Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > December 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11968 December 29, 1959 - DOROTEO ONOFRE v. PASTOR P. REYES

106 Phil 790:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11968. December 29, 1959.]

DOROTEO ONOFRE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. HON. PASTOR P. REYES, ET AL., Respondents.

Pedro T. Canlas, for Petitioners.

N. G. Nostratis and L. Ma. Ipac for respondent Court of Agrarian Relations.


SYLLABUS


1. TENANCY; CHANGE OF TENANCY CONTRACT. — Where the tenants request a change from one crop-sharing arrangement to another, there is no need of one-year notice to the landholder. Such notice is required only where the tenants want a change from share tenancy to leasehold system.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Review of a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

On August 4, 1956, Doroteo Onofre and eight other tenants of Ramon Cabral, petitioned the said court to compel the landholder to agree to an alteration of their crop-sharing arrangement from 45-55 to 30-70. They rested the demand on section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 which, for convenience, is herewith copied (as it stood then) 1 .

"SEC. 14. Change of System. — The tenant shall have the right to change the tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to the leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop-sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy. If the share tenancy contract is in writing and is duly registered, the right may be exercised at the expiration of the period of the contract. In the absence of any written contract, the right may be exercised at the end of the agricultural year. In both cases the change to the leasehold system shall be effective one agricultural year after the tenant has served notice of his intention to change upon the landholder."cralaw virtua1aw library

Opposing the petition, the landholder moved to dismiss alleging, (a) that under the last part of the section, the tenants may only go to court one agricultural year after they had served "notice of their intention to change upon the landholders" ; and (5) that the tenants had not given such notice.

The tenants in reply asserted they had given notice; but later they argued that such notice was unnecessary, because they were not asking for change to the leasehold system, to which change the last part of section 14 applied. They explained to the court that they were merely requesting a change from one crop-sharing arrangement (45-55) to another (70-30). On this last issue, the matter was submitted to the court, and the latter ruled for respondent landowner, calling attention to the words "in both cases" which, in its opinion meant, first case, change from share tenancy to leasehold tenancy and second case, change from one crop sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy. This petition, said the court, falls under the second case, and service of one-year notice is a condition precedent to any cause of action. Wherefore, it dismissed the petition.

The tenants appealed to this Court for revision. We think they are right. There was no need of one-year notice. Theirs was not a change to the leasehold system. The words "in both cases" in the last sentence of section 14 refer to the two preceding sentences; first, share contract in writing and registered; second, share contract not registered or verbal or implied. "Both cases" refer to share tenancy. The last part of the section must be interpreted to apply to instances where the tenants want a change from share tenancy to leasehold. This is not the situation before us, because there is no desire to adopt the leasehold system. Notice as required by the last part of the section is not a condition precedent.

In this connection, it may be stated that this section of the statute has recently been amended by Republic Act 2263, and it now reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 14. Change of System. — The tenant shall have the right to change the tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy. If the share tenancy contract is in writing and is duly registered, the right to change from one crop sharing arrangement to another or from one tenancy system to another may be exercised at least one month before the beginning of the next agricultural year after the expiration of the period of the contract. In the absence of any registered written contract, the right may be exercise at least one month before the agricultural year when the change shall be effected."cralaw virtua1aw library

Observe that this statute requires no previous one-year notice to the landlord or landholder. And it directs application of its provisions to cases (like this) pending in court at the time of its approval. 2

Wherefore, finding prejudicial error in the lower court’s decision, we hereby revoke it and order the return of the expediente for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Amended later by Republic Act 2263.

2. Sec 22, Republic Act 2263.




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






December-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12629 December 9, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ARAQUEL

    106 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-12950 December 9, 1959 - BENJAMIN CELESTIAL v. SOUTHERN MINDANAO EXPERIMENTAL STATION

    106 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-13303 December 10, 1959 - ANG BUN PHEK alias KUN PUE GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    106 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-11855 December 23, 1959 - LEE SUAN AY v. EMILIO GALANG

    106 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-12088 December 23, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO SUMAGUINA MACARANDANG

    106 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-12707 December 23, 1959 - DEMETRIO BUNAYOG v. ANACLETA TUNAS

    106 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. L-12764 December 23, 1959 - EMILIO CANO v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

    106 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-12948 December 23, 1959 - MARCELO VITAL v. PASTOR MAGTOTO

    106 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-12991 December 23, 1959 - F. F. HAMLIN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    106 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. L-13017 December 23, 1959 - IN RE: TAK NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-13715 December 23, 1959 - FELIX V. VALENCIA v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO.

    106 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-11525 December 24, 1959 - IN RE: ANANDRAM VALIRAM DARGANI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-12207 December 24, 1959 - JUAN PALACIOS v. MARIA CATIMBANG PALACIOS

    106 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. L-13920 December 24, 1959 - ILDEFONSO D. YAP v. DANIEL M. M. SALCEDO

    106 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-13932 December 24, 1959 - JOSE V. DE LOS SANTOS v. NICASIO YATCO

    106 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-13272 December 26, 1959 - TRINIDAD OCAMPO-CAÑIZA v. FELIX MARTINEZ

    106 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-12408 December 28, 1959 - LEE CHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-13010 December 28, 1959 - JUANITO N. FERRER v. ALFONSO TABORA

    106 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. L-14022 December 28, 1959 - IN RE: YU KHENG CHIAU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14190 December 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRECITO BULALAKE

    106 Phil 767

  • G.R. No. L-9343 December 29, 1959 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VALENTIN R. LIM

    106 Phil 771

  • G.R. Nos. L-10994 & L-11012 December 29, 1959 - GOLAY-BUCHEL & CIE. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    106 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-11895 December 29, 1959 - IN RE: JESUS J. GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 788

  • G.R. No. L-11968 December 29, 1959 - DOROTEO ONOFRE v. PASTOR P. REYES

    106 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-12231 December 29, 1959 - ANG LIONG v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    106 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-12277 December 29, 1959 - BENITO ORIT v. BALRODGAN COMPANY

    106 Phil 800

  • G.R. No. L-12357 December 29, 1959 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. JOSE G. DE CASTRO

    106 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-12793 December 29, 1959 - MEDINA BROTHERS & COMPANY v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

    106 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-13025 December 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO ROGADO

    106 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-13065 December 29, 1959 - LINO SALES v. JOSE SANTOS

    106 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. L-13067 December 29, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

    106 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-13080 December 29, 1959 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO.

    106 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-13126 December 29, 1959 - FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES v. SOTERO CABAHUG

    106 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-13273 December 29, 1959 - EDILIO L. BALUYOT v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-13354 December 29, 1959 - APOLINARIO DE LA CRUZ v. CITY FISCAL

    106 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-13361 December 29, 1959 - ROSARIO GREY VDA. DE ALBAR v. JOSEFA FABIE DE CARANGDANG

    106 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-13433 December 29, 1959 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. JUAN V. ALDEA

    106 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-13547 December 29, 1959 - JOAQUIN T. ORTEGA v. BAUANG FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION

    106 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-13926 December 29, 1959 - IN RE: FELISA F. HARRIS v. ROSE HARRIS

    106 Phil 873