Natividad v. Mariano, et al. (reiterated in Sps. Nolasco v. Rural Bank of Pandi, Inc., G.R.
No. 194455, June 25, 2018)
ERNESTO L. NATIVIDAD, petitioner, vs. FERNANDO MARIANO, ANDRES
MARIANO and DOROTEO GARCIA, respondents. [G.R. No. 179643, June 3, 2013]
FACTS: The dispute in this case is a parcel of agricultural land situated in Sitio Balanti,
Gapan, Nueva Ecija, owned and registered in the name of Esperanza Yuzon. On
December 23, 1998, petitioner Ernesto ︎filed with the PARAD a petition for ejectment and
collection of back lease rentals against the respondents, who are tenants of the subject
property. Ernesto alleged that he purchased the subject property in a public auction on
July 17, 1988 and after the purchase, he verbally demanded that the respondents pay the
lease rentals and respondents refused to pay despite his repeated demands, which
prompted him to orally request the respondents to vacate the subject property
The respondents failed to answer Ernesto's petition and were deemed to have
waived their right to present evidence. The PARAD allowed the case to proceed ex
parte, granted the petition, and ordered the respondents to vacate the property and pay
the lease rentals in arrears. The respondents did not appeal. Therefore, PARAD’S
decision became final and executory. Then on April 6, 2000, a writ of execution was
issued.
On May 4, 2000, the respondents filed an Appearance and Petition for Relief from
Judgment on the ground of excusable negligence due to their inexperience and lack of
knowledge of agrarian reform laws and the DARAB Rules of Procedure. The
respondents denied knowledge of Ernesto's purchase of the subject property and
disputed the validity of the purchase. They claimed that they had been paying lease
rentals to the landowner which was supported by rental payment receipts for the years
1988-1998 issued by the authorized representatives of Aurora Yuzon. They further
claimed that Diego Mariano, the father of respondents Andres and Fernando, and
respondent Doroteo were issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and that as heirs
they are now the new beneficiaries or allocatees.
PARAD RULING: Denied the respondents' first petition, finding no sufficient basis for
its grant. The respondent’s petition filed for the second time was once again denied
based on technical grounds. The respondents appealed to the DARAB.
DARAB RULING: Granted the respondents' appeal and reversed the PARAD's
decision. Petitioner Ernesto appealed to the CA via a petition for review.
CA RULING: Denied Ernesto's petition for review for lack of merit. The CA declared
that Ernesto failed to prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence the respondents'
failure to pay the lease rentals and, in fact, never repudiated the authority of Corazon
and Laureano to receive rental payments from the respondents. Hence, this petition.
Ernesto's petition for ejectment against the respondents was anchored precisely
on the latter's alleged non-payment of the lease rentals beginning 1988 until 1998
despite his repeated verbal demands. When confronted with the respondents' defense
of due payment with supporting documentary evidence of it, Ernesto countered that
their payments should not be considered as he did not authorize Corazon and Laureano
to receive the payments on his behalf.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents' alleged non-payment of the lease rentals is
sufficient to warrant their dispossession of the subject property.
RULING: NO. In the present petition, Supreme Court held that the respondents'
alleged non-payment of the lease rentals is not sufficient to warrant their dispossession
of the subject property. Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844 ordains that once the tenancy
relationship is established, a tenant or agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure.
In order to protect this right, Section 37 of R.A. No. 3844 rests the burden of proving the
existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of the agricultural lessee on the agricultural
lessor. The SC discussed that their review of the records shows that Ernesto did not
present any evidence to prove that he demanded from the respondents the payment of
the lease rentals. Hence, Ernesto should be deemed to have made his demand only at
the time he filed the petition for ejectment before the PARAD. The respondents were
still not yet in delay and could not be deemed to have failed in the payment of their
lease rentals.
Under paragraph 6, Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, non-payment of the lease rentals
whenever they fall due is a ground for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee. In order
to warrant his dispossession of the landholding, the agricultural lessee's failure to pay
the lease rentals must be willful and deliberate and must have lasted for at least two (2)
years. The respondents' alleged non-payment did not last for the required two-year
period. The rental payments were not yet due and the respondents were not in default
at the time Ernesto ︎filed the petition for ejectment. The SC held that without any
deliberate and willful refusal to pay lease rentals for two years, the respondents'
ejectment from the subject property, based on this ground, is baseless and unjustified
The receipts on record show that the respondents had paid the lease rentals for the
years.
