Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > September 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14737 September 30, 1960 - LEONCIA VELASCO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

109 Phil 642:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14737. September 30, 1960.]

LEONCIA VELASCO, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS and VALENTIN DOMINGO and MANUEL DOMINGO, Respondents.

Angel C. Cruz for Petitioner.

N. G. Nostratis and E. A. Trias for respondent Court.

R. S. Mendoza for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LESSOR AND LESSEE; LEASE CONTRACT; PRESUMPTIONS; EXCESSIVE RENTALS; BURDEN OF PROOF ON LESSEE. — In a contract of lease the lessee is presumed to have conformed to the rentals stipulated therein because the same are just and reasonable. And since he agreed to said rentals, it must have been because he conforms to the limits imposed by law (Sec 69 [y], Id.) . With these presumptions in mind it is evident that the party which has the obligation to prove that the rentals are excessive and are not comformable to law is the lessee and not the lessor.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AFFIRMATIVE PROPOSITION. — A contract of lease which was entered into voluntarily must be presumed legal where no fraud was alleged or proved in relation to its execution. It is incumbent upon the lessee to prove that the rentals stipulated in the contract are in excess of that fixed by law, not only because of that presumption, but also because he who holds an affirmative proposition has the burden of proving said affirmative.

3. ID.; HARVESTS; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; FORMER TENANT’S TESTIMONY AS TO A FACT IN ISSUE. — The circumstantial evidence that the salty water of the Manila Bay affects the lands in question as well as the supposed harvests cannot be considered more convincing than the testimony of a former tenant as to the very fact in issue; namely, harvests in three years preceding the execution of the contract in question.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Appeal from a supplemental decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Hon. Guillermo S. Santos, presiding, ordering petitioner herein Leoncia Velasco to deliver to respondents Valentin and Manuel, both surnamed Domingo, 179.25 cavans of palay at 44 kilos per cavan of the "pinursigue" variety, or its value at P9.00 per cavan, or a total of P1,613.25, with interest at 6 % per annum from May 3. 1957 until fully paid.

On May 23, 1952, petitioner herein Leoncia Velasco leased a parcel of land containing 89,666 square meters to Valentin Domingo and Manuel Domingo for three agricultural years from May 23, 1952 to April 17, 1955. On April 28, 1965, petitioner herein Velasco sold the land to Marcelino Maclang for P7,000.00 (Annex "A"). On May 3, 1955, Marcelino Maclang brought an action against Valentin Domingo and Manuel Domingo for ejectment. Petitioner Velasco filed a petition to intervene in the proceedings, which petition was granted. The action instituted by Maclang against the Domingos was decided in favor of Maclang, for the ejectment of the Domingos.

A trial was had upon the claim of petitioner Velasco against the Domingos, and after trial the court, after overruling a motion for reconsideration, rendered the decision indicated above and now subject of appeal. The law invoked in the decision is Section 7 of Act 4054, which limits the amount of rental for an agricultural land to not more than 25% of the estimated normal harvest for the last three years.

Third-party respondent in the ejectment suit Leoncia Velasco, petitioner herein, introduced one witness Arsenio Cruz who testified to having cultivated the land and harvested as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . September, 1949 140 cavans; April, 1950-220; September, 1950-l45; April 1951-225; September, 1951-143; April, 1952-about 230 cavans. (p. 5 Resolution, Annex "C").

The trial court, however, refused to believe this testimony as One other reason is that salty water enters the land from Manila Bay and it is only during the months of June, July or August that salt water gets out. Manuel Domingo and Arsenio Robles testified that they never harvest a second crop except in 1956, and that a cavan of seedling normally produces 30 cavans of palay. So the judge below refused to believe the testimony of the witness for petitioner Velasco on the ground that the quantity of harvests testified to by him is excessive. He also decided that if the Domingos have not been able to plant the first harvest in September, such failure was not due to any negligence on their part, but to the salty condition of the land.

The errors assigned on this appeal are the trial court’s failure to consider the harvest for the three years preceding the contract of lease, its act in declaring that the rental is excessive and its declaration that the petitioner Velasco is liable to return 179.25 cavans of palay instead of merely dismissing the third-party complaint.

The court below decided the case on its findings on three issues namely:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Did third-party respondent sufficiently establish the average yield of the landholding in question for the crop years 1949-1950, 1950-1951, 1951-1952?

"2. Did the landholding normally produce two harvests a year during the three years preceding the parties’ lease contract?

"3. Were third-party petitioners negligent in failing to produce the alleged two harvests? If not, what were the real causes of such failure? (pp. 4-5, Annex: "C")

It was error for the court below to hold that petitioner-lessor has the burden of proving the legality of the rentals of 90 cavans fixed for the lease. The contract was the product of a voluntary agreement of the lessor and the lessees. Under the law a person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns (Sec. 69 [d] Rule 123, Rules of Court) and private transactions, presumed fair and regular (Sec. 69 [p], Id.) . Hence respondents-appellees must be presumed to have conformed to the above rentals because the same are reasonable and just. As they agreed to the rentals it must have been because they conform to the limits imposed by law (Sec. 69 [y], Id.) . With these presumptions in mind it is evident that the party which had the obligation to prove that the rentals are excessive and are not conformable to law are the respondents, not the petitioner as the court below assumed and made the basis of its findings and conclusions.

The evidence submitted by both parties are conflicting. We have on the one hand the testimony of a former tenant that the land produced the following harvests - Sept. 1949-140 cavans; April, 1950 220; Sept. 1950-145; April, 1951-225; Sept. 1951-143; April, 1952- about 230. Against the above positive evidence respondents presented merely circumstantial facts, i. e., that salty water affects the lands and supposed harvest during the actual term of the lease. These circumstantial evidence can not be considered more convincing than that presented by petitioner which was to the very fact in issue, namely harvests in three years preceding the execution of the contract.

It is also to be noted that this is not a case in which a reasonable rental is to be fixed in the discretion of the court. It is a case of reformation of a contract voluntarily agreed into on the ground that the rental agreed upon exceeds that fixed by law. Here again it was the respondents who had the burden of proof that the law was violated, as they hold the affirmative of a proposition, i. e., that the rentals are excessive. They must prove said affirmation. In this respect also we believe that respondents have not adduced the evidence necessary to overcome the evidence submitted by the petitioner.

In view of the conflicting evidence the court below should have resolved the question as to the legality of the contract by the rules of presumption and burden of proof. The contract must be presumed legal, as it was entered into voluntarily and no fraud was alleged or proved in relation to its execution. And it is incumbent upon respondents also to prove that the rentals fixed are in excess of that fixed by law, not only because of that presumption but because the law places the burden of proof on the respondents who claim the rentals as excessive. We find that respondents failed, in view of the conflict in the evidence.

We are, therefore, constrained to hold, as we hereby hold, that the court below erred in declaring the rentals excessive.

However, we can not enter a judgment granting relief to the petitioner, as the record does not disclose what amount or portion of the rentals have not been paid. She herself has stated that respondents are at most entitled to a dismissal of her claim.

Wherefore, the judgment or resolution appealed from is hereby reversed and both the claim of petitioner and the counterclaim of the respondents are hereby dismissed. Without costs. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, 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






September-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12645 September 15, 1960 - JUANA PADRON VDA. DE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-14179 September 15, 1960 - PERMANENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. JUAN FRIVALDO

    109 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-13943 September 19, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELIANO ARRANCHADO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-13815 September 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS OYCO

    109 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. L-14740 September 26, 1960 - ANDRES SANTOS, ET AL. v. HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ETC.

    109 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14939 September 26, 1960 - ELVIRA VIDAL TUASON DE RICKARDS v. ANDRES F. GONZALES

    109 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-12298 September 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO AGARIN

    109 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. L-12906 September 29, 1960 - DUMANGAY GUITING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-13255 September 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE COJUANGCO

    109 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13475 September 29, 1960 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-15226 September 29, 1960 - LEE GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-10119 September 30, 1960 - RAFAEL LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 462

  • G.R. Nos. L-10352-53 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO MANlGBAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-11329 September 30, 1960 - CIPRIANO B. MOTOS v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-11440 September 30, 1960 - SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-12030 September 30, 1960 - JOSE J. ROTEA v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    109 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-12149 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF EMILIO CANDELARIA, ETC. v. LUISA ROMERO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-12328 September 30, 1960 - CARLOS J. RIVERA v. TOMAS T. TIRONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-12353 September 30, 1960 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-12641 September 30, 1960 - EMILIANA C. ESTRELLA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 514

  • G.R. Nos. L-12664-65 September 30, 1960 - ANTONINO LAZARO, ET AL. v. FIDELA R. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-12894 September 30, 1960 - LILIA JUANA BARLES, ET AL. v. DON ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

    109 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-13023 September 30, 1960 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. TERESA DUAT VDA. DE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-13283 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERAPIO CARUNUNGAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-13349 September 30, 1960 - MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR C. CALAMBA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 542

  • G.R. Nos. L-13389-90 September 30, 1960 - CAPITOL SUBD., INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO LOPEZ MONTELIBANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-13417 September 30, 1960 - JOSE B. VILLACORTA, ETC. v. HON. FERNANDO VILLAROSA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-13426 September 30, 1960 - INT’L. OIL FACTORY v. TOMASA MARTINEZ VDA. DE DORIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-13446 September 30, 1960 - MAXIMO SISON v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-13467 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN NECESITO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-13546 September 30, 1960 - GREGORIO VERZOSA v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 571

  • G.R. Nos. L-13567-68 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO B. DE LEON

    109 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13582 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO P. BAYLOSIS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-13686 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF JUSTO MALFORE v. DlR. OF FORESTRY

    109 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-13912 September 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO

    109 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-13941 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ETC. v. S. BLAQUERA, ETC.

    109 Phil 598

  • G.R. Nos. L-13992 & L-14035 September 30, 1960 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    109 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-14008 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRIZON REMOLLINO

    109 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-14348 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO YEBRA

    109 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14395 September 30, 1960 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. CATALINA V. YANDOC, ET AL.

    109 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. L-14497 September 30, 1960 - FELIX PAULINO, SR., ET AL. v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-14630 September 30, 1960 - LY HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-14733 September 30, 1960 - ERLINDA ESTOPA v. LORETO PIANSAY, JR.

    109 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-14737 September 30, 1960 - LEONCIA VELASCO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-14817 September 30, 1960 - ANDRES G. SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. NORTHERN LUZON TRANS. CO. INC.

    109 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-14822 September 30, 1960 - KHAW DY, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    109 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-14874 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO PEREZ v. ANGELA TUASON DE PEREZ

    109 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-14914 September 30, 1960 - JOHN TAN CHIN ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-14930 September 30, 1960 - MARLI PLYWOOD & VENEER CORP. v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-15021 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. L-15101 September 30, 1960 - IN RE: CHUA TIAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. L-15158 September 30, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. HON. NECIAS O. MENDOZA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. L-15179 September 30, 1960 - TEODORA AMAR v. JESUS ODIAMAN

    109 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-15208 September 30, 1960 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-15266 September 30, 1960 - TAN HOI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-15274 September 30, 1960 - DOMINGO ALMONTE UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-15305 September 30, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. ARCADIO PALLUGNA

    109 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-15327 September 30, 1960 - FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

    109 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-15380 September 30, 1960 - CHAN WAN v. TAN KIM, ET AL.

    109 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-15392 September 30, 1960 - REX TAXlCAB CO., INC. v. JOSE BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-15454 September 30, 1960 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EMILIANA FERRER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-15802 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGALONA, JR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 723

  • G.R. Nos. L-15928-33 September 30, 1960 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS CIA. DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-16088 September 30, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. FIDELA MORIN DE MARBELLA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-16226 September 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO REÑOSA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 740