Agrarian Reform Case Digest

A. Grounds to dispossess a lessee/Liabilities of a lessor/Rental

Heirs of Enrique Tan, Sr. v. Pollescas, G.R. No. 145568, November

17, 2005

Facts:

Petitioners are co-owners of a coconut farmland located at Labo,

Ozamis City with an area of 25,780 sq. m.

Esteban Pollecas was the original tenant of the land. Upon the
death of Esteban, his son Enrique Pollecas succeeded him and was
appointed as tenant by the land owner Enrique Tan.

However, respondent Reynalda Pollecas, Esteban’s surviving second

spouse, demanded that Tan recognize her as Esteban’s successor.
Tan did not acede. Thus, Reynalda filed with the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board of Ozamis City, a complaint
for Annulment of Compromise Agreement, Quieting of Tenancy
Relationship and damages.

The DARAB-Ozamis made a decision in favor of Reynalda and

apportioned the harvest between Tan and Reynalda based on the
customary sharing system which is 2/3 to the landowner and 1/3 to
the tenant.

Unfortunately, Reynalda was not able to deliver the 2/3 shares of

harvest to the Tan heirs amounting to P3656.70. The Tan heirs
demanded Reynalda to pay the amount. However, Reynalda ignored
the demand.

The Tan heirs filed an ejectment cases at DARAB-Misamis

Occidental.
DARAB –Misamis Occidental ruled in favor of the Tan heirs ordered
Reynalda to vacate the land an turn over its possession and
cultivation to the Tan heirs.

Aggrieved, Reynalda appealed to DARAB Diliman and the decision of

the DARAB-Misamis was reversed. Consequently, the case was
appealed to the CA and eventually the SC.

Issue:
Whether or not the non-payment of the rental be a valid ground to
dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding.
Ruling:
NO, the non-payment of the rental is not a valid ground to
dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding.
Section 7 of RA 3844 states that “ The agricultural leasehold
relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural
lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until
such leasehold relation is extinguished”. RA 3844 as amended
expressly recognizes and protects an agricultural leasehold
tenant’s right to security tenure.
Sec 36 of RA 3844. 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 landing except when the
dispossession has by the Court in a judgement that is final and
executory if after due hearing is shown that: (type later)
In the instant case, the Tan heirs seeks Reynalda’s ejectment
from the land on the ground of non-payment of lease rental.
For a non-payment of a rental to be a valid ground to dispossess
the agricultural lessee of the landholding, the amount of the
lease rental must be first of all lawful. If the amount of lease
rental claimed exceeds the limit allowed by law, non-payment of
lease rental cannot be ground to dispossess the agricultural
lessee of the landholding.
Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended mandates that “not more than 25%
of the average normal harvest shall constitute the just and fair
rental for leasehold. The Tan heirs demanded 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 non-payment of rental precisely because the
leased rental claimed by the Tan heirs is unlawful.

Sta. Ana v. Sps. Carpo, G.R. No. 164340, November 28, 2008
Facts:
Respondents are the registered co-owners of a parcel land
situated in Santa Rosa Estate Subdivision, Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
A portion thereof, 3.5 hectares, was devoted to rice and corn
production and was tenanted by one Domingo Pastolero, husband of
Adoracion Pastolero.
However, on December 29, 1983, Adoracion, by executing a
notarized Pinanumpaang Salaysay with the conformity of one of the
respondents, and for a consideration of P72,000, transferred her
rights in favor of petitioner Otilia Sta. Ana, became the new
tenants of the subject land.
Unfortunately, circumstances transpired that abraded their
relationship. On December 1, 1989, respondents filed a Complaint
for Ejectment due to Non-payment of lease rentals. Respondents
alleged that despite repeated demands, petitioner refused to pay
the actual rentals from July 1985 to September 1989, in violation
of PD 817.
In their answer, petitioner denied that they did not refuse to
pay the rentals because they even sent verbal and written notices
to the respondents, advising them to accept the same; and that in
view of the latter’s failure to respond, petitioner were
compelled to sell the harvest and deposit the proceeds to a
Savings Account No. 9166 with the Universal Savings Bank at Sta.
Rosa, Laguna.
On October 12, 1993, the PARAD ruled that petitioner deliberately
defaulted in payment the rentals due to the respondents. The
PARAD found that the deposit made with the Republic Planters
Banks was actually in the names of the petitioner, hence,
personal to them. It was also found out that it was only during
the hearing that the petitioner deposited the amount at Universal
Savings Bank. As such the PARAD considered deposits as late
payments and as implied admission that indeed petitioner did not
pay past rental dues when they fell due.
Petitioner sought relief from DARAB. DARAB reversed the decision
of PARAD and ruled in favor of the petitioner. The respondents
then appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision of PARAD
and ordered the petitioners to pay the rentals and vacate the
subject lot. Aggrieved, petitioners sought relief from the
Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether the petitioner, as an agricultural tenant, failed to pay
his lease rentals when the same fell due as to warrant the
petitioner dispossession of the subject land.

Ruling:
The court ruled in the negative. Under Section 37 of RA 3844.
Burden of Proof – the burden of proof to show the existence of a
lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall
rest upon the agricultural lessor.
Respondents failed to discharge such burden. The agricultural
tenant’s faiure to pay the lease rentals must be willful and
deliberate in order to warrant his dispossession of the land he
tills.
The term deliberate is characterized by or results from slow,
careful, thorough calculation and consideration of effects and
consequences. On the other hand, the term willful is defined as
one governed by will without yielding to reason or without regard
to reason.
It was not the fault of the petitioner that the lease rentals did
not reach because the latter chose to ignore the notices sent to
them. Good faith was clearly demonstrated by the petitioners
when, because respondents refused to accept the proffered
payment, they even went to the point of seeking government
intervention in order to address their problems with respondents.

Natividad v. Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 179643, June 3, 2013

(reiterated in Sps. Nolasco v. Rural Bank of Pandi, Inc., G.R.
No. 194455, June 25, 2018)

Facts:
On December 23, 1998, Ernesto Natividad filed a ejectment and
collection of back lease rentals against respondent Mariano. In
his petition, Ernesto alleged that he purchased the subject
property in a public action held on July 17, 1988. Immediately
after the purchase, he verbally demanded that the respondents pay
the rentals. Despites his repeated demands, the respondents
refused to pay, prompting him to orally request respondents to
vacate the subject property. He filed the petition when the
respondents refused his demand to vacate.
In answer to Ernesto’s allegations, the respondents denied
knowledge of Ernesto’s purchase of the subject property and,
alternatively, disputed the validity of the purchase. They
averred that they had been paying rentals to the landowner. In
support of their position, the respondents attached copies of
rental payment receipts for the crop years 1988-1998.
Issue:
Whether or not non-payment of lease rentals is a ground for
eviction of tenants.
Ruling:
The court ruled in the negative. Under Par (6), Section 36 of RA
3844. Non-payment of the lease rentals whenever they fall due is
a ground for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee. In relation
to Sec 2 of PD 816, deliberate refusal or continued refusal to
pay the lease rentals by the agricultural lessee for a period of
two (2) years shall, upon hearing and final judgement, result in
the cancellation of the CLT issued in the agricultural lessee’s
favor.
The agricultural lessee’s failure to pay the lease rental, in
order to warrant his dispossession of the landholding, must be
willful and deliberate and must have lasted for at least two (2)
years. Mere failure of an agricultural lessor’s share does not
necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former absent
a deliberate intent on the part of the agricultural lessee to
pay.
In the present situation, the court found that the alleged non-
payment of lease rentals was not sufficient to warrant their
dispossession of the subject property. The respondent’s rental
payments were not yet due and the respondents were not in default
at the time Ernesto filed the petition of ejectment. The receipts
on record show that the respondents had paid the lease rentals
for the years 1988-1998. Hence, without any deliberate and wilful
refusal to pay lease rentals for two years, the respondents’
ejectment from the subject property, based on this ground, is
baseless and unjustified.