CASE DIGEST: Heirs of Enrique Tan v. Pollescas

 

HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TAN V. POLLESCAS

G.R. NO. 145568                |              Nov. 17, 2005

 

FACTS:

Petitioners Tan Heirs are co-owners of a coconut farmland located at Labo, Ozamiz City with an area of 25,780 sq. m.

Esteban Pollescas was the original tenant of the land. Upon Esteban’s death in 1991, his son Enrique Pollescas succeeded him and was appointed as tenant by the landowner Enrique Tan.

Respondent Reynalda Pollescas, Esteban’s surviving second spouse, demanded that Tan recognize her as Esteban’s successor. Tan did not accede. Thus, Reynalda filed with the DARAB-Ozamiz a complaint for Annulment of Compromise Agreement, Quieting of Tenancy Relationship and damages.

The DARAB-Ozamiz declared Reynalda as the lawful tenant of the land. The DARAB-Ozamiz apportioned the harvests between the Tan Heirs and Reynalda based on the customary sharing system, which is 2/3 to the landowner and 1/3 to the tenant.

On several harvest dates, Reynalda failed to deliver to the Tan Heirs 2/3 of the harvests amounting to P3,656.70. The Tan Heirs demanded Reynalda to pay such amount. However, Reynalda ignored the demand. The Tan heirs filed with the DARAB-Misamis Occidental an ejectment case against Reynalda.

The DARAB-Misamis Occidental ruled in favor of the Tan heirs.

Upon elevation to the CA, the CA held that Reynalda’s failure to deliver the full amount of the Tan heirs’ share could not be considered as a willful and deliberate intent to deprive the Tan heirs of their share. The CA further declared that the rental must be legal to consider non-payment of such as a ground for ejectment. Citing Sec. 8 of RA 3844, the CA held that there is nothing in the law that makes failure to deliver share a ground for extinguishment of leasehold agreement.

ISSUE:

Whether or not nonpayment is a ground for extinguishment of leasehold relation

RULING:

Sec. 7 of RA 3844 as amended provides that once there is a leasehold relationships, as in the present case, the landowner cannot eject the agricultural tenant from the land unless authorized by the court for causes provided by law. RA 3844 as amended expressly recognizes and protects an agricultural leasehold tenant’s right to security of tenure.

The Court agrees with the CA that for non-payment of the lease rental to be a valid ground to dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding, the amount of lease rental must first 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.

Sec. 34 of the RA 3844 mandates not more than 25% of the average normal harvest shall constitute the just and fair rental for leasehold.