Zamora vs Su Jr.G.R. No. 85611 April 6, 1990Topic: Elements of Tenancy RelationFact: A certain Su owned a land wherein Su employed Zamora to be an Overseer of his land and to administer it. In exchange of Zamoras service he was paid with 2,400 pesos per month and 1/3 of the earning of the Coconut plantation.In May 1981, The Landowner incurred a debt therefore he loaned the land to creditor together with it fruits. The current possessor of the land lay off Zamora until Su reacquired the said property.This compelled Zamora to file a case against the private respondents to the labor arbiter of illegal dismissal.Upon the investigation Labor Arbiter it was found that it Zamora was entitled to backwages and his share in the sales of the earnings of the Coconut plantation.The Private Respondents appealed in the NLRC and the NLRC rendered a decision in favor of the landowners. Reversing the decision of the labor arbiter and declaring that there was a tenancy relationship between the parites therefore the it is the Agrarian courts that has jurisdiction over the case.Issue:Is there a Tenancy relationship between the parties?Held:No, It is clear that Zamora was paid wages to administer the land of Su. The court laid down the elements for the tenancy relationship to exist in this case and these are: 1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2) The subject is agricultural land; 3) There is consent; 4) The purpose is agricultural production; 5) There is personal cultivation; and 6) There is sharing of harvest or payment of rental.The element of personal cultivation of the land, or with the aid of his farm household, is essential in establishing a landlord-tenant or a lessor-lessee relationship, is absent in the relationship between Su and Zamora. Zamora did not cultivate any part of Su's plantation either by himself or with the help of his household.