Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > August 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12597 August 31, 1960 - FERMIN LACAP, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC.

109 Phil 265:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12597. August 31, 1960.]

FERMIN LACAP, ET AL., Petitioners, v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

Nicanor D. Guevara, for Petitioners.

N. G. Nostratis and L. Ma. Ipac for respondent CAR.

A. B. Tiglao and M. G. Bustos for respondent Gaddi.


SYLLABUS


1. TENANCY; CONVERSION OF RICELAND INTO FISHPOND; DISPOSSESSION OF TENANT. — While the conversion of riceland into fishpond is not one of the causes for dispossession of a tenant under Section 50 of Republic Act 1199, such conversion is justified if it appears that by effecting it the landowners would obtain greater yield or income than treating it merely as a riceland as authorized by Section 25 of the same Act.

2. ID.; ID.; CONCESSION GIVEN TO TENANT IF HE CANNOT BE RETAINED. — If the tenant could not be retained in connection with the operation of the fishpond because of his lack of know-how or the requisite qualification for the new work, he may be given at least a portion of land similar in nature and area so that he may not be unemployed.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On June 28, 1955, Lourdes Gaddi, respondent herein, filed with the Court of Industrial Relations a petition praying that she be authorized to convert a portion of her riceland into a fishpond (Case No. 452-Pampanga). In view of the abolition of the Tenancy Division of the Court of Industrial Relations and the creation of the Court of Agrarian Relations, the case was transferred from the former to the latter as provided for in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409.

Of the fourteen (14) tenants tilling the land, five of them, who are the petitioners herein, opposed the conversion alleging that the land is not fit for fishpond purposes because the water entering it is not salty and the milkfish (bangus) would not grow. They further alleged that as the water that irrigates it is fresh the dalag fish would thrive and would eat the bangus frys.

At the trial it was established that the land in question has an area of 55 hectares; that before the war this land was a fishpond, the owner having spent P10,000.00 for the construction of the dikes; that it was once leased at P20,000.00 a year; that after the war it was converted into riceland but the biggest harvest it has yielded is 800 cavans a year; that a fishpond with a smaller area adjoining the land yielded a gross income of P36,000.00 in 1956; that if the land is to be reconverted into a fishpond, the owner may realize an income of P40,000.00 a year; and that in spite of the claim of petitioners that the land is good for rice, it was found to be better for fishpond by an expert of the Bureau of Fisheries in the ocular inspection made of the premises upon order of the court.

Hence, on May 27, 1957, the agrarian court rendered decision the dispositive part of which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby grants authority to petitioner to reconvert her rice land located at Sepong Balete, Macabebe, Pampanga, into a fishpond and is hereby also given authority to eject the respondent-tenants therefrom with the condition, however, that if within two years the said landholding is not reconverted into a fishpond the said respondent-tenants, upon their petition to the Court and after due hearing, may be ordered reinstated as such tenants with the corresponding damages by reason of their dispossession."cralaw virtua1aw library

On May 29, 1957, before the decision had become final, respondent Lourdes Gaddi filed an urgent motion seeking to open the flood gates of the land in order to allow salty water to enter it as an initial step in the conversion of the land because, according to her, if she could not take advantage of the entrance of the salty water, she will have to wait for another month before she could avail of the same. The following day, May 30, 1957, the court issued an order granting the motion.

Petitioners now come before this Court contending (1) that the agrarian court erred in authorizing their ejectment from their landholding by reason of the authority granted to the landowner to convert the land into a fishpond; and (2) that the court erred in ordering the immediate execution of the decision before it has become final and executory.

While the conversion of riceland into fishpond is not one of the causes for dispossession of a tenant under Section 50 of Republic Act 1199, we however find the order of the agrarian court authorizing the conversion justified it appearing that by effecting said conversion the landowner would obtain greater yield or income than treating it merely as a riceland. This is authorized by Section 25 of the same Act which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 25. Rights of the Landholder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The landholder shall have the right to choose the kind of crop and the seeds which the tenant shall plant in his holdings: Provided, however, That if the tenant should object, the court shall settle the conflict, according to the best interest of both parties."cralaw virtua1aw library

The issue herein involved is not new. It has been raised recently in the case of Ramona Escoto de Miranda v. Hon. Pastor P. Reyes, 103 Phil., 207) wherein this Court granted a landowner the authority to convert her riceland into fishpond under the authority of said legal provision. In that case we made the observation that if the tenant could not be retained in connection with the operation of the fishpond because of his lack of know-how or the requisite qualification for the new work, he may be given at least a portion of land similar in nature and area so that he may not be unemployed. We wish to make the same suggestion with regard to the five tenants herein involved. If they have been loyal in the past and have the requisite qualifications, we find no plausible reason why they should not be retained in the service by the landholder.

The contention that the order of the agrarian court allowing the landowner to open the flood gates of the land in order to allow salty water to enter as an initial step in its conversion as a fishpond is tantamount to an execution of the judgment, is untenable. The authority is merely a precautionary measure since it appears that if that opportunity is allowed to pass the salty water may not reappear until sometime afterwards. This is an opportunity which the landowner wants to take advantage of in view of the requirement of the court that she should do the conversion within two years from the decision. We find no abuse of discretion in granting the authority now disputed by petitioners.

Wherefore, with the modification above adverted to insofar as the retention of petitioners herein as tenants or guards if feasible, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, 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






August-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12362 August 5, 1960 - CECILIO E. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    109 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. L-12800 August 5, 1960 - MELECIO CAJILIG, ET AL. v. FLORA ROBERSON CO.

    109 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960 - FEDERICO AZAOLA v. CESARIO SINGSON

    109 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-14400 August 5, 1960 - FELICISIMO GATMAITAN v. GORGONIO D. MEDINA

    109 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-12220 August 8, 1960 - PAULINO J. GARCIA, ET AL. v. PANFILO LEJANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-12730 August 22, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. AMADOR D. GARCIA

    109 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. L-12909 August 24, 1960 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-14637 August 24, 1960 - ATTY. RODRIGO MATUTINA v. JUDGE TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-15128 August 25, 1960 - CECILIO DIEGO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    109 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-13105 August 25, 1960 - LUCINA BAITO v. ANATALIO SARMIENTO

    109 Phil 148

  • G.R. Nos. L-14684-86 August 26, 1960 - CATALINO CAISIP, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15315 August 26, 1960 - ABUNDIO MERCED v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-15822 August 26, 1960 - MEGIDA TINTIANGCO, ETC., ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-9965 August 29, 1960 - LUCINA BIGLANGAWA, ET AL. v. PASTOR. B. CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14427 August 29, 1960 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. GALICANO A. RIVERA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-14461 August 29, 1960 - BONIFACIO MERCADO v. PAULO M. MERCADO

    109 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-14518 August 29, 1960 - EUGENIA NELAYAN, ET AL. v. CECILIA NELAYAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-14903 August 29, 1960 - KOPPEL INC. v. DANILO DARLUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-14904 August 29, 1960 - CONSUELO ARRANZ, ET AL. v. VENERACION BARBERS ARRANZ

    109 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-15076 August 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE FERRER v. HON. E. L. DE LEON, ETC.

    109 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-9576 August 31, 1960 - SIXTA VENGASO, ETC. v. CENON BUENCAMINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-9786 August 31, 1960 - ROSITA MASANGCAY, ET AL. v. MARCELO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-10111 August 31, 1960 - SOLEDAD ROBLES, ET AL. v. ISABEL MANAHAN DE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-11910 August 31, 1960 - PLASLU v. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-11944 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. ARSENIO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-12005 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FRAGA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-12020 August 31, 1960 - FELIXBERTO BULAHAN, ET AL. v. JUAN E. TUASON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-12286 August 31, 1960 - JOSE JAVELLANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-12486 August 31, 1960 - LEONOR GRANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12597 August 31, 1960 - FERMIN LACAP, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC.

    109 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12781 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 - JOEL JIMENEZ v. REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. L-12898 August 31, 1960 - ESTANISLAO PABUSTAN v. HON. PASTOR DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 278

  • G.R. Nos. L-13129 & L-13179-80 August 31, 1960 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED UNIONS COUNCIL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-13162 August 31, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-13177 August 31, 1960 - SWEE DIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 287

  • G.R. Nos. L-13219-20 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO CRUZ

    109 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-13281 August 31, 1960 - SIARI VALLEY ESTATES, INC. v. FILEMON LUCASAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-13353 August 31, 1960 - DOLORES NARAG v. SALVADOR CECILIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-13581 August 31, 1960 - EPIFANIO S. CESE v. GSIS

    109 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-13801 August 31, 1960 - PAULINA BAUTISTA v. LEONCIO DACANAY, ET AL.

    109 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-14101 August 31, 1960 - ADRIANA DE BLANCO v. STA. CLARA TRANS. CO.

    109 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14107 August 31, 1960 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-14184 August 31, 1960 - IN RE: PABLO UY YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-14357 August 31, 1960 - JOHANNA H. BORROMEO v. EZEQUIEL ZABALLERO, SR.

    109 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-14363 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    109 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-14601 August 31,1960

    PNB v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-14835 August 31, 1960 - PONCIANO MEDEL, ET AL. v. JULIAN CALASANZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-14959 August 31, 1960 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

    109 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-15153 August 31, 1960 - LUCIO BALONAN v. EUSEBIA ABELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-15186 August 31, 1960 - GONZALO G. DE GUZMAN v. ALFREDO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    109 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-15325 August 31, 1960 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF RIZAL v. HON. JUDGE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-15375 August 31, 1960 - BALTAZAR RAGPALA, ET AL. v. J. P. OF TUBOD, LANAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-15474 August 31, 1960 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. BRIG. GEN. PELAGIO CRUZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-15590 August 31, 1960 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. CORAZON SEGOVIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-15633 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO D. ALA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 390