TAn vs Pollescas

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 Esteban’s death, his son Enrique succeeded him and was appointed tenant by the landowners. However, respondent Reynalda, Esteban’s surviving second spouse, demanded that the Tans recognize her as Esteban’s 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.