DAR OPINION NO. 09-02
February 21, 2002
DAR OPINION NO. 09-02
MR. AMADO V. GONZALES, SR.
Dear Mr. Gonzales:
This refers to your request for clarification on the following issues, to wit: CAHaST
1. What are the grounds or bases for ejectment proceedings against a riceland tenant covered by OLT?
2. For each party, what are the rights and obligations of landowner and tenant under OLT, on land which has not yet been transferred ownership because the government has yet to pay due compensation to landowner?
3. What legal steps should be undertaken by the landowner against an errant tenant to compel him to comply regularly and on time on his obligations to the landowner, like delivery of share of palay harvest, in accordance with the leasehold agreement?
4. Where is the proper venue and what appropriate case (administrative or ejectment) can be filed against a tenant who violated or has not complied with agreement as stipulated on the leasehold contract, viz:
a. Failure of tenant to give landowner his just share of palay harvest every harvesting season;
b. Without the consent and knowledge of the landowner mortgaged the riceland, thus, sub-leasing it and forfeiting his right as tenant; and
c. Failure to pay landowner the tenant-account to the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), inspite of repeated demands, in accordance with his promissory note duly witnessed and signed by two municipal agrarian officials.
Anent the first issue, an agricultural lessee may be dispossessed of his/her tillage on the following grounds:
a. He/she failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the leasehold contract or with laws governing leasehold relations, unless the failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;
b. He/she planted crops or used the land for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon. DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1993 (Rules and Procedures Governing Agricultural Leasehold and the Determination of Lease Rental for Tenanted Lands), however, now allows the lessee to intercrop or plant secondary crops after the rental has been fixed, provided he/she shoulders the expenses; EaTCSA
c. He/she failed to adopt proven farm practices necessary to conserve the land, improve its fertility, and increase its productivity (with due consideration of his/her financial capacity and the credit facilities available to him/her);
d. His/her fault or negligence resulted in the substantial damage, destruction, or unreasonable deterioration of the land or any permanent improvement thereon;
e. He/she does not pay the lease rental when it falls due except when such non-payment is due to crop failure to the extent of 75 percent as a result of a fortuitous event; or
f. He/she employed a sublessee (Section 36, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
Considering, however, that an agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure, he/she cannot be ejected unless authorized by the court (now, DAR Adjudication Board) for the abovementioned causes, in a judgment that is final and executory after due hearing (Sections 7 and 36, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
We see the second issue as a situation wherein the owner of an agricultural land covered under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) is not yet compensated by either the government or the tenant-beneficiary. In such a case, the landowner has the right to receive the land compensation from the Land Bank, while the tenant-beneficiary has the obligation to pay the value of the land to the Land Bank by way of land amortization payment.
Anent the third and last issues, where a tenant has allegedly failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the leasehold contract or with laws governing leasehold relation, the landowner may file an ejectment case before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board where the property is located. EHcaDT
We hope to have clarified your concerns.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES