CASE DIGEST
Written By: Alexandra G. Soledad
Case Name: Heirs of Enrique Tan, Sr., v.
Reynalda Pollescas
Doctrine: For tenants failure to pay rental to come
within the intend,ent of the law as a ground for
ejectment, it is imperative that the rental must be
legal. What the law contemplates iis the deliberate
failure of the tenant to pay the legal rental, not the
failure to pay an illegal rental.
Facts: Petitioners Tan were co-owners of a coconut
farmland(Land) located at Labo, Ozamis City.
Esteban Pollescas was the original tenant of the
said land. Upon Esteban’s death, his son Enrique
pollesca’s succeeded him and was appointed as
tenant by the landowner Enrique Tan.
Respondent herein, Reynalda Pollesca, Esteban’s
surviving spouse demanded that the Tans
recognize her as Esteban’s successor. The Tans
did not accede. Thus, respondent Reynalda
Pollesca’s filed with the DARAB of Ozamis City a
complaint for Annulment of Compromise
Agreement, Quieting of Tenancy Relationship and
damages.
DARAB-Ozamis declared Reynalda as the lawful
tenant of the Land, and apportioned the harvests
between Tan Heirs and Reynalda based on
custimary sharing which is 2/3 to the landowner,
and 1/3 to the tenant.
Tan Heirs demanded Reynalda to pay such amount,
but Reynalda ignored it. Tan Heirs filed a complaint
of estafa against Reynalda. The MTC found
Reynalda guilty of estafa, and due to her continued
failure to deliver the share of the Tan heirs, the latter
filed a complaint for ejectment against the former.
The petitioner Tan heirs argued that the leasehold
agreement is extinguished due to non-payment of
the lease (2/3 of the harvest). The respondent
Reyanalda contended that the petitioner’s demand
for payment is excessive. The CA ruled that there is
othing in the law that makes failure to deliver a
share as ground for extinguishment of leasehold
agreement.
Issue: Whether the CA is correct in ruling 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 Sec. 12 of R.A. 6657.
Ruling: The law governning in this case is R.A.
6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1998, which only expressly repealed Sec. 35 of R.A.
3844. The harvest in dispute are for the years
1992-1993 after its effectivity. In this case, the Tan
Heirs seek Reynalda’s ejectment on the ground of
non-payment of lease rentall. The Court agrees with
the CA that for nonpayment of the lease rental to be
valid ground to disposses the agricultural lessee of
the landholding, the amount of the lease rental must
first of all be lawful. If the amount of the lease rental
claimed exceeds the limit allowed by law,
non-oayment of lease rental cannot be aground to
disposses the agricultural lessee of the landholding.
Sec. 43 of R.A. 3844,as amended provides that not
more than 25% of the average normal harvest
shall constitute the just and fair rental for leasehold.
In this case, the Tan Heirs cannot validly disposses
Reynalda of the landholding for non-payment o
rental precisely because the lease rental claimed by
the Tan Heirs is unlawful.
Reynalda and the Tan Heirs failed to agree on a
lawful lease rental. Consequently, that means the
DAR must first fix the provisional lease rental
payable by Reynalda to the Tan Heirs pursuant to
par. 2 of Sec. 34 of R.A. 3844. Until DAR has fixed
the provisional lease rental, Reynalda cannot be in
default in the payment of the lease rental since such
amount is not yet determned. There can be no delay
in the payment of an undetermined lease rental
because it is impossible to pay such aundetermined
amount.
That Reynalda is not yet in default in the payment of
the lease rental is a basic reason why she cannot be
lawfully ejected from the Land for nonpayment of
rental.
Moreover, there is no ground for extinguishment of
leasehold rental in this case. The case of
Garchitorena v. Panganiban was also wrongfully
cited by Atty. Anonat, counselfor the Tan Heirs.
The Court denied the petition and affirms the
assailed decision of the CA. It remanded the case to
the DAR for determination of teh provisional lease
rental.