Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Tan v. Pollescas

    Uploaded by

    dollyccruz
    This case involves a dispute over possession of coconut farmland between the Tan heirs and Reynalda Pollescas. Reynalda claimed rights as the successor tenant but failed to pay the Tan heirs their full share of harvests. The Tan heirs sought to eject Reynalda, but courts affirmed her possession. The appellate court found that failure to pay an illegal rental amount above 25% could not be grounds for ejectment. The Supreme Court denied the Tan heirs' petition and remanded to determine the proper lease amount owed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tan v. Pollescas

    Uploaded by

    dollyccruz
    38 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over possession of coconut farmland between the Tan heirs and Reynalda Pollescas. Reynalda claimed rights as the successor tenant but failed to pay the Tan heirs their full share of harvests. The Tan heirs sought to eject Reynalda, but courts affirmed her possession. The appellate court found that failure to pay an illegal rental amount above 25% could not be grounds for ejectment. The Supreme Court denied the Tan heirs' petition and remanded to determine the proper lease amount owed.

    Original Description:

    case socleg

    Original Title

    9. Tan v. Pollescas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over possession of coconut farmland between the Tan heirs and Reynalda Pollescas. Reynalda claimed rights as the successor tenant but failed to pay the Tan heirs their full share of harvests. The Tan heirs sought to eject Reynalda, but courts affirmed her possession. The appellate court found that failure to pay an illegal rental amount above 25% could not be grounds for ejectment. The Supreme Court denied the Tan heirs' petition and remanded to determine the proper lease amount owed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views2 pages

    Tan v. Pollescas

    Uploaded by

    dollyccruz
    This case involves a dispute over possession of coconut farmland between the Tan heirs and Reynalda Pollescas. Reynalda claimed rights as the successor tenant but failed to pay the Tan heirs their full share of harvests. The Tan heirs sought to eject Reynalda, but courts affirmed her possession. The appellate court found that failure to pay an illegal rental amount above 25% could not be grounds for ejectment. The Supreme Court denied the Tan heirs' petition and remanded to determine the proper lease amount owed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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.

    You might also like