Cabatan V CA

Cabatan v CA
Facts: Carmen G. Vda. de Villareal was the owner of a vast tract of land known as Hacienda Esperanza
situated at Barrio Saman, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan. The hacienda is divided into several farm lots which
are being tilled by several tenants as early as 1920's and long before the effectivity of the first rice-share
Tenancy Act (Act. No. 4054) enacted in 1933.
Sometime in March, 1971, before the palay planting season, plaintiff Carmen G. de Villareal, through her
son and farm administrator, Gen. Luis Villareal demanded from the defendants-tenants in a series of
conferences that thenceforth, they shall pay a fixed rental in kind equivalent to the normal harvest of
each crop of palay or tobacco for the three agri-years in accordance with Sec. 34. The defendants-
tenants rejected the plaintiff's demand and instead offered to pay the same annual rentals or that which
they have been paying prior to 1971-72. The landholder in turn refused to accept the tenants' counter
offer. The lease rentals which the tenants were paying are not equivalent to or less than 25% of the
average normal net harvest from the landholdings of the past three agri-years immediately prior to
1971-72 and therefore were found by the CAR to be unfair/unjust to the landholder
In view of the failure to agree as to the rental rates, the landholder filed the Petitions with the Court of
Agrarian Relations (CAR). Third Regional District, Branch 11 at Tayug, Pangasinan CAR Cases Nos.
1312,1409 and 1457 were filed in 1971 CAR Cases No. 1579-TP '72 and 1581-TP '72 were filed the
following year.
CAR- denied the landholders' petition for ejectment but consistent upheld her right to have the rental
rates fixed in accordance with the provisions of RA 3844, as amended by RA 6389, that is, a rental rate
equivalent to the average of the normal net harvest of the past three agri-years.
CA- affirmed CAR's judgment fixing the rental rates in G.R. Nos. L-44875-76 and G.R. Nos. L-46211-12 but
the 7th Division reversed the lower court's decision in G.R. No. L-45160 in so far as it authorized the
fixing of the rentals pursuant to Sec. 34 of RA 3844. Hence these petitions by the petitioners-tenants in
G.R. Nos. L-4487576 and L-46211-12 and the petitioner-landholder, in turn, in G.R. No. L-45160.
Issue: WON the landholder-petitioner in G.R. No. L-45160 and private respondent in G.R. Nos. L-44875-
76 and L46211-12 (the landholder in these cases is Villareal) - entitled to an upward adjustment of
rentals for the holdings of petitioners-tenants in these cases, to conform with the ceiling provided in
Sec. 34, RA 3844 (1963) as amended by RA 6389 (1971)?
Ruling: YES
Landowner- claims that since the rentals being paid by the tenants-lessees were fixed before the
effectivity of RA 3844, he is entitled to demand the maximum rental allowable under Section 34, which
is 25% of the average normal harvest for the preceding three (3) agri-years.
Tenants- argue that under the said section, rentals may not be increased, unless capital improvement
has been introduced on their landholdings by the landholder resulting in increased production
(1) the rentals which the tenants-lessees herein seek to continue paying to the landholder-lessor were
not fixed under any tenancy regulatory statute, and (2) that the same are less than 25% of the average
normal harvest for three agri-years as found by the CAR and stipulated by the parties, the tenants'
proposition that no adjustment of rentals may be demanded by the landholder under Section 34, RA
3844, as amended - unless improvements have been introduced in their landholdings resulting in
increased production - be upheld for lack of merit and as being unfair and unjust to the landholder.
First. The late Carmen G. Vda. de Villareal now represented by Luis Villareal filed the complaints in the
CAR in 1971 and 1972, invoking the provisions of RA 3844, as amended, to fix the rentals for both the
tobacco and the palay crops raised in her landholdings in question. Her demand then was not contrary
to law, morals or public policy; for it is an admitted fact " ... that the rentals which defendants (tenants)
used to pay is not equivalent to 25% of the average net normal harvests (from the landholdings) of the
past three agri-years immediately prior to 1971-72. It would be otherwise if the landholder demanded
for an increase in rentals which were previously fixed under the regime of a law prescribing a maximum
allowable rental for then the landholder would be estopped from questioning the rental thus fixed. Or, if
the rental fixed was already in the maximum, for then the demand would be contrary to law.
In the cases at bar, the rentals were fixed by the parties neither under the regime of Act 4054, as
amended, nor under RA 1199, original and as amended, nor under RA 3844, original and as amended.
There was no way for the private parties herein to know in the 1920's and up to 1946 that statutes
would subsequently be enacted providing maximum allowable rentals and prohibiting the increase
thereof once fixed by them to apply the prohibition against the increase in rental which is unjust,
because below the legal rate, would amount to a retrospective application of the prohibition which did
not exist at the time the contracts were entered into and which the parties could not have reasonably
foreseen would be enacted years later.
Second . The tenants' - petitioners in G.R. Nos.L-44875-6 and L-46211-2 and respondents in L-45160 -
proposition that the rentals rate cannot be re-determined would perpetuate an unjust and unfair rental
rate which is admittedly less than that authorized under RA 3844, as amended, and which legislative
determination has consistently provided as the just and fair rental rate. For the uniform findings of fact
by the CAR in all these cases affirmed by the three divisions of the Court of Appeals, is to the effect that
the rentals agreed upon are less than 25 % of the average normal harvest for; three agri-years.
Storytime Villareal had tenants in his hacienda. He and the tenants had an agreement before that the
tenants would pay a fixed rent on the land. Then, RA 3844 as amended came in introducing a 25% of the
average normal harvest as rental rate. Villareal then communicated to his tenants that they would be
changing the rental rates. The tenants didn’t want to because they apparently had a previous contract
and it should be followed instead of the RA 3844. Thus the petition.
As to the existing contract: SC said that The contract of the parties must conform with the law in force
at the time the contract was executed. Since at the time the contracts herein were entered into, there
was as yet no statute fixing a ceiling on rentals and prohibiting the landholder from demanding an
increase thereof. she, therefore, had the right to do so, and such right cannot be affected by
subsequent statutes removing or eliminating such right. So pwede cause there weren’t any existing
laws at the time the contract was made but now that RA 3844 is in existence, Villareal can validly move
to have rental rates changed pursuant to the law.
As to the tenant’s argument that you can’t increase rates unless you introduce improvements under
RA3844. SC said yeah well, that’s true however your orginal fixed rates aren’t even set in the minimum,
RA 3844 sets the minimum at 25%. To apply the prohibition against the increase in rental which is
unjust, because below the legal rate, would amount to a retrospective application of the prohibition
which did not exist at the time the contracts were entered into and which the parties could not have
reasonably foreseen would be enacted years later.

Cabatan V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabatan V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabatan V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabatan v CA

You might also like