought assistance with the local office of Agrarian Reform for the redemption of the
questioned property and even deposited the amount of P5,000.00 with the trial court.

However, the Regional Trial Court of Masbate rendered a decision dismissing the complaint on the ground that Rupa was
not a tenant of the subject property and thus, not entitled to a right of redemption over the same. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals finds, in substance, that there is no clear and convincing evidence to show that plaintiff was a share tenant of the
spouses Lim and that Rupa is bound by his admission in Criminal Case No. 532-U, entitled People of the Philippines. vs.
Mariano Luzong filed six months after the instant case wherein he admitted that he was the overseer and administrator of
the five parcels of land owned by the Lim spouses. Thus, negating his claim of tenancy. The CA therefore affirmed on
appeal the decision of the lower court.

Hence, this petition seeking the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals.

Issue: WON there exist a tenancy relationship between the landlord and RUPA.

Ruling: YES. Rupa is indeed in a tenancy relationship between his landlord. Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 1199 as a
person who himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm 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. Briefly stated, for this relationship to exist, it is necessary that:
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.

Further, Section 12 of RA 3844 provides that:

j"SECTION 12. Lessee’s right of redemption. — In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of
the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration:
Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be redeemed: Provided, further, That where there are two or more
agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by
him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within two years from the registration of the sale and
shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption."

In this case, the fact that RUPA has been planting coconut seedlings and minor crops in the vacant portions of the subject
land as well as cleaning and gathering coconuts to process them into copra is borne out by the records. Further indicating
the tenancy relationship between the landlord and RUPA is their agreement to share 50/50. This strengthens the claim of
RUPA that indeed, he is a tenant.
PABLO BASBAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RUFINO ENTENA, FLAVIANO TIBAY and ANGELINA ENTENA (Spouses),
and R. M. RESURRECCION as acting Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Laguna, defendants-appellees.

G.R. No. L-26255

REYES, J.B.L., J.

Facts: Basbas is the leasehold tenant of a riceland owned by Rufino. Rufino sent a letter to Basbas informing the latter
that the land was for sale and that Basbas was given a certain period to communicate his intention to purchase it. Basbas
sent a reply accepting the offer, although disagreeing with the price. Basbas also mentioned that he was enlisting the aid
of the government in purchasing the land. Basbas sent a letter to the Land Authority asking for help to acquire the land.
The Land Authority replied that his request is being processed and action will be taken thereon once the Land Bank has
been fully organized.

Rufino executed a Deed of Sale covering the riceland in favor of Sps. Flaviano and Angelina. Rufino and his wife
executed an affidavit stating that Basbas was notified of the sale before its conveyance, that Basbas refused or failed to
exercise the right of pre-emption granted under the Agricultural Land Reform Code. The submission of the affidavit
enabled the registration of the Deed of Sale in favor of Sps. Flaviano and Angelina. Basbas filed a case before the CAR
seeking to compel Rufino to sell the land to him.

CAR dismissed the case because Basbas failed to make tender of payment and consignation of the purchase price;
hence, the landowner cannot be compelled to sell the land to him.

Issue: Whether tender of payment and judicial consignation of the purchase price are necessary before a tanant-lessee
may avail himself of the right of pre-emption or of redemption provided in Sec 11 & 12 of the Agricultural Land Reform.

Ruling: The appealed order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint is affirmed. Basbas’s claim to preference in
purchasing the land, in case the said land is to be sold, or to his right to redeem it in 2 years should the land be sold
without his knowledge, is predicated upon Sections 11 and 12 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act 3844):

SEC. 11. Lessee's Right of Pre-emption. — In case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the
agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same under reasonable terms and conditions

SEC. 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption. — In case the landholding is sold to a third

person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable
price and consideration: Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be redeemed:

The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within two years from the registration of the sale, and shall
have priority over any other right of legal redemption.

There is no showing that the Land Reform Council has proclaimed that the government machineries and agencies in the
region are already operating, as required by section 4 of Republic Act 3844.Granting that Sections 11 and 12 are
operative, yet this Court has ruled in a past case that the timely exercise of the right of legal redemption requires either
tender of the price or valid consignation thereof. The redemption price should either be fully offered in legal tender or else
validly consigned in court. Only by such means can the buyer become certain that the offer to redeem is one made
seriously and in good faith.

As shown by the evidence in this case, the redemptioner has no funds and must apply for them to the Land Authority,
which, in turn, must depend on the availability of funds from the Land Bank. It then becomes practically certain that the
landowner will not be able to realize the value of his property for an indefinite time beyond the two years redemption
period.

In this case, there was neither prior tender nor did judicial consignation accompany the filing of the suit. Unless tender or
consignation is made requisite to the valid exercise of the tenant's right to redeem, everytime a redemption is attempted, a
case must be filed in court to ascertain the reasonable price. On the other hand, a prior tender by the tenant of the price
that he considers reasonable affords an opportunity to avoid litigation, for the landowner may well decide to accept a
really reasonable offer, considering that he would thereby save the attorney's fees and the expense of protracted litigation.

Section 74 of the Land Reform Act (RA 3844) establishes a "Land Bank of the Philippines" intended "to finance the
acquisition by the Government of landed estates for division and resale to small landholders, as well as the purchase of
the landholding by the agricultural lessee from the landowner." No expression in this part of the law, however, indicates, or
even hints, that the 2-year redemption period will not commence to ran until the tenant obtains financing from the Land
Bank, or stops the tenant from securing redemption funds from some other source.