CASTILLO v. TOLENTINO, G.R. No.

181525, March 4, 2009

Tolentino was the owner of two parcels of land and a caretaker of another. The said parcels were
tenanted by Castillo who promised to remit lease rentals to Tolentino. Castillo wrote the PARO informing
the latter of his intention to construct a water reservoir. Tolentino also received a copy of the letter and
opposed the same. Despite this, Castillo proceeded with the construction of the water dike. Tolentino filed
a case for ejectment. PARAD ruled for the ejectment of Castillo. DARAB initially affirmed the Decision but
reversed itself in a Motion for Reconsideration. CA reinstated the Decision of the PARAD since it held that
the appeal was filed out of time.

1. OBLIGATIONS OF A TENANT WITH RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS

ON THE LANDHOLDING

Section 32 of R.A. No. 3844 specifically requires notice to and consent of the agricultural lessor
before the agricultural lessee may embark upon the construction of a permanent irrigation system.
It is only when the former refuses to bear the expenses of construction that the latter may choose
to shoulder the same. More importantly, any change in the use of tillable land in the
leasehold, e.g. through the construction of a sizeable water reservoir, impacts upon the agricultural
lessor's share in the harvest, which is the only consideration he receives under the agrarian law.
This being the case, before the agricultural lessee may use the leasehold for a purpose other than
what had been agreed upon, the consent of the agricultural lessor must be obtained, lest he be
dispossessed of his leasehold.

The law (Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 3844) does not give blanket authority to the agricultural lessee to
construct an irrigation system at anytime and for any reason; instead, it presupposes primarily that
the same is necessary.

2. IMPLIED OBLIGATION OF A TENANT

The fact that CASTILLO was convicted by final judgment of an offense against TOLENTINO's son,
George, demonstrates how relations between the two have deteriorated. While R.A. No. 3844
authorizes termination by the agricultural lessee of the lease for a crime committed by the
agricultural lessor against the former or any member of his immediate farm household, the same
privilege is not granted to the agricultural lessor. Yet, this does not mean that the courts should not
take into account the circumstance that the agricultural lessee committed a crime against the
agricultural lessor or any member of his immediate family. By committing a crime against
TOLENTINO's son, CASTILLO violated his obligation to his lessor to act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith, an obligation that is deemed included in his
leasehold agreement. Provisions of existing laws form part of and are read into every contract
without need for the parties expressly making reference to them.

3. VIOLATION OF OBLIGATION OF A TENANT GROUND FOR DISPOSSESSION

In sum, we hold that the construction of the reservoir constitutes a violation of Section 36 of R.A.
No. 3844, an unauthorized use of the landholding for a purpose other than what had been agreed
upon, and a violation of the leasehold contract between CASTILLO and TOLENTINO, for which the
former is hereby penalized with permanent dispossession of his leasehold. SEAHcT