G.R. No. 171346 - JAIME SANCHEZ, JR., VS. ZENAIDA F. MARIN, JESUS NICASIO F. MARIN, JOSE DAVID F. MARIN, MARIA BERNADETTE F. MARIN, PAUL PETER F. MARIN AND PHILIP LUIS F. MARIN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the [herein petitioner] as the agricultural tenant, not a hired contractual worker on the [subject fishpond] , and therefore, entitled to the security of tenure under Section 7 [8] of Republic Act No. 1199 [9] and to continue possession of the premises and shall enjoy the rights and privileges accorded by law. [10] (Emphasis supplied.) Dissatisfied, the aforesaid Decision was appealed by respondent Zenaida F. Marin to the appellate court, in which it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP (CAR) No. 14421. In a Decision [11] dated 11 September 1989, the appellate court affirmed in toto the Decision of the RTC of Lucena City. No other recourse being taken therefrom, the said Decision of the Court of Appeals later became final and executory. Having been declared as an agricultural tenant on the subject fishpond, the petitioner, on 15 March 1991, filed before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Region IV a Petition for the fixing of the leasehold rentals for his use of the subject fishpond at P 30,000.00 per annum, docketed as DARAB Case No. IV-QI-0175-91. It was alleged therein by the petitioner that under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6657 [12] and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 1989, he had the option to convert his status as share-crop tenant into an agricultural lessee by paying a fixed lease rental on the fishpond. He further claimed that the respondents posited no objection to the amount of P 30,000.00 as a yearly lease rental. Yet, in an Answer filed by the respondents, they insisted that fishponds, like the subject matter of this case, were not yet within the purview of the law on leasehold. They likewise refuted the fact that they agreed to fix the lease rental at P 30,000.00 per annum. Although they admitted that the petitioner was indeed declared as an agricultural tenant of the fishpond, they, however, argued that the petitioner should already be ejected therefrom for his failure to pay the rent. Thus, on 17 April 1991, respondent Zenaida F. Marin filed a Complaint before the PARAD Region IV, docketed as DARAB Case No. IV-QI-0167-91, primarily to eject the petitioner from the fishpond because of the latters failure to pay the rent and to make an accounting, in violation of Sections 17 and 50 of Republic Act No. 1199. She also sought to compel the petitioner to pay the total amount of P 650,000.00 representing the lease rentals from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1991 and to make an accounting of the total production or income of the subject fishpond from 1 August 1987 to 25 October 1991. The petitioner denied having any liability to respondent Zenaida F. Marin in the amount of P 650,000.00 as rental arrears. He stressed that he failed to pay the lease rentals from July 1987 to July 1989 because he failed to harvest anything from the fishpond during the said period due to respondent Zenaida F. Marins refusal to defray the expenses of production. Acco