ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1916   April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR<br /><br />083 Phil 513

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1916. April 30, 1949.]

    PABLO C. SIBULO, Petitioner, v. LOPE ALTAR, Respondent.

    The petitioner in his own behalf.

    No appearance for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; CONTRACT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY UNDER THE TENANCY LAW. — In declaring certain stipulations to be against public policy, the legislature could not have meant to sanction other stipulations which, though not specified, are in effect similar to those expressly mentioned. Otherwise, by subtlety in the framing of the contract, the law might easily be circumvented and its purpose defeated.

    2. STATUTES; TENANCY ACT AS A REMEDIAL LEGISLATION; INTENTION. — The Tenancy Act is a remedial by giving him a more equitable participation in the produce of the land which he cultivates. Being a remedial statute, it should be construed so as to further its purpose in accordance with the general intent of the lawmaker. Adopting the construction placed upon it by the petitioner would open the door to evasions and render the law useless.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J.:


    Pablo Sibulo, owner of first class agricultural land, entered into a contract of tenancy with Lope Altar whereby the former was to furnish the work animals and farm implements, the latter to defray all the expenses of planting and cultivation, and the net produce to be divided equally between them.

    The contract having been disapproved by the Tenancy Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Justice on the ground that the crop division therein stipulated contravenes subsection (c) of section 7, in relation to the last clause of the first paragraph of section 8 of the Tenancy Law, as amended, the matter was taken to the Court of Industrial Relations by appeal. After hearing, that court upheld the contention of the Department of Justice, declared the contract illegal as against public policy, and ordered that —

    "If the parties decide to continue with the proposed contract it should be so modified as to conform with the sharing basis above set forth; i.e., 60 per cent for the tenant and 40 per cent for the landlord. Should they decide to have no contract at all, then section 8 of Act No. 4054, as amended, shall govern."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The case is now before us on appeal by certiorari upon petition of Pablo Sibulo.

    The question for determination is whether or not the contract involved in this case is against public policy within the intent of the Tenancy Law (Act No. 4054, as amended by Republic Act No. 34). Among the stipulations prohibited by that law as against public policy are those described in paragraphs (a) and (c) of its section 7 as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) If the tenant shall receive less than 55 per cent of the net produce, in case he furnishes the work animals and the farm implements, and the expenses of planting and cultivation are borne equally by said tenant and the landlord.

    "(c) If the landlord is the owner of the work animal, and the tenant of the farm implements, and the expenses are equally divided between the landlord and the tenant, for the tenant to receive less than 50 per centum of the net crop."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Apparently, the contract in question does not fall squarely under either of the above two paragraphs; but the Court of Industrial Relations has taken the view that, in substance, it comes within the policy of the legal prohibition. There is logic in the reasoning which led the lower court to this conclusion. Section 8 of the Tenancy Act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 8. Share basis. — In the absence of any written agreement to the contrary and when the tenant furnishes the necessary implements and the work animals and defrays all the expenses for planting and cultivation of the land, the crop shall be divided as follows: the tenant shall receive 70 per cent of the net produce of the land and the landlord 30 per cent for first-class land, the normal production of which, based on the average yield for the three preceding years, is more than forty cavans of palay per one cavan of seeds; 75 per cent for the tenant and 25 per cent for the landlord, in case of land the average normal production of which is not more than forty cavans of palay per one cavan of seeds. In case the landlord furnishes the necessary work animals and farm implements and, likewise, bears all the expenses of planting and cultivation, the landlord shall receive 70 per cent and the tenant 30 per cent of the crop; but if the landlord furnishes the necessary work animals and farm implements and bears equally with the tenant the expenses of planting and cultivation, the crop shall be divided equally between the parties.

    "Expenses for harvesting and threshing shall be deducted from the gross produce. Expenses for the maintenance of irrigation systems within the respective areas shall be for the account of the tenant, but amortizations for the cost of construction of the system itself shall be for the account of the landlord. The expenses for construction and maintenance of privately-owned irrigation systems shall be agreed upon between the landlord and tenant, but in case of disagreement, all expenses for the construction of the system shall be for the account of the landlord, provided that the cost of constructing the distribution canals shall be for the account of the tenant.

    x       x       x


    Reading sections 7 and 8 together, the lower court has correctly determined the percentage that should correspond to each factor of production in the division of the crop according to the policy of the law. Says the court on this point:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is clear from sections 7 and 8 of Act No. 4054, as amended, that the division of the harvest depends upon the apportionment of the different items of expenses, such as (1) work animals, (2) farm implements, and (3) the expenses of planting and cultivation. The rate of percentage for every item of the expenses or cost of production may be obtained by the following process based on sections 7 and 8:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. Under section 8, the tenant shall receive 70 per cent of the net produce of the land and the landlord 30 per cent, for first class rice land, when the tenant furnishes the farm implements and the work animals and defrays all the expenses for planting and cultivation, whereas, under section 7(a), the tenant shall receive not less than 55 per cent of the net produce, in case he furnishes the work animals and the farm implements and one-half (1/2) of the expenses for planting and cultivation. The difference between the share of the tenant in this case is 15 per cent (70 minus 55 per cent), and the said 15 per cent represents one-half (1/2) of the expenses for planting and cultivation, which justifies his receiving only 55 per cent of the net produce under section 7(a), because he did not furnish all (2/2) the expenses of planting and cultivation. Therefore, if 15 per cent represents 1/2 of the expenses for planting and cultivation, then 2/2 or all the expenses for planting and cultivation are equivalent to 30 per cent.

    If under section 8 the tenant receives 70 per cent when he furnishes the farm implements and work animals and defrays all the expenses of planting and cultivation, it must follow that the landlord is given 30 per cent for being the owner of the land and for his management thereof.

    Under the same section, if the landlord furnishes the work animals and farm implements and at the same time defrays all the expenses, he shall receive 70 per cent. It therefore follows that the remaining 30 per cent goes to the tenant for his labor.

    2. Comparing section 7(c), which provides that the tenant shall receive at lest (least) 50 per cent of the net crop if he furnishes the farm implements and one-half (1/2) of the expenses for planting and cultivation, with the provisions of section 7(a) where the tenant receives 55 per cent of the net produce, if he furnishes the work animals and the farm implements and one-half (1/2) of the expenses for planting and cultivation, the difference between the share of the tenant in this case is 5 per cent (55 per cent minus 50 per cent), and the said 5 per cent represents the work animals which he did not furnish under the said section 7(c).

    3. Under section 8, in case the landlord furnishes the work animals and farm implements and, likewise, bears all the expenses of planting and cultivation, the landlord shall receive 70 per cent and the tenant 30 per cent of the crop; whereas, under section 7(c) if the landlord is the owner of the work animals and the tenant of the farm implements, and the expenses of planting and cultivation are equally divided between the landlord and the tenant, the tenant should receive at least 50 per cent of the net crop and the remaining 50 per cent pertains to the landlord’s share. The difference between the share of the landlord in this case is 20 per cent (70 per cent minus 50 per cent), and the said 20 per cent represents the farm implements and one half 1/2 of the expenses for planting and cultivation which the said landlord did not furnish under section 7(c). Therefore, if one- half 1/2 of the expenses for planting and cultivation is equivalent to 15 per cent (see paragraph No. 1), then 20 per cent minus 15 per cent equals 5 per cent, and the said 5 per cent represents the percentage for farm implements.

    "Following the foregoing formula, the sharing ratio between the parties in the case at bar should be as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "For the tenant —

    (1) 30 per cent for defraying all the expenses of planting and cultivation.

    (2) 30 per cent for his labor.

    _____

    60 per cent total share.

    "For the landlord —

    (1) 5 per cent for furnishing the work animals.

    (2) 5 per cent for furnishing the farm implements.

    _____

    "40 per cent total share."cralaw virtua1aw library

    From the above computation the Court of Industrial Relations concludes that the contract involved in this case is against public policy as contemplated in section 7 of the Tenancy Law, for the reason that "instead of receiving 60 per cent of his total share, the tenant shall receive 50 per cent only."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The petitioner takes exception to the above conclusion, contending that his contract with the respondent is not among those expressly declared to be against public policy by section 7 of the Tenancy Law, this on the theory that only those stipulations expressly mentioned in said section are outlawed as such. We cannot subscribe to this narrow interpretation of the Tenancy Act. In declaring certain stipulations to be against public policy, the legislature could not have meant to sanction other stipulations which, though not specified, are in effect similar to those expressly mentioned. Otherwise, by subtlety in the framing of the contract, the law might easily be circumvented and its purpose defeated.

    The Tenancy Act is a remedial legislation intended to better the lot of the share-cropper by giving him a more equitable participation in the produce of the land which he cultivates. Being a remedial statute, it should be construed so as to further its purpose in accordance with the general intent of the lawmaker. Adopting the construction placed upon it by the petitioner would open the door to evasions and render the law useless.

    The point is made that it is error to apply to the present case the division of crops established for the different cases specified in section 8 of the law, since the provisions of that section apply only in the absence of a written contract. It will be noted, however, that the lower court has not exactly applied to the case at bar the division of the crops established in said section, but has merely had resort thereto as an aid in determining the percentage which, in the opinion of the legislator, should correspond to each of the factors of production in the division of the crop.

    We find no merit in the appeal and we therefore affirm the decision below, with costs against the petitioner.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason and Briones, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-1916   April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR<br /><br />083 Phil 513


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED