GR No.

145568
HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TAN,Sr. vs. REYNALDA POLLESCAS

FACTS:

Petitioners Tan were co-owners of a coconut farmland.Esteban Pollescas was

the original tenant of the land. Upon Estebans death, his son Enrique
succeeded him and was appointed tenant by the landowners. However,
respondent Reynalda, Estebans surviving second spouse, demanded that the
Tans recognize her as Estebans successor.
Reynalda filed a complaint before DARAB, questioning the tenancy
relationship of Tan and Enrique. DARAB ruled in favor of Reynalda, declaring
her as the lawful tenant of the Land. DARAB apportioned the harvests
between the Tans and Reynalda based on the customary sharing system
which is 2/3 to the landowner and 1/3 to the tenant.
Reynalda failed to deliver the 2/3 of the harvest. Tan heirs demanded the
payment thereof, but Reynalda ignored such demand.
Tan heirs filed a case for estafa for her failure to pay and deliver the share.

Petitioner: The agreement was extinguished due to non-payment of lease (the 2/3 of
the harvest).
Respondent: The Tans demand excessive amount
ISSUE:

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY RULED THAT REYNALDA IS

OBLIGED TO PAY ONLY 1/4 OR 25% OF THE NORMAL HARVEST AND NOT 2/3
WHEN THE SUBJECT LAND WAS NOT YET PLACED UNDER THE LEASEHOLD
SYSTEM PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF RA 6657

HELD: YES
In this case, the Tans seek ejectement of Reynalda from the Land due to nonpayment of lease rental. In order for non-payment of the lease rental to be a valid
ground to dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding, the amount of the
lease rental must first of all be lawful. If the amount of lease rental claimed exceeds
the limit allowed by law, non-payment of lease rental cannot be a ground to
dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding.
Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended mandates that not x x x more than 25% of the
average normal harvest shall constitute the just and fair rental for leasehold. In this
case, the Tan Heirs demanded Reynalda to deliver 2/3 of the harvest as lease rental,
which clearly exceeded the 25% maximum amount prescribed by law. Therefore,
the Tan Heirs cannot validly dispossess Reynalda of the landholding for nonpayment of rental precisely because the lease rental claimed by the Tan Heirs is
unlawful.

DOCTRINE:

Section 36 of RA 3844 as amended enumerates the grounds for dispossession

of the tenants landholding, to wit:
SEC. 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions.Notwithstanding
any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an
agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his
landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court
in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
(1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon
recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited for
residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes:
Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance
compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross
harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar
years;
(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with
any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions
of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force
majeure;
(3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a
purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon;
(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as
determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;
(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is
substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated
through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lessee;
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls
due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to
crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a
fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for
dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due that
particular crop is not thereby extinguished; or
(7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of
the terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.

SEC. 28. Termination of Leasehold by Agricultural Lessee During Agricultural

Year.The agricultural lessee may terminate the leasehold during the
agricultural year for any of the following causes:
(1)
Cruel, inhuman or offensive treatment of the agricultural lessee
or any member of his immediate farm household by the agricultural lessor or
his representative with the knowledge and consent of the lessor;

(2)
Non-compliance on the part of the agricultural lessor with any of
the obligations imposed upon him by the provisions of this Code or by his
contract with the agricultural lessee;
(3)
Compulsion of the agricultural lessee or any member of his
immediate farm household by the agricultural lessor to do any work or render
any service not in any way connected with farm work or even without
compulsion if no compensation is paid;
(4)
Commission of a crime by the agricultural lessor or his
representative against the agricultural lessee or any member of his
immediate farm household; or
(5)
Voluntary surrender due to circumstances more advantageous to
him and his family.

GR No. L-25327
HIDALGO vs HIDALGO
FACTS:
Respondent-vendor Policarpio Hidalgo (Policarpio) was the owner of 2
agricultural parcels of land. He executed a deed of sale in favor of the
Respondents.
2 Cases:
CASE 1: Respondent-vendor sold the 22,876 sqm parcel of land together with
2 other parcels of land for P4,000.00. Petitioner spouses Igmidio and Martina
as tenants thereof, alleged that the parcel of land worked by them was worth
P1,500.00
CASE 2: respondent-vendor sold the 22,876 sqm parcel of land for P750.00
and petitioner spouses Hilaro and Adela as tenants, seek by way of
redemption the execution of a deed of sale for the same price of P750.00
For several years, petitioner-tenants worked on the lands as share-tenants.
ISSUE:
WON the plaintiffs as share tenants, are entitled to redeem the parcels of land they
are working from the purchasers thereof, where no notice was previously given to
them by the vendor. Is the right of redemption granted by Sec 12 of RA No. 3844
applicable to share tenants?
HELD:
No. the court explained that a share tenant is altogether different from a
leasehold tenant and their respective rights and obligations are NOT COEXTENSIVE or CO-EQUAL. The right of redemption granted by Sec. 12 of the
Land Reform Code is applicable only to leasehold tenants because said
provision of law clearly grants to the agricultural lease and nobody else.
The court opined that the essence of the Agricultural Reform Code is the
abolition of the Agricultural Share Tenancy as proclaimed to its title. Sec.4 of
the code expressly outlaws agricultural share tenancy as to contrary to
public policy and decrees its abolition.
Based on transitory provision that existing share-tenancy contracts were
allowed to continue temporarily in force and effect notwithstanding their
express abolition until whichever of the following events to occur:
o A. The end of agricultural year when the National Land Reform Council
makes the proclamation declaring the region or locality a land reform
area or;
o B. The shorter provided in the share tenancy contracts expires;
o C. The share tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the leasehold
system.