YOLANDA CABALLES vs. DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, HON. HEHERSON T.

ALVAREZ and BIENVENIDO ABAJON

G.R. No. L-78214
05 December 1988
Petition for certiorari to review DAR order Property involved is only 60-sq. m., which
is part of a 500-sq. m. land
J. Sarmiento

FACTS:
Macario Alicaba & Millenes family, predecessors-in-interest of petitioner, agreed to lease to private respondent Abajon a
portion of subject land to construct the latters house & to plant corns & bananas. They agreed to a monthly rental of
PHP2.00 & 50-50 share of crops.

Petitioner Caballes & her husband acquired, through a deed of sale, the whole land which includes the portion occupied by
private respondent. They informed private respondent of their intention to build a poultry close to his house & persuaded
him to transfer his dwelling to the opposite or southern portion of the land. On his part, private respondent offered to pay
rent on the land occupied by his house, but such offer was not accepted.

Later, the spouses asked private respondent to vacate the premises, saying that they needed the property. But he refused.
Despite the confrontation before the Brgy. Captain, the parties failed to reach an agreement. All efforts by the landowners
to oust private respondent were in vain as the latter simply refused to budge.

Petitioner then filed a criminal case for malicious mischief against private respondent, alleging that the latter maliciously
cut down the banana plants worth P50.00, (note: all banana plants, were planted by Abajon).

Pursuant to PD 1038, the trial court ordered the referral of the case to the regional office of Ministry of Agrarian Reform
(MAR) to determine the relationship of the parties. As a result, MAR issued an order declaring the existence of a tenancy
relationship between Caballes & Abajon. It also declared the criminal case for malicious mischief filed by petitioner against
private respondent as not proper for trial; since such case is filed patently to harass and/or eject the tenant from his farm.

On appeal, then DAR Minister Conrado Estrella reversed the certification and declared the criminal case as proper for trial,
since the land involved is a residential lot consisting only of 60-sq. m.

On motion for reconsideration, herein respondent and new Minister of DAR, Heherson Alvarez issued an order finding the
criminal case as not proper for trial due to the existence of tenancy relations between the parties.
o Private respondent invoked Sec. 10 of RA 3844, which provided that new owners are bound to respect the tenancy
regardless of the size of the land being tilled.

ISSUE: Whether or not Abajon is a tenant of spouses Caballes.

HELD: NO.

RATIO:
The Supreme Court held that Abajon only occupied a miniscule portion of the lot. RA 3844, as amended. The 60-sq. m.
cannot be considered as an economic family-size farm protected by the aforementioned law. Planting camote, bananas, &
corn on a 60-sq. m. land cannot produce an income sufficient to provide a modest standard of living to meet the farm
familys basic needs.

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. This is so because
 unless a person has established his status as a de jure 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.

Sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. 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 respondents 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 at its southwestern side rather than a tenant of the
said portion.

ON the criminal case of malicious mischief:

SC dismissed the complaint. The private respondent cannot be held criminally liable for malicious mischief in cutting the
banana trees because, as an authorized occupant or possessor of the land, & as planter of the banana trees, he owns said
crops including the fruits thereof.

The private respondents possession of the land is not illegal or in bad faith because he was allowed by the previous owners
to enter & occupy the premises. In other words, the private respondent worked the land in dispute with the consent of the
previous & present owners.