Tan v.

Pollescas: The Right of Landowner and the Corresponding Duty of

Tenant-farmers

It is a truth known that the land reform laws of the Philippines are tailored to
release our poor farmers from the bondage of soil. The same is strengthened
by Republic Act 3844 by granting, under the leasehold system, security of
tenure for the tenant farmers, such that the latter cannot be arbitrarily ousted
from the land he cultivates without just cause.1

This, however, creates a corresponding duty on the part of the tenant-farmer.

He is bound by law to remit “not x x x more than 25% of the average normal
harvest” as just and fair rental for leasehold.2

The above rule is clearly manifested in a plethora of cases, one being Heirs
of Tan Sr. v. Pollescas.3 In this case, the ejectment of the landowner of the
tenant-farmer due to the latter’s inability to pay 2/3 of the harvest or
amounting to P3, 656.70 despite demands was held to be invalid.

The above case discussed that for non-payment of rentals to be a valid

ground to disposes, the amount demanded must, first of all, be lawful. Thus
it shall be no more than 25% of the normal harvest. Second, the
non-payment of the rental must be wilful and deliberate on the part of the
non-paying tenant as shown by previous and subsequent acts.

It has been held that both requisites are not present in the case and so, the
dispossession was held unlawful by the Supreme Court. However, what is
curious about this case if the seeming total invalidation of the Court of the
stipulated ⅔ lease agreement. What is more interesting is that the Court of
Appeals categorically said that “a stipulation on the leasehold contract
requiring a lesser to pay an amount in excess of the amount allowed by law
is x x x void as to the excess.”

A question must then be necessarily addressed. Shouldn’t have the Supreme

Court, at the very least, granted the payment in favour of the landowner as
far as legally feasible?

It has been established by relevant jurisprudence that the binding force of

contracts must be recognized as far as legally possible.4 Well known is the
legal maxim in Civil Law, ​“Quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum
valere potest" or when a thing is of no force as I do it, it shall have as much
force as it can have.5 The same was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the
case of Spouses Del Campo v. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Jose Regalado

1
R.A. 3844, Sec. 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. - x x x The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to
security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein
provided.
2
R.A. 3844, 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 x x x.
3
G.R. No. 145568. November 17, 2005.
4
Elmer T. Rabuya. Property (2017). 384.
5
Del Campo v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 108228. February 1, 2001.
Sr.6, where the sale of a co-owner of the entire co-owned property was only
invalidated as to the corresponding undivided shares of the other co-owners.

The same was applied in the case of Lopez v. Vda de Cuaycong7 involving
the sale of a co-owner’s concrete share prior to partition. The fact that the
agreement purported to sell a concrete portion of the hacienda does not
render the sale void in its totality. Applying the above doctrine , it cannot be
said that the sale of Lot 178-B had the effect of partitioning the hacienda and
adjudicating that lot to the intervenor. It merely transferred an abstract share
subject to the result of a subsequent partition.

In effect, the Court cured the defect of the contract by disregarding those
provisions in contravention with the law while upholding the valid ones.
This interpretation does no harm to the parties but gives life to the maxim by
giving the contract between them as much force as it can have even to the
extent where it is as if there was no defect.

The same interpretation should be applied in the Tan case. The parties
should have been presumed to know the law and therefore any defective
provisions should be interpreted as to now be in accordance with the law,
otherwise it would be unjust on the part of the landowner of the subject
property to be deprived of the lease rentals.

An Agricultural Leasehold Agreement is a bilateral contract between the

landowner and the agricultural lessee, which give rise to reciprocal
obligations for both parties.8 The obligation of the land owner is to provide
the land to the lessee, and in turn, the obligation of the lessee is to pay the
lease rentals.

The ruling that the amount of the lease rental is unlawful, does not
extinguish the obligation of the lessee to pay the rent not exceeding 25% of
the harvest. The court should have directed the respondent to pay for the
unpaid rentals, not exceeding 25% of the harvest, as provided for by the law.
The binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as it is legally
possible to do so—quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere
potest.9

One possible reason why the Supreme Court did not award payment of
rentals to the petitioner is because DAR has jurisdiction in determining the
amount of the lease rental, if both parties could not agree on the amount.10

This group is of the opinion that Social Justice should have been applied to
the Heirs of Tan. Our very own 1987 Constitution gives significant
importance to such a connotation:

6
Ibid.
7
​G.R. No. L-46079. March 24, 1944.
8
Desiderio P. Jurado,Comments and Jurisprudence on Obligations and Contracts,12th Edition, P.360
9
Spouses Carlos vs Tolentino, G.R. No. 234533,June 27, 2018
10
The Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over: (1) All cases or actions involving matters,
controversies, disputes, or money claims arising from agrarian relations: Provided, however, That all cases still pending
in the Court of Agrarian Relations, established under Republic Act Numbered Twelve hundred and sixty-seven, at the
time of the effectivity of this Code, shall be transferred to and continued in the respective Courts of Agrarian Relations
within whose district the sites of the cases are located
“The state shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the
prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty
through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full
employment, a rising standard of living, and improved quality of life for all.”
11

Social Justice means the promotion of welfare of all the people, regardless of
social, ehtnic, or religious background. It prescribes equality of the people,
rich or poor, before the law.12 Such equality should have been afforded to
both sides of the argument. Justice should have been served not just
Reynalda Polecas, but also to the Heirs of Tan. They should have still been
awarded a maximum of 25% of the average normal harvest of their tenant.
And this award should have been made outright by the Supreme Court. The
group is baffled by the action of the Court. Although it is understandable
that the case is remanded to DAR for the determination of the proper
amount, it could have been determined and awarded promptly by the Court
considering that they have already Section 34 of RA 3844 which mandates
the basis for fair rental.

The promotion of Social Justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken

sympathy towards any given group. Rather, it should insure the well-being
and economic security of all the people.13 This will only be achieved through
legal equality and the adoption of measures legally justifiable. This should
be more evident in the actions of our Supreme Court. That they should see
both sides of the coin and act on what’s best for all those involved in the
case at bar. The distribution of wealth and income, and the hierarchies of
authority, must be consistent with both the liberties of equal citizenship and
equality of opportunity.14

Dispossession, to be validly carried out, requires proofs and/or evidence to

warrant the ejectment or dispossession of the tenant-lessee thru court order
and non-payment of rental is the most common reason for a dispossession of
a lessee but before a landowner can evict a lessee, certain obligations must
also be taken into consideration. Non-payment of the rental must be wilful
and deliberate on the part of the non-paying tenant as shown by previous and
subsequent acts. It is a bilateral obligation of the land owner to provide the
land to the lessee, and in turn, the obligation of the lessee to pay the lease
rentals. ​The lessor given only 25% while the lessee retains 75% of the net
produce from the land was provided for under RA No. 3844 on the premise
that the lessee largely contributes to the production of crops or fruits, while
lessor’s only contribution is the land and this ensures fairness to both the
tenant and the land owner. The law a​ims to help not just the tenant, but the
owner as well​. ​Land owners, despite the agreed rental exceeds, should also
be entitled of not more than 25% of the average normal harvest of their
tenant because even if the amount of rentals is unlawful they still complied
with their obligation to provide the land to the lessee.

11
Article II, Section 9, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
12
Azucena, Jr. The Labor Code with Comments and Cases (2016). P. 11.
13
Maximo Calalang vs. A.D. Williams, et al. GR No. 47800. December 2, 1940.
14
A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press (1976). P. 61.
Group 2 Members - EH 409:

Cruz, John Karlo

De la Victoria, Adrian

De los Santos, Kivee C.

Delos Santos, Dominique

Dela Rosa, Mary Sybil

Diez, Christian

España, Lorebeth L.

Espiritu, Beulah Alanah R.

Gabona, Claire D.

Go, Godrick Joseph E.

Gonzales, Ma. Belinda M.

Hernandez, Jul Nicole