Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > December 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15595 December 29, 1960 - MARTIN CAÑADA v. CANDIDO RUBI

110 Phil 505:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-15595. December 29, 1960.]

MARTIN CAÑADA and ISMAEL CAÑADA, Petitioners, v. CANDIDO RUBI, ET AL., and COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, Seventh Regional District, Cebu City, Respondents.

Remotique, Nacua, Remotique & Palma, for Petitioners.

Nora G. Nostratis and F. T. Allado for respondent CAR. Jose E. Fantonial for respondent A. Torres.


SYLLABUS


1. TENANCY; UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSSESSION OF OLD TENANTS; RELATIONSHIP CREATED ONLY WITH CONSENT OF LANDHOLDERS. — The dispossession by petitioner of old tenants on the landholdings in question and his subsequent cultivation thereof by means of hired laborers or the labor of his children did not confer upon him any legal right to work the land as tenant and enjoy the protection of security of tenure under the Tenancy Law. One cannot be a tenant simply because he actually worked as tenant on the landholdings. Tenancy relationship can only be created with consent of the landholder through lawful means and not by usurpation or imposition.

2. ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL EVEN BEFORE PASSAGE OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1199. — The unauthorized act of grabbing and taking over the landholdings of other tenants in 1953 was already an illegal act under the laws then in force, because section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 461, as amended, provided that any agreement or provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, a tenant shall not be dispossessed of his holdings except for any of the causes mentioned in Section 19 of Act No. 4054, as amended, or for any just cause, and without the approval of a representative of the Department of Justice duly authorized for the purpose.

3. EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY: DETERMINATION BEST LEFT TO TRIAL JUDGE. — In the absence of compelling reasons, the determination of the question of credibility is best left to the trial judge who had the advantage of hearing the parties testify and of observing their demeanor on the witness stand.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


In a twice amended petition filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations, Martin Cañada and his son Ismael prayed for reliquidation of crops and reinstatement in their landholdings, plus damages alleged to have been suffered by them as a consequence of their dispossession. Named respondents in the petition were Candido Rubi, Rosario Juarez, Mercedes Rodriguez, Pablo Rubi, Rubin Rubi, Antonio Rubi, Alfonso Torres, Basilio Maranga, Emiliano Maranga, Quirico Tampos and Juan Navarez, the six first named being alleged to be the landholders, while the others (except Antonio Torres, the overseer) are the incumbent tenants working on the landholdings from which petitioners claim to have been ejected. The petition in substance alleged that petitioners were the tenants working on five parcels of land located at Sibonga, Cebu, belonging to the respondent landholders; that one parcel is planted to rice with a seedling capacity of 4-1/2 gantas of palay, while the other four are planted to corn with the aggregate seedling capacity of 6 to 7 gantas; that petitioners have been tenants in the landholdings for over 30 years, the sharing agreement in the harvest being 50-50 between them and the respondent landholders; that respondent Candido Rubi, in conspiracy with the other respondents and without justifiable cause, prevented petitioners from entering and working on the landholdings on April 11, 1958, as a consequence of which petitioners suffered both actual and moral damages.

Answering the petition, the respondents Candido Rubi, Alfonso Torres, Basilio Maranga, Emiliano Maranga, Quirico Tampos, Juan Navarez and Manuel Alcomendras, thru counsel, claimed that respondent Candido Rubi is the sole and exclusive owner of the parcels of land in question; that Martin Cañada, father of the other petitioner, Ismael Cañada, was merely an "encargado" or overseer and for this reason had no tenancy relationship with respondent Candido Rubi; that said Martin Cañada was dismissed for dishonesty, negligence, high-handed and oppressive treatment of the tenants working on respondent Candido Rubi’s properties; that if petitioners worked as tenants of the landholdings in question, they did so surreptitiously or through the connivance of one of the respondents, Antonio Rubi; that as such tenants they should be ejected for negligence, incapacity, dishonesty and willful violation of their duties under the Tenancy Law; that the Agrarian Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case; and that there is collusion between the petitioners and some of the respondents. As counterclaim, they allege that they suffered damages as a result of the filing of the malicious and unfounded petition.

Respondent Antonio Rubi in a separate answer alleged that he appointed petitioner Martin Cañada as "overseer" of all the common properties of the respondents when he was acting administrator thereof from 1953 to 1955; that he has always regarded the petitioners with trust and confidence and has no objection to their being retained as tenants of the properties in question. For relief, he prayed that the petition be dismissed insofar as he is concerned.

The other respondents failed to file their answers as a consequence of which they were declared in default by order of the Agrarian Court.

At the trial, petitioners presented five witnesses, including the respondents Rosario Juarez and Alfonso Torres. For the respondents, Candido Rubi, Manuel Alcomendras, Emiliano Maranga and Juan Navarez testified. Respondent Antonio Rubi also testified.

From the evidence presented, the lower court found that petitioners failed to establish their alleged tenancy of the landholdings claimed by them — petitioner Ismael Cañada even admitting that he was not a tenant but was only helping his father — and that even assuming that petitioner Martin Cañada was really a tenant, he has nevertheless been guilty of acts which constitute valid grounds for his dispossession. In view of said findings, the court below on April 2, 1959 rendered a decision, dismissing the petition. Hence, the present petition for review.

Petitioners insist that their tenancy of the landholdings in question has been sufficiently established by the evidence presented by them, the respondents Antonio Rubi and Rosario Juarez even admitting said tenancy. The court below, however, observed in the decision complained of that there exists a serious controversy among the Rubi brothers and sisters concerning the ownership of the parcels of land in question, Antonio Rubi and his sister Rosario Juarez claiming co-ownership, while Candido Rubi asserts that they are his own exclusive property. Sustaining the charge of collusion between the petitioners and the respondent Antonio Rubi in an apparent attempt of the latter to wrangle a court settlement of his dispute with respondent Candido Rubi, the Agrarian Court also found that the interest of said respondent Antonio Rubi in the case was inspired by personal feelings of animosity. Considering further that he and respondent Rosario Juarez were not in possession of the property, the lower court did not take their admission that petitioners were their tenants at its face value.

Upon the other hand, petitioner Ismael Cañada himself admitted that he was not a tenant but that he used to help his father, the other petitioner, who, on his part, admitted that the landholdings he claims to have been dispossessed of were worked by hired laborers and his children and that he worked on them when his children were not feeling well. This admission of the petitioner Martin Cañada, said the lower court, "corroborates the version of respondent Candido Rubi, Manuel Alcomendras, Basilio Maranga and others to the effect that during the time that Antonio Rubi was administrator of the properties, Martin Cañada grabbed the landholdings of other tenants and had the same worked by hired laborers and some of his children." The court, therefore, concluded — and we think correctly — that the dispossession by petitioner Martin Cañada of old tenants on the landholdings in question and his subsequent cultivation thereof by means of hired laborers or the labor of his children did not confer upon him any legal right to work the land as tenant and enjoy the protection of security of tenure under the Tenancy Law.

Petitioners assail the findings of the court below on the ground that the evidence as testified to by their witnesses is more credible than the evidence presented by the respondents. It is well-settled, however, that in the absence of compelling reasons, the determination of the question of credibility is best left to the trial judge who had the advantage of hearing the parties testify and of observing their demeanor on the witness stand. In this case, we are not satisfied that sufficient and valid reasons have been shown to justify a reversal of the findings of the court below.

Petitioners make capital of the letter Exh. "G", written by respondent Candido Rubi and addressed to Antonio Rubi as administrator of the estate, with the instruction that the lands cultivated by Martin Cañada must be taken and given to "the deserving persons." It is argued that Martin Cañada was a tenant because respondent Candido Rubi admitted that there were lands cultivated by the former. It is, however, precisely the theory of the respondent Candido Rubi that Martin Cañada, without his knowledge and consent, grabbed the landholdings of the former tenants thereof and gave them to his son and other persons to cultivate. Said respondent Candido Rubi testified that by the term "deserving persons" he meant the former tenants ejected by Martin Cañada. Needless to add, petitioners cannot be considered tenants simply because they actually worked as tenants on the landholdings in question. Tenancy relationship can only be created with consent of the landholder through lawful means and not by imposition or usurpation.

Petitioners also contend that even if Martin Cañada grabbed the parcels of land in question from other tenants, he still could not be ejected from them because the act occurred in 1953, or before the passage of Republic Act No. 1199. The contention is untenable. The unauthorized act of Martin Cañada of grabbing and taking over the landholdings of other tenants in 1953 was already an illegal act under the laws then in force. Thus, section 1 of Com. Act No. 461, as amended, provided that any agreement or provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, a tenant shall not be dispossessed of his holdings except for any of the causes mentioned in Sec. 19 of Act No. 4054, as amended, or for any just cause, and without the approval of a representative of the Department of Justice duly authorized for the purpose.

It should here be also stated that the Agrarian Court likewise found that even assuming that petitioner Martin Cañada was a tenant, he cannot now be ordered reinstated because as established by the evidence he had been guilty of acts which constitute valid grounds for his dispossession; for while the law enjoins him to personally work the land himself or with the aid of the members of his family, he merely hired laborers to work for him. This finding is factual and there being no showing that it is not supported by substantial evidence, the same is binding and conclusive upon this Court.

In view of the foregoing, the decision complained of is hereby affirmed, but without special pronouncement as to costs, petitioners having been allowed to litigate as paupers in this Court.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, 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






December-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-14762 December 20, 1960 - UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE TRENES v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR, CO.

    110 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-13007 December 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE CUNANAN

    110 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-16283 December 27, 1960 - NEW ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-10121 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BERGANIO

    110 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-10405 December 29, 1960 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS

    110 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. L-11037 December 29, 1960 - EDGARDO CARIAGA v. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY.

    110 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-11179 December 29, 1960 - BURGOS T. SAYOC v. ELLEN CHEN

    110 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. L-11665 December 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE MORALES v. CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF CAVITE

    110 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-12087 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO CAIMBRE

    110 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. L-12450 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO BOLIVAR

    110 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. L-12819 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO GUARNES

    110 Phil 379

  • G.R. Nos. L-12860-61 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGMEDIO SANTIAGO

    110 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. L-13018 December 29, 1960 - ADELA ROSARIO v. MARIA S. F. ROSARIO

    110 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-13075 December 29, 1960 - CO CHIN LENG v. EUGENIO MINTU

    110 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-13083 December 29, 1960 - MANUEL R. OLAÑO v. MANUEL BERNARDO

    110 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-13292 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WENCESLAO PAGULAYAN

    110 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-13308 December 29, 1960 - MANUEL PANGAN v. EVENING NEWS PUBLISHING CO.

    110 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-13401 December 29, 1960 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-13695 December 29, 1960 - RCA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO.

    110 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-13746 December 29, 1960 - ISIDRO BOFIL v. CATALINO P. CASIDSID

    110 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-14219 December 29, 1960 - MARIANO G. SISON v. FELICIANO MAZA

    110 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-14245 December 29, 1960 - SOLEDAD ABIJUELA v. HOSPICIA DOLOSA

    110 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-14377 December 29, 1960 - EAST PACIFIC MERCHANDISING CORP. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    110 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-14623 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKANS ASPALIN

    110 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. L-14858 December 29, 1960 - MARIANO S. GONZAGA v. AUGUSTO CE DAVID

    110 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14985 December 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO U. BUENASEDA v. BOWEN & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-15100 December 29, 1960 - IN RE: VICENTE TIU NAVARRO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    110 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-15118 December 29, 1960 - ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. L-15140 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN DEROSARIO

    110 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-15154 December 29, 1960 - GIL VILLANUEVA v. FILOMENO GIRGED

    110 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15155 December 29, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. EXEQUIEL FLORO

    110 Phil 482

  • G.R. Nos. L-15167-68 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALIO PANCHO

    110 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-15182 December 29, 1960 - SANTIAGA BLANCO v. FRUCTUOSA ESQUIERDO

    110 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. L-15193 December 29, 1960 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    110 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15595 December 29, 1960 - MARTIN CAÑADA v. CANDIDO RUBI

    110 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15654 December 29, 1960 - DELGADO BROTHERS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-15753 December 29, 1960 - JUANA REYES VDA. DE AREJOLA v. CAMARINES SUR REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL

    110 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. L-15800 December 29, 1960 - C. K. VASWANI v. P. TARACHAND BROS.

    110 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-15813 December 29, 1960 - GERMAN DE ORTUBE v. JUSTINIANO T. ASUNCION

    110 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. L-15978 December 29, 1960 - DAVAO GULF LUMBER CORP. v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    110 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. L-16153 December 29, 1960 - ESTRELLA E. SERRANO v. ANDRES REYES

    110 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. L-16285 December 29, 1960 - JOSE SETON v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    110 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-17512 December 29, 1960 - CLARO IBASCO v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO

    110 Phil 553

  • G.R. Nos. L-13012 & L-14876 December 31, 1960 - CITY OF CEBU v. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO

    110 Phil 558

  • G.R. Nos. L-13983-85 December 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERLITO SOYANG

    110 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-14921 December 31, 1960 - DOLORES B. GUICO v. PABLO G. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 584

  • G.R. Nos. L-15024-25 December 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SACAYANAN

    110 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-15560 December 31, 1960 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY WORKERS UNION v. ARSENIO MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-16035 December 31, 1960 - THERESE VILLANUEVA v. PANTALEON A. PELAYO

    110 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. L-16521 December 31, 1960 - PORFIRIO DIAZ v. EMIGDIO NIETES

    110 Phil 606