Tan v. Pollescas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, the Tan Heirs, are co-owners of a coconut farmland. Esteban Pollescas was the original tenant, succeeded by his son Enrique. Esteban's surviving spouse, Reynalda Pollescas (Respondent), demanded recognition as successor tenant, which the landowner, Tan, refused. Reynalda filed a complaint with the DARAB-Ozamis, which declared her the lawful tenant. Reynalda subsequently failed to deliver 2/3 of the harvests to the Tan Heirs for the years 1992-1993, amounting to ₱3,656.70. The Tan Heirs filed an estafa case, resulting in Reynalda's conviction. The Tan Heirs then filed an ejectment case with DARAB-Misamis Occidental, which ruled in their favor, ordering Reynalda's ejectment. Procedural History: The DARAB reversed the DARAB-Misamis Occidental's decision, ordering the landowners to respect Reynalda's possession and cultivation and to pay her unpaid leasehold rentals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB's decision. The Tan Heirs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Tan Heirs seek to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision, raising issues on the grounds for extinguishment of leasehold under RA 3844 and whether Reynalda was obliged to pay 1/4 or 2/3 of the harvest.
Issue(s)
WHETHER THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GROUNDS FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF LEASEHOLD RELATION UNDER SECTION 8 OF RA 3844, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING NON-PAYMENT OF RENTALS. 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, CONSIDERING THE APPLICABILITY OF RA 6657 AND THE LEGALITY OF THE DEMANDED RENTAL.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, ordering the Tan Heirs to respect Reynalda's possession and cultivation of the land. The case was remanded to the Department of Agrarian Reform for the determination of the provisional lease rental.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether there is an exception to the grounds for extinguishment of leasehold relation under Section 8 of RA 3844, specifically regarding non-payment of rentals: The Court held that while Section 8 of RA 3844 enumerates specific grounds for extinguishment, the grounds for dispossession are provided in Section 36. The Court emphasized that an agricultural lessee's right to security of tenure is recognized and protected. Ejectment is only allowed for causes provided by law after due hearing. The Court found that the Tan Heirs sought Reynalda's ejectment on the ground of non-payment of lease rental. However, for non-payment to be a valid ground, the lease rental must be lawful. The Court noted that Section 34 of RA 3844 mandates that the rental shall not be more than 25% of the average normal harvest. The Tan Heirs' demand for 2/3 of the harvest exceeded this legal limit, rendering the claimed rental unlawful. Therefore, Reynalda could not be lawfully dispossessed for non-payment of an unlawful rental. The Court further stated that if the parties fail to agree on a lawful lease rental, the DAR must fix a provisional lease rental. Until such amount is determined, the lessee cannot be in default, as it is impossible to pay an undetermined amount. Consequently, Reynalda was not in default, and thus, could not be lawfully ejected on that ground. On the issue of 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, considering the applicability of RA 6657 and the legality of the demanded rental: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that Reynalda was obliged to pay only 25% of the normal harvest. The Court clarified that RA 6657 is the governing statute in this case, as the harvests in dispute occurred after its effectivity. Section 34 of RA 3844, as amended, explicitly states that the consideration for the lease of land shall not be more than 25% of the average normal harvest. The Tan Heirs' demand for 2/3 of the harvest was therefore illegal and contrary to law. Even if Reynalda had agreed to pay 2/3, such an agreement would be void as to the excess. The Court reiterated that the courts will not enforce payment of a lease rental that violates the law. Since the Tan Heirs demanded an unlawful rental, Reynalda was not in default for failing to pay it. The Court also pointed out that Section 8 of RA 3844 does not list failure to deliver share as a ground for extinguishment of the leasehold relation. The Court concluded that Reynalda's failure to deliver the full share of the Tan Heirs was not sufficient to disturb the agricultural leasehold relation, especially given that the rental demanded was unlawful.
Main Doctrine
Non-payment of lease rental cannot be a ground for ejectment if the rental claimed is unlawful or exceeds the statutory limit. The DAR must first fix the provisional lease rental if the parties fail to agree on a lawful amount.