OTILIA STA. ANA, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES LEON G.
CARPO and AURORA
CARPO, respondents. [G.R. No. 164340. November 28, 2008.]
FACTS: Respondent Leon Carpo and his brother Francisco are the registered co-owners
of a parcel of land at Sta. Rosa, Laguna (TCT) No. T-17272. A portion consisting of 3.5
hectares, pertained to Leon and his wife, Aurora. It was devoted to rice and corn
production and was tenanted by Domingo Pastolero. When Domingo passed away,
Adoracion (the wife) with her son Elpidio assumed the tenancy rights. Adoracion
executed a notarized Pinanumpaang Salaysay for a consideration of P72,500.00,
transferred her rights in favor of petitioners Otilia Sta. Ana and her husband Marciano,
became the new tenants. The parties had a harmonious tenancy relationship but later on
the relationship got abraded. DAR mediated in order to amicably settle the controversy,
but no settlement was reached by the parties. Thus, the instant case.
In their Complaint for Ejectment due to Non-Payment of Lease Rental,
respondents alleged that in their agreement with petitioners to increase rentals from 36
cavans to 45 cavans, and that, if respondents wanted to repossess the property, they had
to pay P72,500.00. Despite repeated demands, petitioner refused to pay the actual
rentals, in violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 817 and the subject land had been
declared, upon the recommendation of the Human Settlements Committee, suitable for
commercial and industrial purposes, per Zoning Ordinance of 1981 of the Municipality
of Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Respondents prayed that petitioner be ejected from the subject
land and be directed to pay P75,016.00 as unpaid rentals.
In their Answer, petitioner and Marciano denied the agreement. They did not
refuse to pay the rentals because they even sent verbal and written notices to the
respondents. Marciano were compelled to sell the harvest and to deposit the proceeds
with the Universal Savings Bank at Sta. Rosa, Laguna under the names of Leon and
Marciano. Petitioner and Marciano claimed that Marciano is a farmer-bene︎ciary of the
subject land pursuant to P.D. 27. Petitioner and Marciano prayed for the outright
dismissal of the complaint and for the declaration of Marciano as full owner of the
subject land.
PARAD RULING: The PARAD ruled that petitioner should be ejected for non-
payment of lease rentals and ordered the defendant to pay as actual damage the amount
of P75,016.00. It also ruled that the subject land is not covered by P.D. No. 27, R.A. No.
6657, and E.O. No. 228, not on the basis of the allegation in the complaint, but on the
respondents' right of retention.
DARAB RULING: Decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE. DARAB
concentrated on the issue of petitioner's failure to pay lease rentals. When the DARAB
ruled that petitioner and Marciano did not deliberately fail to pay said rentals,
respondents raised a new issue in their Omnibus Motion that the transaction between
Adoracion and petitioner was void in violation of P.D. No. 27, despite the conformity of
Leon. This issue was not resolved by the DARAB.
CA RULING: The appellate court affirmed the findings of the PARAD that petitioner
and Marciano deliberately and in bad faith did not pay the lease rentals. However, CA
also held that the subject land had already become a residential, commercial and
industrial area based on the vicinity map showing that the land was surrounded by
commercial and industrial establishments.
ISSUES:
1)Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the subject land had already become
residential, commercial and/or industrial, thus, excluded from the coverage of our laws
on agrarian reform; and cADEIa
2) Whether or not the petitioner, as an agricultural tenant, failed to pay her lease
rentals when the same fell due as to warrant her dispossession of the subject land.
RULINGS:
1) Yes. CA acted without jurisdiction when it ruled that the land had become non-
agricultural based on a zoning ordinance of 1981 — on the strength of a mere
vicinity map. These rulings violated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy
over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in an administrative body of
special competence. For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in DARAB.
Executive Order 229 vested the DAR with (1) quasi-judicial powers to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and (2) jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. An action for Ejectment for Non-Payment of
lease rentals is clearly an agrarian dispute, cognizable at the initial stage by the
PARAD and thereafter by the DARAB. But issues with respect to the retention rights
of the respondents as landowners and the exclusion/exemption of the subject land
from the coverage of agrarian reform are within the domain of the DAR Secretary
because the same are Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases.
2) No. Under Section 37 of Republic Act No. 3844, burden of proof to show the
existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of the petitioner as an agricultural
lessee rests upon the respondents as agricultural lessors. A tenancy relationship,
once established, entitles the tenant to security of tenure. Petitioner can only be
ejected from the agricultural landholding on grounds provided by law. Respondents
failed to discharge such burden. The agricultural tenant's failure to pay the lease
rentals must be willful and deliberate in order to warrant his dispossession of the
land that he tills. Under our law and jurisprudence, mere failure of a tenant to pay
the landholder's share does not necessarily give the latter the right to eject the
former when there is lack of deliberate intent on the part of the tenant to pay. The
term "deliberate" is characterized by or results from slow, careful, thorough
calculation and consideration of effects and consequences. The term "willful", on the
other hand, is de︎ned as one governed by will without yielding to reason or without
regard to reason. ︎Findings of DARAB were correct that it was not the fault of
petitioner that the lease rentals did not reach the respondents because the latter
chose to ignore the notices sent to them. Marciano executed an Affi︎davit stating that
Leon refused to receive the respective lease rentals consisting of 37 cavans and he
wrote Leon two letters informing him of the availability of the lease rentals.
Marciano sought DAR intervention. Meetings were set but respondents failed to
attend. The instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of CA is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Decision of (DARAB) is REINSTATED.
