Role of the BARC and Evidence of Tenancy (Philippine Context)

I. Why “Non-Tenancy” Matters in Philippine Agrarian Law

In the Philippines, whether a person is a tenant/lessee/farmworker on agricultural land is not a mere label—it determines who has jurisdiction, what rights attach to the land, what remedies are allowed, and what transactions are permissible. Many land controversies hinge on a single threshold issue:

Is there a tenancy or agrarian relationship?

That issue affects, among others:

Jurisdiction (DARAB/DAR vs. regular courts)
Ejectment/possession outcomes
Validity of land transfers and conversions
Availability of security of tenure and disturbance compensation
Recognition as an agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB)

Because tenancy status is so consequential, parties often seek a Certificate/Certification of Non-Tenancy (commonly abbreviated in practice as “CNTS,” “CNoT,” or similar), usually as supporting documentation to show that no tenant exists on a parcel of land. But this document’s usefulness—and limits—are frequently misunderstood.

II. What Is a “Certificate of Non-Tenancy”?

A “Certificate of Non-Tenancy” is generally a local agrarian certification issued through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) field offices, typically after barangay-level validation (often involving the BARC) and field verification. It is usually intended to state that, as of verification, there is no recognized tenant, agricultural lessee, or agrarian relationship on the subject land.

A. Common Uses in Practice

A non-tenancy certification is often requested or presented in contexts such as:

Ejectment/possession disputes (to argue “this is not an agrarian case”)
Transactions involving agricultural land (sale, transfer, consolidation, partition), especially where a party wants to show the land is not tenanted
Conversion / reclassification / land use change support documents
Retention/exemption/exclusion claims and related DAR clearances
Banking, development, and due diligence (risk screening for agrarian claims)
Land registration or titling-related documentation as persuasive support (not as a conclusive legal determinant)

B. What It Is Not

A non-tenancy certification is not:

A judicial decree
A conclusive determination of tenancy rights
A substitute for adjudication by DARAB or courts when tenancy is contested
Automatically binding on alleged tenants who were not meaningfully heard or whose actual cultivation was not properly investigated

III. Legal Backdrop: Where Tenancy and Agrarian Disputes Sit in the System

Philippine agrarian law is built around a few core policy and statutory pillars:

Security of tenure of agricultural lessees and farmworkers
State’s power to redistribute agricultural lands (agrarian reform)
Specialized administrative adjudication for agrarian disputes
Protection against dispossession by mere labeling or paperwork

Even if different statutes address leasehold, reform coverage, and dispute resolution, the functional question is consistent: what facts establish an agrarian relationship and what forum resolves the dispute?

IV. The BARC: Identity, Purpose, and Real Function on the Ground

A. What is the BARC?

The Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) is a barangay-level body designed to support agrarian reform implementation and help address disputes at the community level. It is typically composed of representatives from farmer/agrarian sectors, landowners, and local leadership, and it interfaces with DAR field personnel.

B. Core Roles Relevant to Non-Tenancy and Disputes

Fact-finding / community validation
- Identifying who actually cultivates the land
- Determining whether cultivation is personal, continuous, and agricultural
- Checking if there is sharing of harvest or lease rental arrangements
- Verifying whether alleged tenants are known to the community as such
Mediation/conciliation in agrarian disputes
- The BARC often serves as a first-line venue for settlement efforts, consistent with the preference to resolve agrarian conflicts at the lowest level where feasible.
Assisting DAR in beneficiary identification and monitoring
- Supporting DAR processes that require ground-level knowledge (who farms, who lives there, who has been displaced, etc.)
Issuance/endorsement of barangay-level certifications
- In many localities, the BARC (or barangay officials with BARC participation) issues or endorses certifications about tenancy status, which the DAR field office may rely upon as part of its evaluation.

C. What the BARC Cannot Do

The BARC does not adjudicate final legal rights the way DARAB does.
The BARC’s certification is evidentiary—a piece of proof—not a final judgment.
The BARC cannot validly “erase” an agrarian relationship that exists in fact.

V. Agrarian Disputes: What They Are and Why Tenancy Is the Gateway Issue

An agrarian dispute generally involves controversies arising from agrarian relations, including:

Agricultural leasehold arrangements
Tenancy/occupancy tied to farm cultivation
Rights and obligations of farmers, farmworkers, landholders, and ARBs
Possession issues where the right to possess flows from an agrarian relationship

A. Jurisdictional Consequences

If the dispute is agrarian in nature, it is generally within the competence of DAR/DARAB (and related agrarian mechanisms).
If there is no tenancy/agrarian relationship, disputes like unlawful detainer/forcible entry typically fall under regular courts.

Because jurisdiction can make or break a case, parties often weaponize “non-tenancy”:

A landowner may use a non-tenancy certification to push the case into regular courts.
An alleged tenant may resist by proving the elements of tenancy, pulling the controversy into agrarian jurisdiction.

VI. Tenancy in Philippine Law: The Controlling Elements

Philippine doctrine is strict: tenancy is not presumed. It must be established by evidence showing the essential elements. Courts and agrarian tribunals consistently require proof of the following (commonly treated as indispensable):

Parties: a landholder/landowner (or lawful possessor with authority) and a tenant/agricultural lessee
Subject: agricultural land (devoted to agricultural activity)
Consent: the landholder consented to the tenant’s cultivation (expressly or impliedly)
Purpose: agricultural production
Personal cultivation: the tenant personally cultivates (with allowable help under agrarian norms)
Sharing / consideration: there is sharing of produce or payment of lease rental (in cash or kind), showing a juridical tie—not mere tolerance

If any essential element is missing, the relationship is typically treated as not tenancy, even if the person is physically present on the land.

A. Distinguishing Tenancy from Similar Arrangements

Tenancy is often confused with:

Caretaker/guard arrangements (watching property, not cultivating as a tenant)
Farm labor employment (wage-based, not leasehold sharing)
Occasional permission to plant (without the juridical sharing/leasehold element)
Informal family accommodation (use of land without agrarian intent)
Contract growing or service contracts (depending on structure, may not create tenancy)

The legal system looks past labels to the actual arrangement.

VII. Where the Certificate of Non-Tenancy Fits as Evidence

A non-tenancy certificate is usually offered to prove:

The land is not tenanted
The alleged tenant is not recognized as such by local agrarian structures
There is no recorded or validated agrarian relationship at the time of certification

A. Evidentiary Weight: Persuasive, Not Conclusive

In contested cases, a non-tenancy certificate typically functions as:

Secondary/administrative evidence of status
A document whose probative value depends on:
- How it was issued (process integrity)
- Who participated (was the alleged tenant heard?)
- What investigation was done (ocular inspection? interviews? postings?)
- Consistency with other records (DAR lists, barangay records, receipts, sworn statements)

It can be strong when the issuance process is robust—but it can also be weak when it is merely routinary or one-sided.

B. Common Grounds to Attack or Discount the Certificate

An alleged tenant may challenge it by showing:

Lack of due process / non-participation
- No notice, no opportunity to be heard, no interview of cultivator
Incomplete or superficial verification
- No field inspection; reliance solely on landowner’s representations
Contradictory documents
- Existence of receipts, sharing arrangements, DAR documents, or community proof
Timing issues
- Certificate issued after conflict began (self-serving timing)
Community/coercion concerns
- Local pressure, fear, or capture of barangay processes
Mischaracterization of relationship
- Tenant labeled as “laborer” or “caretaker” despite sharing and consent patterns

VIII. The BARC’s Role in Issuance/Validation: What It Usually Means

When a BARC participates in a non-tenancy certification process, its involvement often includes:

Community inquiry: Who farms the land? For how long? Under what arrangement?
Checking whether anyone claims tenancy and whether claimants are known in the barangay
Interviews of neighbors and local leaders
Coordination with DAR field staff

But the legal system will still ask: Did the process genuinely test the reality on the ground? BARC participation strengthens credibility when it is transparent, inclusive, and fact-based; it weakens when it is perfunctory.

IX. Proving Tenancy: Practical Evidence That Usually Matters Most

Because tenancy is fact-intensive, successful proof typically uses multiple categories of evidence that converge.

A. Documentary Evidence (Often High-Impact)

Receipts showing:
- sharing of harvest
- delivery of landowner’s share
- lease rentals (cash/kind)
Written agreements (even informal) about cultivation and sharing
DAR-related records, if any, such as:
- recognition lists, beneficiary documentation, endorsements, prior mediation records
Barangay/BA RC mediation records acknowledging a dispute about cultivation rights
Sworn statements/affidavits of disinterested neighbors, co-farmers, barangay agricultural workers
Farm input purchase patterns consistent with tenant operations (context-dependent)

B. Testimonial Evidence (Crucial When Documents Are Scarce)

Neighbor testimony on:
- length and continuity of cultivation
- presence of sharing arrangements
- who supervises planting/harvesting
- whether the landowner collects a share or rent
Testimony of harvesters, truckers, mill operators, buyers who dealt with the tenant as cultivator

Note: Testimony is more persuasive when it is specific (dates, crop cycles, quantities, how sharing was done) rather than purely conclusory (“he is the tenant”).

C. Physical/Behavioral Indicators

Continuous possession tied to farming seasons
Improvements associated with cultivation (bunds, irrigation, planting patterns)
Crop cycle continuity consistent with agricultural operations
Evidence of landowner’s participation consistent with sharing (collection, instructions, periodic oversight)

D. What Usually Fails

Bare assertions of tenancy without proof of sharing/consideration and consent
Self-serving affidavits unsupported by community or transaction details
Proof of mere residence on the land without proof of an agrarian arrangement

X. Consent: The Most Litigated “Invisible Element”

Consent can be:

Express (direct permission, agreement)
Implied (landowner knew of cultivation, accepted share/rent, did not object for years, acted consistent with tenancy)

Implied consent often becomes the pivot when landowners deny any arrangement. Proof commonly includes:

landowner receiving harvest shares
landowner’s agents dealing with the cultivator as tenant
repeated tolerated cultivation coupled with benefit to landowner (more than mere tolerance)

XI. Sharing / Lease Rental: The Element That Separates Tenancy from Tolerance

A common defense is: “He plants there, but only as a caretaker.” A common rebuttal is: “If he’s a caretaker, why is there harvest sharing or rent?”

Proof points:

who gets what percentage/quantity after harvest
when and where delivery happens
whether sharing happens every cropping season
whether the landowner’s share is consistent and expected

Even where the arrangement evolved over time (share tenancy converted to leasehold norms), the existence of an economic agrarian tie remains central.

XII. Agrarian Dispute Pathways: From BARC Mediation to DARAB Adjudication

A. Mediation / Settlement

BARC-level conciliation is often used to:

prevent escalation
document claims early
create a record of who asserted what rights and when

If settlement fails, that record can later matter as evidence of:

timing of the claim (not an afterthought)
community recognition of the dispute
admissions made during proceedings (subject to applicable rules)

B. Adjudication

When tenancy is disputed, adjudicatory bodies examine:

the six tenancy elements
credibility and consistency of evidence
conduct of parties over time
whether claimed tenancy is plausible in the agricultural and community setting

XIII. Strategic Use (and Misuse) of Non-Tenancy Certificates

A. Legitimate Use

To document status after a real investigation
As part of due diligence when no cultivator exists
To clarify that a person is merely a laborer or caretaker when facts support it

B. Common Misuse Patterns

“Preemptive certification” obtained after conflict begins
One-sided issuance without interviewing cultivator
Papering over long cultivation by calling it “help” or “permission”
Forum shopping by using the certificate to frame the case as non-agrarian

Because of these patterns, adjudicators often treat the certificate as one item in a larger evidentiary mosaic.

XIV. Best Practices: What a Reliable Non-Tenancy Verification Should Look Like

A more credible process usually includes:

prior notice or posting in the community
actual ocular inspection
interviews of:
- alleged cultivator (if any)
- adjacent land occupants
- barangay agricultural contacts
checking available DAR/local records
written narrative of findings (not just a checkbox conclusion)
clear identification of parcel and coverage (boundaries, area)

The closer the process is to real fact-finding, the more persuasive the certification becomes.

XV. Practical Checklists

A. If You Are Asserting Non-Tenancy (Typical Supporting Proof)

proof that land is not devoted to agriculture (if applicable)
proof of owner’s direct cultivation or non-agricultural use (if true)
proof that alleged tenant is a wage laborer (payroll, daily wage records)
sworn statements of disinterested neighbors
credible non-tenancy certification with demonstrable verification steps
absence of sharing/rental evidence and explanation for cultivator’s presence

B. If You Are Asserting Tenancy (High-Impact Proof to Gather Early)

any receipt, ledger, text message, or witness showing sharing/rent
affidavits from neighbors detailing crop cycles and sharing practices
photos/videos tied to dates of harvest delivery and landowner collection (where lawful)
proof of long-term personal cultivation (seasonal timeline)
records of disputes raised early (barangay/BARC mediation notes)

XVI. Key Takeaways

Tenancy is a factual-legal relationship defined by essential elements—not by labels or certificates.
The BARC plays a critical community-based role in validation and mediation, but it is not a court.
A Certificate of Non-Tenancy is persuasive evidence when properly issued, but it is not conclusive.
In contested cases, adjudicators look for concrete proof of consent, personal cultivation, and sharing/lease rental.
Jurisdiction often turns on tenancy; parties should expect the threshold issue to dominate strategy and outcomes.