Tenant–Farmer Responsibility for Copra Harvest in the Philippines

A comprehensive legal article

I. Introduction

Coconut farming covers ≈ 3.6 million ha (about one-third of Philippine agricultural land) and sustains millions of tenants, leaseholders, and farm-workers. “Copra”—the dried kernel of the coconut—remains the primary tradable output. Because harvesting coconuts involves repeated cycles (every 45–60 days in most areas) and significant post-harvest work (husking, splitting, drying, baling, storage, and delivery), Philippine agrarian law has long treated harvest responsibilities as both an economic and a legal issue.

This article synthesizes statutory provisions, administrative regulations, and leading jurisprudence that allocate duties and liabilities between landholders and tenant-farmers with respect to copra harvest. While coconut lands today generally fall under the leasehold system rather than share tenancy, many older share arrangements continue; hence both regimes are covered.

II. Core Legal Framework

Law / Issuance	Salient Points on Copra Harvest
Republic Act (RA) 1199 (1954) – Agricultural Tenancy Act	Ch. III & IV created two tenancy relationships—share tenancy and leasehold. In share tenancy, harvest work (including drying into copra) is jointly undertaken; expenses are first deducted from gross produce, then the net is split in the agreed shares (never less than 70 % for the tenant for ordinary coconuts).
RA 3844 (1963) – Agricultural Land Reform Code	Abolished share tenancy prospectively and converted existing share tenancies into leasehold, except coconut lands where share tenancy was allowed to persist until conversion could be effected (§4). It also imposed on leaseholders the duty to pay a fixed rental but granted them exclusive management of cultivation and harvest, subject to reasonable landholder inspection rights (§35–§36).
RA 6389 (1971) & Pres. Decree ( PD ) 27	Strengthened leasehold and declared the tenant owner-cultivator on rice & corn. Coconut lands were not covered but leasehold conversion accelerated through DAR.
RA 6657 (1988) – CARP & RA 9700 (2009)	Confirmed that remaining share tenancies had to be converted and reaffirmed leaseholder security of tenure. Tenant-farmers’ management autonomy over crop operations, including copra processing, was retained (§12, §27).
DAR Administrative Orders (AO) – e.g., AO 09-1993, AO 02-2003, AO 06-2014	Detail lease rental ceilings for coconut (25 % of average normal harvest), specify that the tenant bears ordinary harvesting and processing costs unless otherwise stipulated, and regulate conversion disputes.
Civil Code (Art. 1654-1657, 2085)	General obligations of a lessee (tenant) to undertake ordinary repairs and to use the property as a “bonus paterfamilias.”

III. Key Definitions

Term	Legal Meaning (Philippine context)
Tenant-Farmer	A natural person who, by himself and with household labor, cultivates the land for production and has a contractual/agricultural leasehold relation with the landowner (RA 1199 §5).
Cultivate	To “plow, harrow, and plant and to do all farm labor” including harvesting, handling, and processing necessary to make the crop market-ready (RA 1199 §5[2]).
Copra	The dried coconut meat obtained after partial removal of moisture; legally treated as part of produce subject to sharing or rental calculation.
Normal Harvest / Average Normal Yield (ANY)	The average per-hectare output of the preceding three normal years, excluding years of force majeure — used to compute lease rentals and sharing bases (DAR AO 02-2003).

IV. Allocation of Responsibilities

1. Felling, Gathering, and Husking

Leasehold system. The tenant-farmer decides the picking schedule, hires or supplies climbers, and shoulders ordinary labor costs. The landholder may inspect to prevent waste (RA 3844 §36) but cannot dictate harvest timing.
Share tenancy (legacy contracts). RA 1199 §28 treats felling/gathering as mutual obligations; however, the practical rule, affirmed in Vda. de Decasa v. Zabal (CAR Case No. 273-CPL), allows either party to advance the expense, subject to reimbursement from gross produce before sharing.

2. Splitting, Drying, and Conversion to Copra

Drying is now commonly done in kiln driers or sun yards. Jurisprudence (Paras v. Buenaventura, G.R. L-48648, 1981) classifies drying as a “necessary farm process” inseparable from cultivation; thus tenant’s responsibility under both systems, unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fuel or drying fees are deductible expenses prior to rental computation.

3. Storage and Hauling to First Point of Sale

Under DAR AO 06-2014, hauling within the farm to a designated collection point is tenant’s burden. Transport beyond the farm may be validly allocated by contract, but—where silent—the default rule is:

Distance	Rule	Notes
Within farm	Tenant’s burden	“Handling expenses” under AO 09-1993
Outside farm to nearest public road	Shared	Usually 50-50 in share tenancy; deductible from gross produce
Haulage to trader/copra mill	Lessee, but recoverable through farm gate pricing	Lease rentals are computed on net proceeds, so lower farm-gate prices already reflect hauling cost

4. Loss or Deterioration

Under Art. 1174 Civil Code, a tenant is not liable for fortuitous events (typhoon, pest). For negligence-based loss (e.g., improper drying causing aflatoxin), the tenant answers to the extent of the landholder’s provable loss, but only after DAR mediation/conciliation (DARAB Rules, Rule I §2).

5. Record-Keeping and Accounting

Both landholder and tenant must keep duplicates of Farm Record Book (FRB) entries—listing harvest dates, number of nuts split, copra weight, expenses, and net share. DAR AO 02-2003 requires submission during lease rental determination or conflict. Failure to keep FRB creates a presumption in favor of the tenant’s figures (see De los Reyes v. CAR, G.R. L-21593, 1965).

V. Sharing or Rental Computation

A. Share Tenancy (Grandfathered Contracts)

Formula: Gross Copra Weight (kg) − Deductible Expenses = Net Produce Net Produce × Tenant Share % = Tenant’s Share

Deductible Expenses include:

Hiring of climbers
Drying fuel or drier fee
Sacks, baling, twine
Haulage to first public road
Fees for barangay weighing scales

Minimum tenant share – 70 % for ordinary coconut and 80 % when tenant shoulders all expenses (RA 1199 §34).

B. Leasehold

Lease Rental Ceiling: ≤ 25 % of the Average Normal Yield (in peso-value) or ₱5,000 per ha annual equivalence (whichever is lower in high-risk areas, DAR AO 06-2014).

Tenant retains 100 % of harvest and copra sales proceeds, paying the rental in money or produce after deducting reasonable harvesting costs. Non-payment for two consecutive years, without just cause, is a ground for ejectment (RA 3844 §36, as amended).

VI. Tax and Levy Incidents

Real Property Tax (RPT) – Landholder remains the taxpayer; tenant may advance payment and deduct from rental (Pineda v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-31604, 1979).
Coconut Stabilization Fund / Levy – Abolished after the 1987 Constitution, but outstanding levy-fund assets are held in trust for coconut farmers (SC decision in Coco Levy Cases, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, 2012). No direct tenant liability exists today.

VII. Labor-Only Contracting Prohibition

A landholder engaging piece-rate coconut gatherers but retaining control over the work creates an employer-employee relation (DOLE DeptOrder 174-17). However, where a bonafide agricultural leasehold exists, the tenant’s hiring of laborers does not make the landholder an employer.

VIII. Criminal and Quasi-Delict Liability

Act	Punishable Provision	Penalty
Illegal ejection of tenant during harvest season	RA 3844 §36, §85	Imprisonment ≤ 3 yrs + fine ≤ ₱5,000
Taking copra beyond agreed shares (estafa-like)	Art. 315(1)(b) RPC (conversion)	Prisión correccional & fine based on amount
Cutting immature nuts without consent (willful waste)	Art. 275 RPC (abuse of property of another)	Arresto mayor & restitution

IX. Dispute Resolution Path

Barangay Katarungang Pambarangay – Mandatory first step for intra-barangay parties (RA 7160 §399).
DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) – Exclusive jurisdiction over leasehold conversion, rental fixing, ejectment, and disposition of copra shares (DARAB Rules §1).
Appeal – to the Office of the President within 15 days, then to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43, and finally to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.
Interim relief – Tenant may seek status quo order allowing continuous harvest pending appeal (DARAB Rules §4).

X. Best-Practice Checklist for Tenant-Farmers

Stage	What to Do	Why
Before Harvest	• Schedule ladder/traditional climbing respecting 45-day cycle. • Notify landholder ≥ 7 days prior (good practice even if not legally required).	Minimizes disputes over timing and share calculation.
During Harvest	• Record # of trees picked and # of nuts per tree. • Weigh nuts or green copra before drying.	Creates reliable FRB entries; aids DAR assessment.
Drying	• Use clean platforms; maintain moisture @ ≈ 6 %. • Keep receipts for kiln-drier fees & fuel.	Avoid fungal contamination; deductible proof.
Storage & Delivery	• Stack baled copra on pallets; avoid direct floor contact. • Take photos and weight slips on delivery.	Prevents quality losses; evidence if price disputes arise.
Accounting	• Prepare semi-annual statement of gross yield, expenses, net. • Serve copy to landholder with rental payment.	Satisfies RA 3844 §36 and secures defense against ejectment.

XI. Emerging Issues

Climate-Risk Allocations – With more intense typhoons, DAR is studying whether abnormally high drying expenses may be temporarily cost-shared through emergency guidelines.
Copra Price Volatility – The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) is reviving guaranteed-price schemes; if implemented, lease rental ceilings may be revisited to reflect a farm-gate support price.
Value-Added Shift – Tenants forming co-ops to produce virgin coconut oil (VCO) argue that landholders are limited to rent on the copra-equivalent value, not on VCO margins—an issue pending before DARAB (Case No. DARAB-R07-0004-2024).
Mechanized Climbing and Drone Picking – Technology blurs the line between “ordinary” and “capital” expenses; contracts should spell out who invests and how cost recovery affects rent.

XII. Conclusion

While Philippine agrarian statutes have steadily strengthened tenant autonomy, the time-consuming and labor-intensive nature of copra production means that harvest responsibilities remain a frequent flashpoint. The default rules are reasonably clear:

Tenant-farmers handle the entire physical process from picking to drying, assume ordinary expenses, and keep meticulous records;
Landholders limit themselves to receiving rent or share, may inspect for waste, and remain liable for land taxes and extraordinary repairs;
Disputes over expenses, sharing, or quality travel through the barangay → DARAB → Appellate chain, with abundant safeguards for tenure security.

Prudent parties therefore reduce arrangements to writing, revisit cost-sharing clauses as technology and prices evolve, and treat the FRB as indispensable. Doing so safeguards livelihoods, upholds statutory mandates, and sustains the country’s vital coconut economy.

Prepared 9 June 2025, Manila, Philippines.