G.R. No. 179643 - ERNESTO L. NATIVIDAD, VS. FERNANDO MARIANO, ANDRES MARIANO AND DOROTEO GARCIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we cannot impute error on the CA in not reversing the DARAB's decision simply under the doctrine of immutability of judgments. Non-payment of lease rentals as ground for eviction of tenants; Landowner with burden to prove sufficient cause for eviction 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. [51] Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 strengthens this right by providing that the agricultural lessee has the right to continue the enjoyment and possession of the landholding and shall not be disturbed in such possession except only upon court authority in a final and executory judgment, after due notice and hearing, and only for the specifically enumerated causes. [52] The subsequent R.A. No. 6657 further reiterates, under its Section 6, that the security of tenure previously acquired shall be respected. Finally, 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. [53] 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. These allegations pose to us three essential points that we need to address. First, whether Ernesto indeed made demands on the respondents for the payment of the lease rentals; second, assuming that Ernesto made such demands, whether the respondents deliberately failed or continuously refuse to pay the lease rentals; and third , whether the lease rentals paid by the respondents to Corazon and Laureano are valid. We rule in the NEGATIVE on the first point. Our review of the records shows that Ernesto did not present any evidence, such as the affidavit of the person or persons present at that time, to prove that he demanded from the respondents the payment of the lease rentals. We, therefore, cannot accord any merit to his claim that he made such demands. His allegation, absent any supporting evidence, is nothing more than a hollow claim under the rule that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it as mere allegation is not evidence. [54] Thus, Ernesto should be deemed to have made his demand only at the time he filed the petition for ejectment before the PARAD. At this point, the respondents were not yet in delay55 and could not be deemed to have failed in the payment of their lease rentals. We again rule in the NEGATIVE on the second point. Non-payment of the lease rentals whenever they fall due is a ground for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee under paragraph 6, Section 36 of