Tan v.

Pollescas

Facts:

● Tan Heirs are co-owners of a coconut farmland in Ozamis.

● Pollescas was the original tenant of the land. He died and his son succeeded him and was
appointed as a tenant by one of the co-owners, Enrique Tan.

● Pollescas’ second spouse appeared and demanded that Tan recognize her as her
husband’s successor. Since Tan didn’t agree, the wife filed a complaint with DARAB
Ozamis to quiet the tenancy relationship and to obtain damages.

● DARAB declared Reynalda (the wife) as the lawful tenant. DARAB also divided harests
between the Tan heirs and Reynalda. But oh no, Reynalda constantly failed to deliver the
⅔ of the harvest that she owed the Tan heirs.

● Tan heirs filed a case of Estafa against Reynalda.

● Reynalda was arrested and the Tan heirs want to file a case of ejectment.

● The Tan heirs won.

APPEAL TO DARAB

● The decision was reversed. Reynalda was ordered to pay, and in exchange the Tan heirs
were ordered to respect her possession and cultivation of the land.

ANOTHER APPEAL, THIS TIME TO CA

● Tan heirs weren’t happy and appealed the decision of DARAB to the CA.

● CA affirms DARAB’s decision, mere failure of the tenant to pay the landholder’s share
does not give rise to the right to eject.

● Reynalda’s failure to deliver was not a willful or deliberate attempt to deprive the Tan Heirs
of their share. She honestly believed she was entitled to that share of the harvest while
the case for Annulment of Compromise was pending.

TAN HEIRS MESSED UP TOO

● Tenants should only be made to pay 25% maximum of the normal harvest, not
two-thirds like Reynalda was doing. A tenant cannot be ejected for failing to pay
 an illegal rental

● Nothing in the law states that failure to deliver share is a ground for extinguishment
of leasehold agreement

Issue:

● WON there is no exception to the grounds for extinguishment of leasehold relations

● WON CA was right and Reynalda should only play 25%

HELD:

● Court found no grounds for dispossession of landholding. A landowner cannot eject the
agricultural tenant from the land unless authorized by the court for causes provided by law.

● In order for non-payment of the lease rental to be a valid ground to dispossess the agricultural
lessee of the landholding, the amount of the lease rental must first of all be lawful. If the amount
of lease rental claimed exceeds the limit allowed by law, non-payment of lease rental cannot
be a ground to dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding.

● No grounds for extinguishing leasehold. Because the only grounds are.

a. Abandonment of landholding
b. Voluntary surrender
c. Absence of persons to succeed lessee

Or lessee may leave if he is maltreated

COURT DENIES THE PETITION OF TAN HEIRS. The court remands the case to
determine the provisional lease rental Reynalda must pay.