Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

101 Phil 293:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9855. April 29, 1957.]

MELCHOR MANIEGO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. RICARDO L. CASTELO, in his capacity as Provincial Sheriff for the Province of Nueva Ecija, Respondent-Appellee.

Feliciano R. Bautista for Appellant.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Troadio T. Quiazon Jr., for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. TENANCY ACT; PURPOSE OF EXEMPTING 25 PER CENT OF TENANT’S SHARE FROM LIEN AND ATTACHMENT; WAIVER OF RIGHT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. — The exemption of 25 per cent of the tenant’s share of the crop from lien and attachment as provided in Section 19 of Republic Act 1199 (new Tenancy Act), being designed to provide sustenance for the tenant and his family from one harvest to the next, a waiver of the exemption could amount to a waiver of the tenant’s right to live. Any such renunciation would therefore be against public policy, and hence null and void even without specific statutory provision.

2. ID.; PROVISIONS OF ACT; REMEDIAL IN NATURE; HOW CONSTRUED. — The Tenancy Act is a remedial legislation intended to better the lot of the sharecropper by giving him a more equitable participation in the produce of the land which he cultivated. Being a remedial statute, it should be construed so as to further its purpose in accordance with the general intent of the lawmaker. (Sibulo v. Altar, 83 Phil., 513).


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, denying a writ of mandamus to compel the Provincial Sheriff to deliver to the petitioning landlord the 25 per cent of the tenant’s share of the crop, that section 19 of Republic Act 1199 declares exempt from liens or attachment.

The case was submitted to the court below on the following stipulation of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That on March 11, 1954, judgment was rendered in Civil Case No. 175, entitled MELCHOR MANIEGO v. DANIEL JAIME, by the Justice of the Peace Court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, a copy of said decision is herewith attached as Annex "A" hereof;

2. That, 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay belonging to Daniel Jaime was raised in his landholding as tenant of petitioner was levied upon by the respondent pursuant to a Writ of Execution issued in Civil Case No. 175;

3. That, after due notice and publication required by law, the respondent, thru Deputy Provincial Sheriff F. G. Manahan, sold at public auction the 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay belonging to Daniel Jaime, a copy of the notice and publication of the sale is herewith attached as Annex "B" hereof;

4. That, petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction sale who bid P835.80 for the 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay as shown by a certificate issued by Deputy Provincial Sheriff F. G. Manahan herewith attached as Annex "C" hereof;

5. That, the petitioner has paid the kilometrage fee and percentage of collection as shown in Official Receipt No. 6289136 herewith attached as Annex "D" based on the amount of his bid;

6. That, on February 16, 1955, the petitioner went to the office of the Provincial Sheriff and verbally demanded the delivery of the receipt to him of the 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay which he purchased in the auction sale and the indorsement in his favor of the receipts of deposits herewith attached as Annex "E" hereof, so petitioner could withdraw the palay from the NG SU Rice Mill where the palay are deposited;

7. That, Provincial Deputy Sheriff F. G. Manahan prepared the indorsement appearing on the back of Annexes "E" but the respondent refused to sign the said indorsement and likewise refused to deliver to petitioner the receipt of 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay purchased by the latter in the auction sale;

8. That, the respondent was willing to deliver the palay after deducting therefrom 25 per cent thereof which respondent claims as exempt from execution under Republic Act No. 1199, Section 19, which fact he knew only immediately after the auction sale upon arrival in his office;

9. That, on February 18, 1955, the respondent received an order dated February 16, 1955, of the Justice of the Peace Court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija commanding the respondent to release 25 per cent of the 145 cavans and 11 kilos sold to the petitioner in the auction sale but not yet delivered to petitioner in favor of Daniel Jaime; a copy of said order bearing the date of receipt by the Office of the Provincial Sheriff is hereto attached as Annex "F" hereof;

10. That, the parties agree to submit this case for decision by the Court based on the foregoing stipulation of facts.

11. That, the parties will submit their memorandum simultaneously within 15 days from today, after which this case is deemed submitted for decision." (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 18-16).

Section 19, of Republic Act 1199 (new Rice Tenancy Act), is to the effect that —

"SEC. 19. Exemption from Lien and/or Attachment. — Twenty-five per centum of the tenant’s share of the produce of the land in share tenancy, or of the entire produce in leasehold tenancy, one work animal and one of each kind of farm implement belonging to the tenant, provided that the value of such work animal and implements do not exceed five hundred pesos, shall be exempt from lien and attachment."cralaw virtua1aw library

The court below held that the tenant having claimed the exemption thus provided, the Sheriff was not compellable by mandamus to deliver the exempt portion; that the fact that the tenant laid claim to the exemption after the Sheriff’s sale had been held did not constitute a waiver of the exemption because the same could not under any circumstance, be waived or relinquished. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

From that judgment the petitioner has appealed to this Court, and argues that, in the absence of statutory restriction, the tenant’s exemption must be regarded as a personal right that is waived if not interposed in due time.

We can not assent to this view. As pointed out in the appealed decision, the 25 per cent exemption.

"is a reservation which the law specifically sets aside for the exclusive benefit of the tenant and upon which he can readily depend to meet his immediate needs and those of his family."cralaw virtua1aw library

Being designed to provide sustenance for the tenant and his family from one harvest to the next, a waiver of the exemption could amount to a waiver of the tenant’s right to live. Any such renunciation would therefore be against public policy, and hence null and void even without specific statutory provision. The case comes under the rule of Art. 6 of the new Civil Code, providing as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 6. Rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

We have had, heretofore, occasion to point out the remedial character of the tenancy acts, and the need of construing their provisions to carry out the legislative policy.

"The Tenancy Act is a remedial legislation intended to better the lot of the sharecropper 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." (Sibulo v. Altar, 83 Phil., 513, 46 Off. Gaz., 5502).

The Sheriff’s levy on the exempt portion being illegal, the sale thereof was likewise unlawful and unenforceable. The petitioner could not plead ignorance of the inclusion of the exempted portion in the levy and sale, he being the landlord on whose land the palay was harvested.

We find no reversible error in the judgment appealed from. Wherefore, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452