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 Estebans death, his son Enrique pollescas succeeded him and was appointed as tenant by the landowner Enrique Tan. Respondent herein, Reynalda Pollesca, Estebans surviving spouse demanded that the Tans recognize her as Estebans successor. The Tans did not accede. Thus, respondent Reynalda Pollescas 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 petitioners 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The law governning in this case is R.A. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998, which only expressly repealed Sec. 35 of R.A. 3844.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 Reynaldas 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.
h. Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Social Security Commission, Social Security System, Amador m. Monteiro, Santiago Dionisio r. Agdeppa, Ma. Luz n. Barros-magsino, Milagros n. Casuga and Jocelyn q. Garcia (g.r. No. 228087. January 24, 2018.* )