Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > April 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19760 April 30, 1964 - MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL. v. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19760. April 30, 1964.]

MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET AL., Respondents.

Alejandro C. Villaviza, for Petitioners.

Ipac & Fajardo for respondent Judge Tomas Panganiban.

Manuel Cordero for other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. AGRICULTURAL TENANCY; PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECURITY OF TENURE OF TENANT. — A tenant’s right to be respected in his tenure under Republic Act 1199, as amended, is an obligation of the landholder created by law, and an action for violation thereof prescribes in ten years under No. 2 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code.

2. ID.; EJECTED TENANT’S EARNINGS ELSEWHERE NOT DEDUCTED FROM DAMAGES. — Under section 27 (1) of Republic Act 1199, as amended, an illegally ejected tenant’s earnings elsewhere may not be deducted from but is to be added to the damages granted him upon reinstatement.


D E C I S I O N


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


Review of the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Cabanatuan City, in its Case No. 2088-NE-60, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent Quirino Capalad to pay the petitioners as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Jose Aguilar P297.00

2. Agapito Neuda 264.75

3. Sixto Malarulat 264.25

4. Rafael Alamon 164.00

5. Petronilo Aguilar 335.25

6. Eulogio Samaniego 219.00

7. Castor Rufino 234.00.

The following respondents are hereby ordered to vacate their respective landholdings in favor of the petitioners, subject to the provisions of pars. 3 and 4, Sec. 22 R.A. No. 1199, as amended, the indemnity in the aforestated paragraphs, supra, shall be paid by respondent Quirino Capalad:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Respondents Petitioners

1. Alejo Pramel 1. Jose Aguilar

2. Severino Padilla 2. Agapito Neuda

3. Domingo Villaviza 3. Rafael Alamon

4. Marcelo Villaviza 4. Petronilo Aguilar

5. Cirilo Ramos 5. Eulogio Samaniego

6. Ciriaco Pizaro 6. Castor Rufino

7. Cesario Villaviza 7. Sixto Malarulat

Ben Morelos

Juan Morelos

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

The lower court found that the above-named respondents (petitioners below) were tenants since 1944 in a riceland situated in Aliaga, Nueva Ecija, and owned by Domingo Fajardo. Fajardo gave out the land for lease (civil lease) to the petitioner, Quirino Capalad, starting with the crop year 1955-56. The said lessee, in June, 1955, plowed the land by machinery, and installed, as his tenants, his above-named co-petitioners in this Court, so that when the respondents went back to their respective landholdings to prepare them for planting they found the land already cultivated. The respondents- tenants demanded their re-instatement, but every time they did, which they did yearly until the present suit was filed, Quirino Capalad promised, but never fulfilled, to reinstate them for the agricultural year following said demands.

As grounds for the petition for review, the petitioners claim grave abuse of discretion by the Agrarian Court and a lack of substantive evidence to support its findings.

The above claim is wild and reckless and definitely without merit, since the decision itself contains the recitals of the testimonies of the witnesses upon which the court based its findings, and the petitioners do not question the existence and adequacy of these testimonies. That the court believed the evidence for the respondents, rather than those for the petitioners is the tenancy court’s prerogative, and, as a reviewing court, the Supreme Court will not weigh anew the evidence all that this Court is called upon to do, insofar as the evidence is concerned, is to find out if the conclusion of the lower court is supported by substantive evidence; and the present case is, as hereinbefore explained.

A tenant’s right to be respected in his tenure under Republic Act 1199, as amended, is an obligation of the landholder created by law and an action for violation hereof prescribes in ten years under No. 2 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code. The respondents were ousted from their landholdings in June, 1955, and they filed the present action on 31 March 1960; therefore, the period of limitation had not expired.

The tenancy court found that the ejected tenants-respondents have engaged in gainful occupations since their illegal ejectment and had delayed the filing of the case, and for these reasons the court made an award for damages against Quirino Capalad equivalent to only two harvests based on the landholder’s share for the crop year 1954-1955.

The premises for the award are erroneous. Under section 27(1) of Republic Act 1199, as amended, a tenant’s earnings may not be deducted from the damages because the said section positively provides that the tenant’s freedom to earn elsewhere is to be added ("in addition") to his right to damages in case of illegal ejectment (Lustre, Et. Al. v. CAR, Et Al., L-19654, March 21, 1964). Nor can it be said that the respondents-tenants are guilty of laches for having unnecessarily delayed the filing of the case, because the delay was attributed to Capalad’s promises to reinstate them.

The amount of the award to each respondent should not, however be disturbed because the respondents non-appeal from the decision indicates their satisfaction therewith and a waiver of any amounts other than those indicated in the decision (David v. de la Cruz, Et Al., L-11656, 18 April 1958; Dy, Et. Al. v. Kuizon, L-16654, 30 Nov. 1961).

FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision under review is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, 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-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16037 April 29, 1964 - MONCADA BIJON FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18120 April 29, 1964 - DALMACIO DADURAL, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19063 April 29, 1964 - JULIANA CALADIAO, ET AL v. MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS

  • G.R. No. L-19863 April 29, 1964 - NAT’L., DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19866 April 29, 1964 - DAVAO STEEL CORP. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14336 April 30, 1964 - LA TONDEÑA, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15975 April 30, 1964 - HEIRS of the DECEASED JUAN SINDIONG, ET AL v. COMMITTEE ON BURNT AREAS & IMPROVEMENTS OF CEBU,

    ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16147 April 30, 1964 - LUZON COMMODITIES CORP. v. AMOR and SAYO, , ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16391 April 30, 1964 - HECTOR MORENO v. MACARIO TANGONAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16483 April 30, 1964 - MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL v. PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-16520 April 30, 1964 - JUAN CABUNGCAL, ET AL. v. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-16986 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS SAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17438 April 30, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RITA LIM DE YU

  • G.R. No. L-17776 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. RAFAEL HUGANAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17917 April 30, 1964 - VICTORIO GUY CO CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17954 April 30, 1964 - TAN CHING v. HON. A. GERALDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18202 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERCIVAL GILO

  • G.R. No. L-18271 April 30, 1964 - FELIX V. ESPINO v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18784 April 30, 1964 - CITY OF MANILA, ET AL v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-18889-90 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. ANTONIO HERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18993 April 30, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19001 April 30, 1964 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19007 April 30, 1964 - PHIL. COAL MINER’S UNION v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. -19020 April 30, 1964 - ANTONIO M. SAMIA v. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19298 April 30, 1964 - EUGENIO S. DE GRACIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-19317 April 30, 1964 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MAXIMO S. SAVELLANO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19370 April 30, 1964 - GENARO PRADO v. APOLINARIO CALPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19383 April 30, 1964 - UNITED STATES LINES CO. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19589 April 30, 1964 - RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19624 April 30, 1964 - BARTOLOME PUZON v. HON. MANUEL P. BARCELONA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19628 April 30, 1964 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19759 April 30, 1964 - CONCEPCION MONTELIBANO, ET AL v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19760 April 30, 1964 - MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL. v. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19761 April 30, 1964 - QUINTINA S. VDA. DE AMPIL, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19767 April 30, 1964 - RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW), ET AL v. MADRlGAL & CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19896 April 30, 1964 - REMEDIOS LAYAG, ET AL. v. JUAN GERARDO

  • G.R. No. L-20044 April 30, 1964 - NATIONAL UNION OF RESTAURANT WORKERS (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.