G.R. No. L-39695. June 14, 1990.
Fortunato De La Cruz and Diega Ramos-De La Cruz, petitioners, vs. Hon. Crispin V. Bautista, Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Fifth Judicial District, Branch III, and Jose I. Robles, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Jose I. Robles filed an ejectment complaint before the Municipal Court of Obando, Bulacan, alleging petitioners Fortunato De La Cruz and Diega Ramos-De La Cruz occupied his two parcels of land (302 sq. m.) in Lawa, Obando, Bulacan, by mere tolerance since April 1967, built a house, and refused to vacate despite demands. Petitioners moved to dismiss, claiming they were agricultural tenants since 1941, entitling them to a homelot, and that jurisdiction lay with the Court of Agrarian Relations. The municipal court denied the motion, ruling jurisdiction is determined by the complaint’s allegations, which did not speak of tenancy.
After trial, the municipal court ordered petitioners’ ejectment. They appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan, which affirmed the decision. Upon issuance of a writ of execution, petitioners filed a motion to refer the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for certification under Presidential Decree No. 316. The CFI denied this motion, prompting the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether the CFI decision in the ejectment case must be referred to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for certification under P.D. No. 316.

RULING

No. The motion for referral was correctly denied. The core legal logic rests on the nature of the land and the absence of a tenancy relationship. For P.D. No. 316 (which prohibits ejectment of tenant-farmers without prior certification from the Department of Agrarian Reform) to apply, a tenancy relationship must exist. The essential requisites for tenancy include: (1) the parties are landholder and tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) the purpose is agricultural production; and (4) there is consideration (e.g., harvest sharing), with consent and personal cultivation by the tenant.
Here, the subject parcels are residential lots, not agricultural land. The complaint sought ejectment from a residential area based on tolerance, not cultivation. Petitioners’ claim of tenancy, raised as a defense, was thoroughly litigated. Both the municipal court and the CFI found no tenancy relationship existed, a factual determination binding in this proceeding. Since the land is residential, the fundamental element of agricultural production is absent, negating any tenancy. Consequently, P.D. No. 316 and related issuances like Memorandum Circular No. 29, which protect “actual tillers” or “tenant-farmers,” are inapplicable. The CFI, having properly acquired and exercised jurisdiction over the ejectment case, had no duty to refer it for agrarian reform certification. The order denying the motion for referral is affirmed.