11 Jusayan v. SombillaFacts:

Wilson Jesena owned land in Lucena, IloiloJune 1970 - Wilson entered an agreement with Jorge Sombilla wherein Jorge was tosupervise tilling and farmingAug. 1971 - Wilson sold the land to JusayanJorge and Jusayan verbally agreed that Jorge would retain the land and deliver 110cavans of palay annually to Jusayan without need for accounting of the cultivationexpenses provided Jorge cover the irrigation fees1971-1983 - continued the agreement1975 - Transferred ownership to sons (petitioners)1984 - Jusayan terminated administration and asked for return of landJorge did not return the land, so a case was filed in 1986 in the RTCRTC upheld the contractual relationshipCA reversed and dismissed the case, declaring it a case of agricultural tenancy and notwithin the jurisdiction of the RTC (should be DAR)

Issues:

W.O.N. Relationship is that of agency or agricultural leaseholdAgricultural leasehold

Requisites of Agency:1. Relationship is established by parties (express or implied);2. Object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person;3. Agent acts as representative and not for himself; and4. Agent acts within scope of his authority

Agency is not presumed by lawVerbal agreement between Jorge and Jusayan left all matters ofagricultural production to the sole discretion of JorgeDelivery of palay and receipts proved that the contract was that of anagricultural leaseElements of agricultural tenancy:

1. The object of the contract or the relationship is an agricultural landthat is leased or rented for the purpose of agricultural production;

2. The size of the landholding is such that it is susceptible of personalcultivation by a single person with the assistance of the members ofhis immediate farm household;

3. The tenant-lessee must actually and personally till, cultivate oroperate the land, solely or with the aid of labor from his immediatefarm household; and

4. The landlord-lessor who is either the lawful owner or the legalpossessor of the land, leases the same to the tenant-lessee for aprice certain or ascertainable either in an amount of money orproduce

Differentiation between leasehold tenancy and a civil law lease:1. Subject matter of a leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land, but a

civil lease may be rural or urban;1. As to attention and cultivation, the law requires the leasehold tenant

to personally attend to and cultivate the agricultural land; the civillaw lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing leased;

2. As to purpose, the landholding in leasehold tenancy is devoted toagriculture; in civil law lease, the purpose may be for any otherlawful pursuits; and

3. As to the law that governs, the civil law lease is governed by theCivil Code, but the leasehold tenancy is governed by special laws.

Evidence showed that Jorge personally cultivated the leased agricultural landEven if he worked a second job as Agricultural Technician at the MunicipalAgricultural office (since his daughter helped cultivate the land)

RA 3844 provides that once there is agricultural tenancy, the tenant’s right tosecurity of tenure is recognized and protected

Exceptions:1. The landholding is declared by the department head upon

recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suitedfor residential, commercial, industrial or some other urbanpurposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled todisturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average ofthe gross harvests on his landholding during the last five precedingcalendar years;

2. The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of theterms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of thisCode unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or forcemajeure;

3. The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for apurpose other than what had been previously agreed upon;

4. The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices asdetermined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;

5. The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon issubstantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonablydeteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agriculturallessee;

6. The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it fallsdue: Provided, That if the non- payment of the rental shall be due tocrop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of afortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground fordispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due thatparticular crop is not thereby extinguished; or

7. The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation ofthe terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.

Not falling under any exception, it is an agricultural leaseW.O.N. RTC or DAR has jurisdiction over the case

RTC - the case was filed in 1986 while EO 229 (DAR) was promulgated in 1987