Short answer. No. The Civil Code states plainly that the tenant on shares cannot be ejected except in cases specified by law. The landowner's mere wish, displeasure, or desire to change tenants is not a lawful ground. Removal requires a cause the law itself recognizes.
What the law says
The tenant on shares cannot be ejected except in cases specified by law.
Civil Code, Article 1685 — Ejectment of a Share Tenant. Read the full provision →
Security of tenure is the rule
The share-tenant — the kasama who works another's land and divides the harvest with the owner — is not a guest who can be shown out whenever the owner pleases. Article 1685 says the tenant on shares cannot be ejected except in cases specified by law. The default, in other words, is that the tenant stays. The owner cannot end the arrangement simply because he found someone willing to give a bigger share, because he is annoyed with the tenant, or because the informal understanding between them was never written down. Ejectment has to rest on a ground the law recognizes, not on the owner's will alone.
What 'except in cases specified by law' means
The article does not make the tenant impossible to remove; it channels removal through the law. Only causes that the law identifies will support an ejectment, and it is the party seeking to eject who must show that one of those causes truly exists. This is a deliberate reversal of the ordinary landlord's freedom to choose occupants. Because agricultural tenancy has long been the subject of special legislation aimed at protecting cultivators, the grounds and the process for ending a share-tenancy are tightly defined, and an owner who ignores them acts outside the law.
Why the protection exists
Behind the rule is a plain economic reality. A tenant who could be thrown off after preparing the soil, planting, and tending a crop would lose the fruit of a full season's labor, and would have no reason to invest care in land he could be stripped of at any moment. Tying ejectment to legally specified causes gives the cultivator a stake worth protecting and discourages owners from using the threat of removal as leverage. The security is not a favor; it is the condition that makes the sharing arrangement fair to the person doing the farming.
If you are facing ejectment
A tenant told to leave should not treat the demand as automatically valid. The key questions are whether a genuine tenancy relationship exists and whether the owner is relying on a ground the law actually allows, established through the proper process rather than by self-help. Keep proof of the tenancy — how long you have farmed the land, how the harvest was divided, and any receipts or records. Because agricultural tenancy is heavily regulated and the applicable rules can be technical, the specific facts of your arrangement should be reviewed before you give up possession.