THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 185365, March 02, 2016
RAMON PACON, THROUGH HIS WIFE FELINA PACON, ANTONIO PACON, THROUGH HIS WIFE NENITA PACON, EULOGIO PACON, THROUGH HIS SON JORGE PACON, LEONARDO PACON, MANUEL IGOS, JOSE COLORES, LOLITA COLORES, AND ESTANISLAO BUENDIA, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN TAN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
JARDELEZA, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered as follows:Tan, et al.'s allegation that petitioners have already sold to third persons their rights as tenants of the land was also rejected for being "completely unsupported by evidence."14Claim for damages is hereby ordered dismissed for lack of substantial evidence to prove the same.
- Ordering the [petitioners] to render an accounting of harvest from the year 1995 up to the filing of these cases on March 1998, afterwhich to deliver the arrearages, if any, and the just share due [Tan, et al.] for the same period;
- Ordering the [petitioners] to deliver the landowner's share to [Tan, et al.] for the harvest beginning April 1998 until such time that there is yet no new leasehold contract entered into by and between herein party-litigants;
- Ordering the MARO of Sipocot, Camarines Sur or his duly-authorized representative to assist herein parties in the execution of a new agricultural leasehold contract; and
- Ordering the parties to comply religiously and in good faith with the terms and conditions to be stipulated in the aforesaid contract.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the Board hereby AFFIRMS in toto the appealed decisions of the Hon. Adjudicator for the Province of Camarines Sur.The DARAB affirmed the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator finding that Tan, et al. did not present substantial evidence to warrant petitioners' ejectment based on non-payment of rentals.17 It considered Tan's statement in his Affidavit dated July 24, 1997 acknowledging the irregular and meager remittances made by petitioners.18 It also found that petitioners paid lease rentals through Tan, et al.'s authorized representatives:
SO ORDERED.16ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In addition, Rolando Candelaria stated in his Affidavit of May 12, 1998 that:On August 18, 2004, the DARAB denied the motion for reconsideration subsequently filed for lack of merit.20 Thus, Tan filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 86674.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary"2. That I am the buyer of the copra produce in the land owned by Mr. Romeo Tan, et al., covered by Title No. TCT-3958 and located at Tara, Sipocot, Camarines Sur;Likewise, Felomino Garcia, BARC-Chairman of Barangay Tara, Sipocot, Camarines Sur, attested in his Affidavit of May 7, 1998 that:
3. That the landowner's share in the above-mentioned property representing 2/3 of the net produce were already withheld and deposited in my comprada and later on withdrawn by Mr. Sandy Nuñez;"
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary2. I am the duly instituted overseer of a parcel of land owned by Romeo S. Tan, et al. embraced by Title No. TCT 3958 located at Tara-Gaongan, Sipocot, Camarines Sur;The aforementioned Affidavits clearly manifest that [petitioners] were paying their lease rentals to [Tan, et al.] through the latter's authorized representatives.19ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
3. That as per instruction of the landowners, he instructed the tenants of the above-mentioned property that during harvest season the landowners' share in the subject property be remitted and deposited to Candelaria Comprada owned by Mr. Rolando Candelaria;
xxx The [petitioners] should have endeavored to fully substantiate their claim of payment considering that [Tan] disputes or fails to acknowledge the fact of payment. Well-settled is the rule that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.We disagree.
In this case, [petitioners] failed to discharge their burden. They failed to prove the fact of payment. No evidence was presented showing receipt and acknowledgement by [Tan, et al.] of payment of rentals or their rightful share in the harvest/produce. xxx.
In fact, the very disposition of the agency below ordering [petitioners] to render an accounting of the harvest from 1995 to 1998 and to deliver arrearages as well as [Tan's] share in the harvest from 1998 only underscores the non-payment by [petitioners] of the landowners' share in the harvest.29 (Emphasis supplied.)
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:For non-payment of lease rental to be a valid ground to dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding, however, the amount of the lease rental must first of all be lawful. When it exceeds the limit allowed by law, non-payment of rentals cannot be a ground to dispossess an agricultural lessee of the landholding.32
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryxxx
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due: Provided, That if the nonpayment 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; xxx.
SEC. 34. Consideration for the Lease of Riceland and Lands Devoted to Other Crops. - The consideration for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five per centum of the average normal harvest or if there have been no normal harvests, then the estimated normal harvest during the three agricultural years immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing, whichever are applicable: Provided, That if the land has been cultivated for a period of less than three years, the initial consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest or if there have been no normal harvests, then the estimated normal harvest during the preceding years when the land was actually cultivated, or on the harvest of the first year in the case of newly-cultivated lands, if that harvest is normal harvests, the final consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest during these three preceding agricultural years.Tan cites the following as ground for petitioners' ejectment from the subject landholding:
In the absence of any agreement between the parties as to the rental, the Court of Agrarian Relations shall summarily determine a provisional rental in pursuance of existing laws, rules and regulations and production records available in the different field units of the department, taking into account the extent of the development of the land at the time of the conversion into leasehold and the participation of the lessee in the development thereof. This provisional rental shall continue in force and effect until a fixed rental is finally determined. The court shall determine the fixed rental within thirty days after the petition is submitted for decision.
If capital improvements are introduced on the farm not by the lessee to increase its productivity, the rental shall be increased proportionately to the consequent increase in production due to said improvements. In case of disagreement, the Court shall determine the reasonable increase in rental. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
2. There are supposed to be at least six (6) harvests in a year and the rentals . . . due to the agricultural lessors, is two-third (2/3) of every harvest. Regretfully, petitioners made meager payments of the rentals only in 1994 and 1995.33 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)The landowners' share being demanded from petitioners, equivalent to two-thirds of the harvest, exceeds the twenty percent maximum amount set by law. Non-payment of this share thus cannot legally be used as a ground to eject petitioners. Furthermore, as a consequence of the parties' failure to agree on a lawful lease rental, neither can petitioners be considered to be in default in the payment of lease rentals. Our ruling in Heirs of Enrique Tan, Sr. v. Pollescas is particularly applicable:
Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended mandates that "not xxx 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 non-payment of rental precisely because the lease rental claimed by the Tan Heirs is unlawful.We thus reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals and uphold the dismissal of the complaint for ejectment filed against petitioners. In view of our ruling, we see no need to resolve, at this time, the issues relative to petitioners' defense of payment.
Even assuming Reynalda agreed to deliver 2/3 of the harvest as lease rental, Reynalda is not obliged to pay such lease rental for being unlawful. There is no legal basis to demand payment of such unlawful lease rental. The courts will not enforce payment of a lease rental that violates the law. There was no validly fixed lease rental demandable at the time of the harvests. Thus, Reynalda was never in default.
Reynalda and the Tan Heirs failed to agree on a lawful lease rental. Accordingly, the DAR must first fix the provisional lease rental payable by Reynalda to the Tan Heirs pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended. Until the DAR has fixed the provisional lease rental, Reynalda cannot be in default in the payment of lease rental since such amount is not yet determined. There can be no delay in the payment of an undetermined lease rental because it is impossible to pay an undetermined 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 non-payment of rental.34 (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring. Rollo, pp. 31-42.
2Id. at 53-54.
3 Romeo, Cecil, Josephine and Norma Tan.
4Rollo, pp. 49-51.
5Id. at 49-50.
6Id. at 56.
7Id.
8 PARAD Case Nos. R-0503-0277-'98, R-0503-0279-'98, R-0503-0282-'98, and R-0503-0283-'98, rollo, pp. 55-59. It appears that the Provincial Adjudicator rendered similar Decisions on May 28, 1998 (in PARAD Case Nos. R-0503-0278-'98 and R-0503-0280-'98) and June 10, 1999 (in PARAD Case Nos. 0503-0281-'98, R-0503-0284-'98, R-0503-0285-'98). See rollo pp. 65-68.
9Id. at 57.
10Id.
11 G.R. No. L-16963, April 26, 1961, 1 SCRA 1106, 1108.
12Rollo, p. 57.
13Id. at 58.
14Id. at 57.
15Id. at pp. 65-73.
16Id. at 73.
17Id. at 70.
18Id.
19Id. at 71.
20Rollo, p. 35
21Id. at 36-38.
22Id. at 39.
23Id. at 41.
24Id. at 22-26
25Id. at 24.
26 Comment and/or Opposition to the Petition for Review on Certiorari rollo p. 89.cralawred
27Id. at 89-90.
28Id. at 90.
29Id. at 39-40.
30 Section 37 of Republic Act No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Reform Code, provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySEC. 37. Burden of Proof. - The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor.31Galope v. Bugarin, G.R. No. 185669, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 733, 740. See also Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844.
32Heirs of Enrique Tan, Sr. v. Pollescas, G.R. No. 145568, November 17, 2005, 475 SCRA 203, 213.
33 Comment and/or Opposition to the Petition for Review on Ccrtiorari, rollo, pp. 83-84.
34 G.R. No. 145568, November 17, 2005, 475 SCRA 203, 213-215.
35Galope v. Bugarin, G.R. No. 185669, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 733, 743.