July 2, 1996

DAR OPINION NO. 51-96

Atty. Zenaida O. Balmas

I-D El Sid Bldg.

No. 522 Quirino Hi-way, Novaliches

Quezon City

Madam:

This refers to your query on the interpretation of a certain provision in a contract of lease covering a 23,374-sq. m. riceland at Baliuag, Bulacan, to wit:

"That the rental for said land shall be 45 cavans per annum or 30 cavans of palay of planted (variety) at 46 kilos per cavan of the dry season, said rentals representing the equivalent of 25% of the average of normal harvest during the agricultural year, 19 __, 19 __, 19 __, after deducting from the gross harvest wet season 15 cavans at 50 kilos."

You state that at the time the contract was entered into, your client thought that the number of cavans stated represents 25% of the normal harvest in an agricultural year; that, however, per information and actual knowledge, an average of 100 to 120 cavans would truthfully represent 25% of the average normal harvest; and that the tenant contends that it is the 45 cavans indicated in the contract that is controlling and not the descriptive percentage (25%). Under said circumstances, you wish to be clarified on whether your client can collect the difference, in the event that you can prove that 45 cavans is not representative of the 25% of the average normal harvest.

The pertinent provision of the contract explicitly states that the 45-cavan rental represents the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest. It could be reasonably presumed therefrom that the parties to the contract were in agreement as regards the average normal harvest, from which the 45-cavan rental was derived. However, since it is apparent that your client has basis for believing that the harvest is much more than what was originally represented, and considering that the contract is couched in such terms as to convey the intention to fix the rental at 25% of the average normal harvest, it is believed that your client should be afforded an opportunity to prove his entitlement to a higher rental. We therefore advise that your client bring the matter to the attention of our Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) at Baliuag so that he can assist in settling the matter amicably.

Thank you for writing us. We wish to add, however, that the foregoing opinion does not constitute a decision in any case that may be pending or filed involving the same issue.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LORENZO R. REYES

OIC-Undersecretary
LAFMA