History of Agricultural Tenancy Laws in the Philippines

In Spouses Franco v. Spouses Galera, Jr.,¹G.R. No. 205266, January 15, 2020., the Supreme Court expounded on the development of agricultural tenancy laws in the Philippines, as follows:

“Agricultural tenancy laws in the Philippines have evolved throughout centuries and are tied with the country’s history. Prior to the Spanish colonization, lands were held in common by inhabitants of barangays. Access to land and the fruits it produced were equally shared by members of the community.

“This system of communal ownership, however, was replaced by the regime of private ownership of property.²Dissenting Opinion of J. Leonen, J.V. Lagon Realty Corporation v. Heirs of vda. de Terre, G.R. No. 219670, June 27, 2018, http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64252 [J. Martires, Third Division] citing R.P. BARTE, LAW ON AGRARIAN REFORM 6-7 (2003). When the Spaniards arrived, they purchased communal lands from heads of the different barangays and registered the lands in their names. With the regalian doctrine imposed, uninhibited lands were decreed to be owned by the Spanish crown. Consequently, the encomienda system was introduced, in which the Spanish crown awarded tracts of land to encomenderos, who acted as caretakers of the encomienda.³Id. Under this system, natives could not own either the land they worked on or their harvest. To till the land, they had to pay tribute to their encomenderos.⁴Id. citing R.P. Barte, Law on Agrarian Reform 7 (2003).

“Encomiendas mostly focused on small-scale food production, until the hacienda system was developed to cater to the international export market. Still, natives were not allowed to own land, and the larger demand by the wider market required them to live away from their homes. Families of natives who worked on farms were reduced to being slaves pushed into forced labor either as aliping namamahay or aliping sagigilid.⁵Id.

“The encomienda and hacienda systems were analogous to share tenancy arrangements, which persisted in our agricultural tenancy laws.

“Enacted in 1933, Act No. 4054, or the Philippine Rice Share Tenancy Act, contained the earliest iteration of share tenancy in the country. To promote the well-being of tenants in agricultural lands devoted to rice production, the law regulated relations between landlords and tenant-farmers. Under this law, share tenancy was the prevailing arrangement.⁶Act No. 4054 (1933), sec. 2. Share tenancy contracts must be expressed in writing and registered with the proper office to be valid.⁷

Act No. 4054 (1933), secs. 4-5 provide:

SECTION 4. Form of Contract. — The contract on share tenancy, in order to be valid and binding, shall be drawn in triplicate in the language or dialect known to known to all the parties thereto, to be signed or thumb-marked both by the landlord or his authorized representative and by the tenant, before two witnesses, one to be chosen by each party. The party who does not know how to read and write may request one of the witnesses to read the contents of the document. Each of the contracting parties shall retain a copy of the contract and the third copy shall be filed with, and registered in the office of the municipal treasurer of the municipality, where the land, which is the subject-matter of the contract, is located: Provided, however, That in order that a contract may be considered registered, both the copy of the landlord and that of the tenant shall contain an annotation made by the municipal treasurer to the effect that same is registered in his office.

SECTION 5. Registry of Tenancy Contract. — For the purposes of this Act, the municipal treasurer of the municipality wherein the land, which is the subject-matter of a contract, is situated, shall keep a record of all contracts made within his jurisdiction, to be known as Registry of Tenancy Contracts. He shall keep this registry together with a copy of each contract entered therein, and make annotations on said registry in connection with the outcome of a particular contract, such as the way same is extinguished: Provided, however, That the municipal treasurer shall not charge fees for the registration of said contract which shall be exempt from the documentary stamp tax.

“In 1954, Republic Act No. 1199, or the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines, repealed Act No. 4054.⁸Republic Act No. 1199 (1954), sec. 59. In line with its objective of pursuing social justice, this subsequent law redefined agricultural tenancy arrangements and recognized more tenant-farmers’ rights.⁹Republic Act No. 1199 (1954), sec. 22. The law also expanded the coverage beyond lands devoted to rice production and included share arrangement provisions for crops other than rice.¹⁰Republic Act No. 1199 (1954), sec. 41.

“More important, Republic Act No. 1199 categorized agricultural tenancy into either share tenancy or a new system called leasehold tenancy. Whereas under share tenancy, the landlord and tenant contribute land and labor and later divide the resulting produce in proportion to their contribution,¹¹Republic Act No. 1199 (1954), sec. 4. under leasehold tenancy, the lessee cultivates the landlord’s piece of land for a fixed amount of money or in produce, or both.¹²Republic Act No. 1199 (1954), sec. 4, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263 (1959), sec. 1.

“Over time, share tenancy proved to be an abusive arrangement that heavily disadvantaged tenant-farmers. Thus, for being contrary to public policy, it was abolished with the passage of Republic Act No. 3844, or the Agricultural Land Reform Code.¹³Republic Act No. 3844 (1963), sec. 4. President Diosdado Macapagal, in his address during the signing of the law, recognized the need to end the oppressive system of share tenancy:

“‘This document before us, a bill which in a few minutes will become a statute to be known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, will provide us with the legal powers to remove once and for all the system of share-tenancy that has plagued our agricultural countryside. In one statement it declares share tenancy as violative of the law of the land, a system which will be abolished and will no longer be tolerated by law. But the Code does not only provide us with powers to remove an organic disease from our agricultural society; it also provides the means of injecting new health, new vigor, new muscles, and new strength into the new social order that will arise. Its first and immediate step is to destroy an oppressive and intolerable system; its ensuing objectives — which will constitute the sinews of land reform — is to nurse our agricultural economy into a state of healthy productivity. It not only aims to turn the Filipino tenant into a free man; it aims, most of all, to turn him into a more productive farmer.’¹⁴Address of President Macapagal at the Signing of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, August 8, 1963, https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1963/08/08/address-of-president-macapagal-at-the-signing-of-the-agricultural-land-reform-code/ (last accessed on January 14, 2020).

“Still in line with the government’s policy of eliminating existing share tenancy arrangements, the law was amended such that all existing share tenancy relations are automatically converted to agricultural leasehold relations.¹⁵Republic Act No. 3844 (1963), sec. 4, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389 (1971), sec. 1. Today, agricultural leasehold relations remain to be the only form of agricultural tenancy arrangement under the law.”

Further reading:

• Spouses Franco v. Spouses Galera, Jr., G.R. No. 205266, January 15, 2020.

Check Out My Latest YouTube Video

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]