RULING BASBAS v POLLESCAS

Basbas versus Entena, et al. 28 SCRA 665-673, the Supreme Court held that for a valid exercise of the right of redemption, the
redemptioner must at least make a tender of payment of the price he believes would be reasonable or should it be refused,
consign the amount with the Court. Basbas vs. Entena, requires either tender of the price or valid consignation thereof.' The
statutory periods within which the right must be exercised 'would be rendered meaningless and of easy evasion unless the
redemption is required to make an actual tender in good faith of what he believed to be the reasonable price of the land sought to
be redeemed'


Heirs of Enrique Tan, Sr., namely, Norma Tan, Jeanette Tan, Julieta Tan, Rommel Tan, and Enrique Tan, Jr., All represented by
Rommel Tan vs. Reynalda Pollescas
G.R. No. 145568 (November 17, 2005)
Facts:
Petitioners are co-owners of a coconut farmland ("Land"). Esteban Pollescas ("Esteban") was the original tenant of the
Land. Upon Esteban's death in 1991, his son Enrique Pollescas ("Enrique") succeeded him and was appointed as tenant by
the landowner Enrique Tan ("Tan"). Respondent Reynalda Pollescas ("Reynalda"), Esteban's surviving second spouse,
demanded that Tan recognized her as Esteban's successor. Tan did not accede. Thus, Reynalda filed with the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board of Ozamis City ("DARAB-Ozamis") a complaint for Annulment of Compromise
Agreement, Quieting of Tenancy Relationship and damages.
The DARAB-Ozamis declared Reynalda as the lawful tenant of the land in its Decision dated 28 April 1993.
However, Reynalda failed to deliver to the Tan Heirs 2/3 of the harvests amounting to P3,656.70. Consequently, the Tan
Heirs filed a complaint for estafa against Reynalda with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Ozamis City, Branch 2. The
trial court found Reynalda guilty of Estafa. For Reynalda's continued failure to deliver their share, the Tan Heirs filed with
the DARAB, Misamis Occidental ("DARAB-Misamis Occidental") an ejectment case. On 18 September 1996, the
DARAB-Misamis Occidental ruled in favor of the Tan Heirs. Reynalda appealed to the DARAB, Diliman, Quezon City
which reversed the DARAB-Misamis Occidental. The Tan heirs appealed the decision of the DARAB to the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the DARAB ordering the Tan Heirs to respect Reynalda's
possession and cultivation of the Land. Hence, this petition.
A petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals was filed which affirmed the decision of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board ordering petitioners to respect respondent's possession and cultivation of the land.
Issues:
Whether or not there is a ground for extinguishment of leasehold?
Whether or not the petitioners can validly dispossess respondent of the landholding for non-payment of rental?
Held:
Section 7 of RA 3844 as amended provides that once there is a leasehold relationship, 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.
Section 36 of RA 3844 as amended enumerates the grounds for dispossession of the tenant's landholding. . . .
Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended mandates 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 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.
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.
RA1199
Section 4. Systems of Agricultural Tenancy; Their Definitions. - Agricultural tenancy is classified into leasehold tenancy
and share tenancy.
Share tenancy exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural production wherein one party
furnishes the land and the other his labor, with either or both contributing any one or several of the items of production, the
tenant cultivating the land personally with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household, and
the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant in proportion to their respective contributions.
Leasehold tenancy exists when a person who, either personally or with the aid of labor available from members of his
immediate farm household, undertakes to cultivate a piece of agricultural land susceptible of cultivation by a single person
together with members of his immediate farm household, belonging to or legally possessed by, another in consideration of a
price certain or ascertainable to be paid by the person cultivating the land either in percentage of the production or in a fixed
amount in money, or in both.

HIDALGO v HIDALGO
Issue:
whether or not plaintiffs, asshare tenants, are entitled to redeem the parcel of land they are working from the purchasers thereof,
where no notice was previously given to them by the vendor, who was their landholder, of the latter's intention to sell the
property and where the vendor did not execute the affidavit required by Sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 3844 before the registration
of the deed of sale. In other words, is the right of redemption granted by Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 applicable
to share tenants?"

In Hidalgo v. Hidalgo,
9
the Court stressed that:
". . . [T]he Land Reform Code forges by operation of law, between the landowner and the farmer be a leasehold tenant
or temporarily a share tenant a vinculum juris with certain vital consequences, such as security of tenure of the tenant
and the tenant's right to continue in possession of the land he works despite the expiration of the contract or the sale or
transfer of the land to third persons, and now, more basically, the farmer's pre-emptive right to buy the land he cultivates
under section 11 of the Code, as well as the right to redeem the land, if sold to a third person without his knowledge,
under section 12 of this Code."