< All Topics

G. Agrarian Relations

1. Concept of agrarian reform

a. Concepts

1) Under R.A. 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988

Agrarian Reform – means the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work. (Section 3[a[, R.A. 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988)

Agricultural Land – refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. (Section 3[c], Ibid.)

Agrarian Dispute – refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers’ associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. (Section 3[d], Ibid.)

It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. (Paragraph 2, Section 3[d], Ibid.)

2) Under R.A. 3844, Agricultural Reform Code

Agricultural land – means land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop lands, salt beds, fish ponds, idle land and abandoned land as defined in paragraphs 18 and 19 of this Section, respectively. (Section 166[1], R.A. 3844, Agricultural Reform Code)

Agricultural lessee – means a person who, by 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, for a price certain in money or in produce or both. It is distinguished from civil law lessee as understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines. (Section 166[2], Ibid.)

Agricultural lessor – means a person, natural or juridical, who, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, lets or grants to another the cultivation and use of his land for a price certain. (Section 166[3], Ibid.)

Immediate farm household – means the members of the family of the lessee or lessor and other persons who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him in his activities. (Section 166[8], Ibid.)

Farm employer – includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of a farm employer whether for profit or not, as well as a labor contractor but shall not include any labor organization (otherwise than when acting as a farm employer) or anyone acting in the capacity of an officer or agent of such labor organization. (Section 166[14], Ibid.)

Farm worker – includes any agricultural wage, salary or piece worker but is not limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless the Code explicitly states otherwise and any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a current agrarian dispute or an unfair labor practice and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular employment. Whenever the term “farm worker” is used in this Code, it shall be understood to include farm laborer and/or farm employee. (Section 166[15], Ibid.)

Agrarian dispute – means any controversy relating to terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning an association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm employers and employees. (Section 166[17], Ibid.)

Share tenancy – as used in this Code means the relationship which exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural production wherein one party furnishes the land and the other his labor, with either or both contributing any one or several of the items of production, the tenant cultivating the land personally with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household, and the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant. (Section 166[25], Ibid.)

b. Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy

Agricultural share tenancy has been declared to be contrary to public policy and has been abolished. (Section 4, Ibid.)

c. Establishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation

The agricultural leasehold relation shall be established by operation of law in accordance with Section four of the Agricultural Land Reform Code and, in other cases, either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly. (Section 5, Ibid.)

1) Parties to Agricultural Leasehold Relation

The agricultural leasehold relation shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and the person who personally cultivates the same. (Section 6, Ibid.)

2) Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation

The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided. (Section 7, Ibid.)

2. Existence and concept of agricultural tenancy

a. Elements of agricultural tenancy

1) The object of the contract or the relationship is an agricultural land that is leased or rented for the purpose of agricultural production;

2) The size of the landholding is such that it is susceptible of personal cultivation by a single person with the assistance of the members of his immediate farm household;

3) The tenant-lessee must actually and personally till, cultivate or operate the land, solely or with the aid of labor from his immediate farm household; and

4) The landlord-lessor, who is either the lawful owner or the legal possessor of the land, leases the same to the tenant-lessee for a price certain or ascertainable either in an amount of money or produce.

(Jusayan v. Sombilla, G.R. No. 163928, 21 January 2015)

b. As contrasted with civil law lease

The Supreme Court differentiated between a leasehold tenancy and a civil law lease in the following manner, namely:

1) the subject matter of a leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land, but that of a civil law lease may be rural or urban property;

2) as to attention and cultivation, the law requires the leasehold tenant to personally attend to and cultivate the agricultural land; the civil law lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing leased;

3) as to purpose, the landholding in leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture; in civil law lease, the purpose may be for any other lawful pursuits; and

4) as to the law that governs, the civil law lease is governed by the Civil Code, but the leasehold tenancy is governed by special laws. (Ibid.)

c. As contrasted with agency

In agency, the agent binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of the principal, with the consent or authority of the latter. (Ibid.)

The basis of the civil law relationship of agency is representation, the elements of which are, namely:

1) the relationship is established by the parties’ consent, express or implied;

2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person;

3) the agent acts as representative and not for himself; and

4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority. (Ibid.)

Whether or not an agency has been created is determined by the fact that one is representing and acting for another. The law does not presume agency; hence, proving its existence, nature and extent is incumbent upon the person alleging it. (Ibid.)

Jusayan v. Sombilla (2015)

Wilson Jesena (Wilson) owned four parcels of land situated in New Lucena, Iloilo. On June 20, 1970, Wilson entered into an agreement with respondent Jorge Sombilla (Jorge), wherein Wilson designated Jorge as his agent to supervise the tilling and farming of his riceland in crop year 1970-1971. On August 20, 1971, before the expiration of the agreement, Wilson sold the four parcels of land to Timoteo Jusayan (Timoteo). Jorge and Timoteo verbally agreed that Jorge would retain possession of the parcels of land and would deliver 110 cavans of palay annually to Timoteo without need for accounting of the cultivation expenses provided that Jorge would pay the irrigation fees. From 1971 to 1983, Timoteo and Jorge followed the arrangement. In 1975, the parcels of land were transferred in the names of Timoteo’s sons, namely; Manuel, Alfredo and Michael (petitioners). In 1984, Timoteo sent several letters to Jorge terminating his administration and demanding the return of the possession of the parcels of land.

Due to the failure of Jorge to render accounting and to return the possession of the parcels of land despite demands, Timoteo filed on June 30, 1986 a complaint for recovery of possession and accounting against Jorge in the RTC (CAR Case No. 17117). Following Timoteo’s death on October 4, 1991, the petitioners substituted him as the plaintiffs.

In his answer, Jorge asserted that he enjoyed security of tenure as the agricultural lessee of Timoteo; and that he could not be dispossessed of his landholding without valid cause.

NB: The RTC upheld the contractual relationship of agency between Timoteo and Jorge; and ordered Jorge to deliver the possession of the parcels of land to the petitioners. However, the CA reversed the RTC and dismissed the case, declaring that the contractual relationship between the parties was one of agricultural tenancy; and that the demand of Timoteo for the delivery of his share in the harvest and the payment of irrigation fees constituted an agrarian dispute that was outside the jurisdiction of the RTC, and well within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DAR) pursuant to Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988)].

[SC DECISION]

The claim of Timoteo that Jorge was his agent contradicted the verbal agreement he had fashioned with Jorge. By assenting to Jorge’s possession of the land sans accounting of the cultivation expenses and actual produce of the land provided that Jorge annually delivered to him 110 cavans of palay and paid the irrigation fees belied the very nature of agency, which was representation. The verbal agreement between Timoteo and Jorge left all matters of agricultural production to the sole discretion of Jorge and practically divested Timoteo of the right to exercise his authority over the acts to be performed by Jorge. While in possession of the land, therefore, Jorge was acting for himself instead of for Timoteo. Unlike Jorge, Timoteo did not benefit whenever the production increased, and did not suffer whenever the production decreased. Timoteo’s interest was limited to the delivery of the 110 cavans of palay annually without any concern about how the cultivation could be improved in order to yield more produce.

On the other hand, to prove the tenancy relationship, Jorge presented handwritten receipts indicating that the sacks of palay delivered to and received by one Corazon Jusayan represented payment of rental. In this regard, rental was the legal term for the consideration of the lease. Consequently, the receipts substantially proved that the contractual relationship between Jorge and Timoteo was a lease.

Yet, the lease of an agricultural land can be either a civil law or an agricultural lease. In the civil law lease, one of the parties binds himself to give to another the enjoyment or use of a thing for a price certain, and for a period that may be definite or indefinite. In the agricultural lease, also termed as a lease hold tenancy, the physical possession of the land devoted to agriculture is given by its owner or legal possessor (landholder) to another (tenant) for the purpose of production through labor of the latter and of the members of his immediate farm household, in consideration of which the latter agrees to share the harvest with the landholder, or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money, or in both.

x x x

The sharing of the harvest in proportion to the respective contributions of the landholder and tenant, otherwise called share tenancy was abolished on August 8, 1963 under Republic Act No. 3844. To date, the only permissible system of agricultural tenancy is leasehold tenancy, a relationship wherein a fixed consideration is paid instead of proportionately sharing the harvest as in share tenancy.

x x x

It can be gleaned that in both civil law lease of an agricultural land and agricultural lease, the lessor gives to the lessee the use and possession of the land for a price certain. Although the purpose of the civil law lease and the agricultural lease may be agricultural cultivation and production, the distinctive attribute that sets a civil law lease apart from an agricultural lease is the personal cultivation by the lessee. An agricultural lessee cultivates by himself and with the aid of those of his immediate farm household. Conversely, even when the lessee is in possession of the leased agricultural land and paying a consideration for it but is not personally cultivating the land, he or she is a civil law lessee.

x x x

Cultivation is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land, but includes the various phases of farm labor such as the maintenance, repair and weeding of dikes, paddies and irrigation canals in the landholding. Moreover, it covers attending to the care of the growing plants, and grown plants like fruit trees that require watering, fertilizing, uprooting weeds, turning the soil, fumigating to eliminate plant pests and all other activities designed to promote the growth and care of the plants or trees and husbanding the earth, by general industry, so that it may bring forth more products or fruits. In Tarona v. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled that a tenant is not required to be physically present in the land at all hours of the day and night provided that he lives close enough to the land to be cultivated to make it physically possible for him to cultivate it with some degree of constancy.

Nor was there any question that the parcels of agricultural land with a total area of 7.9 hectares involved herein were susceptible of cultivation by a single person with the help of the members of his immediate farm household. As the Court has already observed, an agricultural land of an area of four hectares, or even of an area as large as 17 hectares, could be personally cultivated by a tenant by himself or with help of the members of his farm household.

It is elementary that he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof. Hence, Jorge, as the one claiming to be an agricultural tenant, had to prove all the requisites of his agricultural tenancy by substantial evidence. In that regard, his knowledge of and familiarity with the landholding, its production and the instances when the landholding was struck by drought definitely established that he personally cultivated the land. His ability to farm the seven hectares of land despite his regular employment as an Agricultural Technician at the Municipal Agriculture Office was not physically impossible for him to accomplish considering that his daughter, a member of his immediate farm household, was cultivating one of the parcels of the land. Indeed, the law did not prohibit him as the agricultural lessee who generally worked the land himself or with the aid of member of his immediate household from availing himself occasionally or temporarily of the help of others in specific jobs. In short, the claim of the petitioners that the employment of Jorge as an Agricultural Technician at the Municipal Agriculture Office disqualified him as a tenant lacked factual or legal basis.

Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844 provides that once there is an agricultural tenancy, the agricultural tenant’s right to security of tenure is recognized and protected. The landowner cannot eject the agricultural tenant from the land unless authorized by the proper court for causes provided by law. Section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, enumerates the several grounds for the valid dispossession of the tenant. It is underscored, however, that none of such grounds for valid dispossession of landholding was attendant in Jorge’s case.

Although the CA has correctly categorized Jorge’s case as an agrarian dispute, it ruled that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case based on Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, which vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) the “primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters” and the “exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform” except disputes falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

… the CA gravely erred. The rule is settled that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of an action. In 1980, upon the passage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act), the Courts of Agrarian Relations were integrated into the Regional Trial Courts and the jurisdiction of the Courts of Agrarian Relations was vested in the Regional Trial Courts. It was only on August 29, 1987, when Executive Order No. 229 took effect, that the general jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts to try agrarian reform matters was transferred to the DAR. Therefore, the RTC still had jurisdiction over the dispute at the time the complaint was filed in the RTC on June 30, 1986. (emphasis supplied) /end

3. Rights of agricultural tenants

a. Agricultural Leasehold Relation

1) Security of tenure (Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation)

The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided. (Section 7, R.A. 3844)

a) Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation

The agricultural leasehold relation established under R.A.3844 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.  (Section 8, R.A. 3844)

b) Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties

In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in order of their age:

Provided, That in case the death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year:

Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established. (Section 9, Ibid.)

In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs. (Paragraph 2, Section 9, Ibid.)

c) Not Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc.

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. (Section 10, Ibid.)

2) 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: Provided, That the entire landholding offered for sale must be preempted by the Land Authority if the landowner so desires, unless the majority of the lessees object to such acquisition: Provided, further, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said preferential right only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of pre-emption under this Section may be exercised within ninety days from notice in writing, which shall be served by the owner on all lessees affected. (Section 11, Ibid.)

a) Affidavit Required in Sale of Land Subject to Right of Pre-emption

No deed of sale of agricultural land under cultivation by an agricultural lessee or lessees shall be recorded in the Registry of Property unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given the written notice required in Section eleven of this Chapter or that the land is not worked by an agricultural lessee. (Section 13, Ibid.)

3) 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. (Section 12, Ibid.)

b. Agricultural Lease

It shall be the right of the agricultural lessee:

1) To have possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land (Section 23[1], Ibid.)

2) To manage and work on the land in a manner and method of cultivation and harvest which conform to proven farm practices (Section 23[2], Ibid.)

3) To mechanize all or any phase of his farm work (Section 23[3], Ibid.)

4) To deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance of quedans and warehouse receipts for the produce due him (Section 23[4], Ibid.)

5) To a Home Lot (Section 24, Ibid.)

The agricultural lessee shall have the right to continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any home lot he may have occupied, which shall be considered as included in the leasehold. (Section 24, Ibid.)

6) To be Indemnified for Labor (Section 25, Ibid.)

The agricultural lessee shall have the right to be indemnified for the cost and expenses incurred in the cultivation, planting or harvesting and other expenses incidental to the improvement of his crop in case he surrenders or abandons his landholding for just cause or is ejected therefrom. In addition, he has the right to be indemnified for one-half of the necessary and useful improvements made by him on the landholding: Provided, That these improvements are tangible and have not yet lost their utility at the time of surrender and/or abandonment of the land-holding, at which time their value shall be determined for the purpose of the indemnity for improvements. (Section 25, Ibid.)

c. Bill of Rights of Agricultural Labor

To enable the farm workers to enjoy the same rights and opportunities in life as industrial workers, they shall enjoy the following:

1) Right to self-organization (Section 39[1], Ibid.)

The farm workers shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist farm workers’ organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing: Provided, That this right shall be exercised in a manner as will not unduly interfere with the normal farm operations. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in farm workers’ organizations under their supervision but may form separate organizations of their own. (Section 40, Ibid.)

2) Right to engage in concerted activities (Section 39[2], Ibid.)

The farm workers shall also have the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. (Section 41, Ibid.)

For the purpose of this and the preceding Section, it shall be the duty of the farm employer or manager to allow the farm workers, labor leaders, organizers, advisers and helpers complete freedom to enter and leave the farm, plantation or compound at the portion of the same where said farm workers live or stay permanently or temporarily. (Paragraph 2, Section 41, Ibid.)

3) Right to minimum wage (Section 39[3], Ibid.)

Notwithstanding any provision of law or contract to the contrary, farm workers in farm enterprises shall be entitled to at least P3.50 a day for eight hours’ work: Provided, That this wage may, however, be increased by the Minimum Wage Board as provided for in R.A. 602. (Section 42, Ibid.)

4) Right to work for not more than eight hours (Section 39[4], Ibid.)

Notwithstanding the provision of existing laws to the contrary, farm workers shall not be required to work for more than eight hours daily. When the work is not continuous, the time during which the farm worker is not working and can leave his working place and can rest completely shall not be counted. (Section 43, Ibid.)

Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day in case of actual or impending emergencies caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, epidemic, or other disaster or calamity, or in case of urgent work to be performed on farm machines, equipment or installations in order to avoid a serious loss which the farm employer or manager would otherwise suffer, or some other just cause of a similar nature, but in all such cases the farm workers shall be entitled to receive compensation for the overtime work performed at the same rate as their regular wages, plus at least twenty-five per centum additional, based on their daily wages. (Paragraph 2, Section 43, Ibid.)

No farm employer or manager shall compel a farm worker to work during Sundays and legal holidays: Provided, however, That should the farm worker agree to work on said days, he shall be paid an additional sum of at least twenty-five per centum of his regular compensation: Provided, further, That the farm employer or manager shall not be held liable for any claim for overtime work which he had not previously authorized, except if the work rendered was to avoid damages to crops, produce, work animals or implements, buildings or the like. (Paragraph 3, Section 40, Ibid.)

Any agreement or contract between the farm employer or manager and the farm worker contrary to the provisions of this Section shall be null and void. (Paragraph 4, Section 40, Ibid.)

5) Right to claim for damages for death or injuries sustained while at work (Section 39[5], Ibid.)

Notwithstanding the provisions of existing laws to the contrary, Act Numbered Eighteen hundred and seventy-four, as amended, entitled “An Act to extend and regulate the responsibility of employers for personal injuries and death suffered by their employees while at work”, shall apply to farm workers insofar as it may be applicable. (Section 44, Ibid.)

6) Right to compensation for personal injuries, death or illness (Section 39[6], Ibid.)

Notwithstanding the provisions of existing laws to the contrary, Act Numbered Thirty-four hundred and twenty-eight, as amended, entitled “An Act prescribing the compensation to be received by employees for personal injuries, death or illness contracted in the performance of their duties”, shall apply to farm workers insofar as it may be applicable. (Section 45, Ibid.)

(7) Right against suspension or lay-off (Section 39[7], Ibid.)

The landowner, farm employer or farm manager shall not suspend, lay-off, or dismiss any farm worker without just cause from the time a farm workers’ organization or group of farm workers has presented to the landowner a petition or complaint regarding any matter likely to cause a strike or lockout and a copy thereof furnished with the Department of Labor, or while an agricultural dispute is pending before the Court of Agrarian Relations. If it is proved during the said period that a worker has been suspended or dismissed without just cause, the Court may direct the reinstatement and the payment of his wage during the time of his suspension or dismissal, or of any sum he should have received had he not been suspended or dismissed, without prejudice to any criminal liability of the landowner, farm employer or farm manager as prescribe by Section twenty-four of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred and three, as amended. (Section 46, Ibid.)

d. Application of laws applicable to non-agricultural workers

All other existing laws applicable to non-agricultural workers in private enterprises which are not inconsistent with this Code shall likewise apply to farm workers, farm labor organizations and agrarian disputes as defined in this Code, as well as to relations between farm management and farm labor and the functions of the Department of Labor and other agencies. (Section 47, Ibid.)

4. Concept of farmworkers

a. Under R.A. 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988

Farmworker – is a natural person who renders services for value as an employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly, monthly or “pakyaw” basis. The term includes an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular farm employment. (Section 3[g], Ibid.)

Farmer – refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation of land or the production of agricultural crops, livestock and/or fisheries either by himself/herself, or primarily with the assistance of his/her immediate farm household, whether the land is owned by him/her, or by another person under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement or arrangement with the owner thereof. (Section 3[f], R.A. 6657, as amended by R.A. 9700)

Regular Farmworker – is a natural person who is employed on a permanent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm. (Section 3[h], Ibid.)

Seasonal Farmworker – is a natural person who is employed on a recurrent, periodic or intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or a non-permanent laborer, such as “dumaan”, “sacada”, and the like. (Section 3[i], Ibid.)

Other Farmworker – is a farmworker who does not fall under paragraphs (g), (h) and (i). (Section 3[j], Ibid.)

b. R.A. 3844, Agricultural Reform Code

Farm worker – includes any agricultural wage, salary or piece worker but is not limited to a farm worker of a particular farm employer unless the Code explicitly states otherwise and any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a current agrarian dispute or an unfair labor practice and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular employment. Whenever the term “farm worker” is used in this Code, it shall be understood to include farm laborer and/or farm employee. (Section 166[15], Ibid.)

Immediate farm household – means the members of the family of the lessee or lessor and other persons who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him in his activities. (Section 166[8], Ibid.)

Farm employer – includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of a farm employer whether for profit or not, as well as a labor contractor but shall not include any labor organization (otherwise than when acting as a farm employer) or anyone acting in the capacity of an officer or agent of such labor organization. (Section 166[14], Ibid.)

Previous F. Kasambahay
Next H. Universal Health Care
Table of Contents