Estrada v. Court Of Agrarian Relations

LABRADOR, J.:

This is a petition for the review of a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, First Regional District, Hon. Pastor de Guzman, presiding, in CAR Cases No. 139-161-TP-'60 and 162-TP-'60 of said court. In CAR Cases Nos. 139-161-TP-'60 the lower court dismissed the petitions filed; enjoined the parties to observe the sharing basis of 50-50 for the agricultural year 1959-60; divided in accordance with said sharing basis the palay deposited in the Moncada Rice Mill, Moncada, Tarlac, after deducting the seedlings which are to be returned to the landlord; ordered the Clerk of Court to deliver to petitioners-tenants the amount of P360.00, representing the cost of mongo harvested and deposited with the court. In CAR Case No. 162-TP-'60, the court ejected respondents-tenants from the land and authorized petitioner-landlord to appoint another set of tenants to work on said land.

On January 22, 1960, Benito Estrada and several other tenants filed against their landlord, Dr. Faustino F. Galvan, individual petitions docketed as CAR Cases Nos. 139-161-TP-'60, the allegations of which petitions are similar. In their petitions, the tenants allege that they are tenants of respondent Galvan since 1952 on the latter's property located at Pinmalupod, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, cultivating several hectares each; that since the start the sharing observed by the parties in the palay produce has been on a 50-50 ratio, although they contributed all items of production, so that they are being short-shared by 20% of the net produce every agricultural year; that the sharing of the tobacco produce agreed upon by the parties and which is also the custom of the place, is 2/3-1/3 in favor of petitioners, but that contrary thereto, respondent has divided the said produce on a 50-50 basis, thereby causing them a share deficiency of 16-2/3%; that the 50% share of petitioners-tenants in the tobacco produce is given to them by respondent-landlord in cash computed at a price far below the market value; that the harvesting expenses of the tobacco produce are borne by the tenants; that the tobacco crop planted when the petitions were filed are ready for harvesting, but that respondent-landlord refused to allow them to harvest same; and that respondent has never rendered a written accounting on any of the crop harvested.

Petitioners-tenants, therefore, pray for a partition of the palay produce on a 70-30 basis, the tobacco produce on a 2/3-1/3 ratio of the net harvest, the mongo, on 80-20 ratio of the net, all in favor of petitioners-tenants. They also pray for in interlocutory order directing the harvesting of the tobacco produce under the court's supervision and that said harvest be placed in its custody. In his answer filed on February 3, 1960, respondent-landholder, while denying for lack of information the other portions of the petitions, alleges that the sharing basis the net harvest in all crops should be 50-50 because he supplied the farm implements, contributed P20.00 yearly per hectare for the expenses of transplanting and last harrowing, advanced the seedlings of said crops, supplied fertilizers, insecticides and other apparatus for use in the tobacco plantations, which conditions were embodied in their original contracts in 1951, which have never been changed.

On March 23, 1960, petitioners-tenants filed supplemental motions asking permission to harvest the mongo crop planted by them and that respondent-landlord be ordered to give them 80% of the net produce. In turn respondent-landlord Dr. Faustino F.

Galvan filed on April 11, 1961 a re-amended petition against all the tenants, petitioners herein, (docketed as CAR Case No. 162-TP-'60), wherein he is now petitioner while his tenants are respondents, praying for authority to eject all the respondents-tenants from their respective landholdings and for payment by them of damages and attorney's fees. The reasons alleged for the ejectment of the respondents are: their unjustified refusal to thresh the palay harvests of the 1959-1960 agricultural year with the use of petitioner-landlord's threshing machine: their harvesting of matured tobacco leaves without reporting the amount of tobacco leaves harvested and their absconding with same; their employment of sub-tenants and the entry of said sub-tenants upon the land, without written consent and knowledge of the petitioner-landlord, to plant early variety of palay as second crop. Respondents-tenants, in their answer, deny the material allegations of the petition and interpose as counterclaim their allegations contained in their petitions against the landlord in CAR Cases Nos. 139-161-TP-'60.

These counterclaims were already answered in Dr. Galvan's answer to the petitions. On April 1, 1960, petitioner Benito Estrada was, by reason of his death, substituted in CAR case No. 139-TP-'60 by his wife and children. The facts involved in all these cases being closely related, the lower court, upon agreement of the parties, tried all of them jointly, thereafter rendering only one decision for all.

In its decision, the lower court set forth in detail the testimonies of the witnesses for the parties and the documentary evidence submitted by them, and found that when the tenants were first taken in, they were required to sign contracts of tenancy with the landlord, wherein the sharing basis agreed upon was 50-50 on all crops; that said sharing is based on the custom of the place and said contracts, have not yet been changed; that the landlord contributed expenses of last harrowing and transplanting, farm implements and seedlings in connection with the rice planted, and seeds, fertilizers, insecticides and apparatus, with the tobacco planted; that the share of the tenants on the tobacco produced was paid at a reasonable and current price of P0.80 per kilo; that the mongo were planted on upland portions not planted to rice but only to corn and mongo, so that said mongo is considered a principal crop and like the tobacco produce, should be divided on a 50-50 sharing basis; that the tenants are guilty of the violations charged in the petitions filed by the landlord.

Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions of the tenants and granted that of the landlord, ejecting the tenants from their landholdings. Hence, this petition for review by writ of certiorari. The main object or purpose of the suit of petitioner before the respondent court is to secure for themselves a change in the crop sharing between them as tenants, on one side, and the respondent Dr. Galvan, on the other, not only as to the rice crop, but also as to the crops tobacco, mongo and mangoes, and if such desired crop sharing be impossible of enforcement in the 1959-1960 crop, then from the 1960-1961 crop.

As the basis provided by law for fixing the crop sharing in rice, are different in other crops, the question of crop sharing for the rice harvest will be considered separately. The basis for the crop sharing of the rice harvest is fixed in Section 32 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act the Philippines (Republic Act No. 1199) in the following manner: Sec. 32. Share Basis.

- The parties shall, on ricelands which produce a normal average of more than forty cavanes per hectare for the three agricultural years next preceding to current harvest, receive as shares in the gross produce, after setting aside the same amount of palay used as seeds, and after deducting the cost of fertilizer, pest and weed control, reaping and threshing, the amount corresponding to the total equivalent of their individual contributions, computed as follows: Contribution Participation 1. Land 30% 2. Labor 30% 3.

Farm Implements 5% 4. Work Animals 5% 5. Final harrowing of the field immediately before transplanting 5% 6.

Transplanting 25% TOTAL . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.