Short answer. No. Article 1684 of the Civil Code provides that land tenancy on shares is governed by special laws, the stipulations of the parties, the provisions on partnership, and the customs of the place — not by the ordinary lease provisions of the Civil Code.
What the law says
Land tenancy on shares shall be governed by special laws, the stipulations of the parties, the provisions on partnership and by the customs of the place.
Civil Code, Article 1684 — Land Tenancy on Shares. Read the full provision →
Share tenancy has its own legal framework
Article 1684 of the Civil Code sets out a distinct hierarchy of rules for land tenancy on shares: Land tenancy on shares shall be governed by special laws, the stipulations of the parties, the provisions on partnership and by the customs of the place. The ordinary lease provisions of the Civil Code are not the primary source of law for share-farming arrangements. Instead, special legislation on agricultural tenancy takes priority, followed by what the parties agreed to, then the partnership provisions of the Civil Code, and finally local custom. This reflects the fact that share tenancy is economically closer to a profit-sharing partnership than to an ordinary lease, and the law treats it accordingly.
Why share tenancy is not an ordinary lease
In an ordinary lease, the tenant pays a fixed rent and keeps whatever is produced on the land. In a share-tenancy arrangement, the landlord and the farmer split the harvest — both bear the risk of a bad crop and both benefit from a good one. This shared-risk, shared-return structure is more characteristic of a partnership than a lease. Article 1684 recognizes this by directing that partnership rules fill gaps not covered by special laws or the parties' own agreement. The ordinary lease rules — which assume a fixed obligation to pay rent regardless of harvest — do not fit the share-farming relationship as well.
The role of the parties' own agreement
Article 1684 places the stipulations of the parties second in the hierarchy, after special laws but before the partnership rules and local customs. This means what the landlord and farmer agreed to in their share-farming arrangement governs their relationship to the extent it does not conflict with special agricultural tenancy legislation. The parties have flexibility to shape the terms of their arrangement — the sharing ratio, which crops are covered, obligations regarding seeds, tools and labor, and other practical matters — and those agreed terms will be respected. Disputes are resolved by first checking what the parties agreed, and only then looking to partnership rules or local custom.
Customs of the place as a fallback
When special laws do not address a particular aspect, the parties' agreement is silent, and the partnership provisions do not resolve the question, Article 1684 directs attention to the customs of the place. Share-farming practices vary significantly across regions and between different types of crops. What is customary in one locality — regarding the treatment of costs, the timing of harvest division, or the handling of crop losses — may differ from another. Custom operates as a residual rule, filling gaps that the law and the parties' own agreement leave open. In agricultural communities with established share-farming traditions, local custom can be a practical and determinative source of rights and obligations.