Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > May 1965 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-20275-79 May 31, 1965 - VIRGINIA B. UICHANCO, ET AL v. FIDEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20275-79. May 31, 1965.]

VIRGINIA B. UICHANCO, EDUARDO LIM and MERCEDES B. UICHANCO, Petitioners, v. FIDEL GUTIERREZ, MARCOS DE LA PEÑA, GERARDO PECHO, REYNALDO MERCADO and FLAVIANO EVANGELISTA, Respondents.

Amador G. Salazar, for Petitioners.

Ernesto Marquez for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. AGRICULTURAL TENANCY; LAW GIVING TENANT RIGHT TO CHANGE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP IS CONSTITUTIONAL. — Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, giving the tenant the right to change the tenancy from share to leasehold, is constitutional.

2. ID.; ID.; RIGHT GRANTED BY LAW TO TENANT DEEMED INCLUDED IN VERBAL TENANCY CONTRACT. — Where the parties in 1956 entered into a verbal tenancy relationship and as the law then existing gave the tenant the right to demand a leasehold arrangement in exchange for the share tenancy, that right should be deemed included in their contract of tenancy.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Brought up on appeal from the Court of Agrarian Relations of the Fifth Regional District, Sta., Cruz, Laguna, these five cases involve one single issue: whether or not section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, is constitutional.

Said section reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 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 exercised at least one month before the agricultural year when the change shall be effected." (As amended by Republic Act No. 2263)

According to the record:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The herein five respondents were, in the year 1960 — and before — share tenants of the herein petitioners, who own small rice farms in Calamba, Laguna. Pursuant to their verbal tenancy agreement, they shouldered the expenses of production and divided the harvest on a fifty-fifty basis. However, in the year 1960, the tenants demanded the conversion of their relationship from "share tenancy" to "leasehold tenancy." They invoked the right granted by section 14 above quoted. The landowners opposed; so these five litigations ensued.

The Court of Agrarian Relations, following the provisions of the law, uphold the tenants’ demand and rendered judgment accordingly.

In due time, the landowners appealed to this Court, tendering the single issue of the validity of statute here in before copied. That law, they claimed, was unconstitutional because:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. it interferes with the freedom of contract, and impairs contractual rights;

2. it deprives the landowner of his property in giving the tenant the right to impose a new legal relationship without his consent.

Their appeal was filed in September 1962; at that time, the question had not been resolved; in fact, a suit on the same issue pended before this Court (Juliano v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-17627).

However, in May 29, 1964, in L-19555 1 this Court rendered judgment upholding the Constitutional validity of the statute. And we reiterated the same view in L-19750 July 17, 1964. 2

It is unnecessary at this time to add to the reasons already explained in said two decisions. But referring to the circumstances in these litigations, we note that apparently the parties herein entered the verbal tenancy relationship in 1956, at the earliest, because the first harvest mentioned in the decision were those of October 1957. Such being the case, it may be said that as the law then existing (sec. 14) gave the tenant the right to demand a leasehold arrangement in exchange for the share tenancy, that right should be deemed included in their contract of tenancy; and the landlord may now be heard to complain about interference with it or impairment thereof by the law. 3

It may be noted, in passing, that the Land Reform Code, approved August 8, 1963, Republic Act 3844, abolished agricultural share tenancy (sec. 4) even as it reaffirmed the privilege of tenants 4 to elect the leasehold system.

On the basis of a leasehold system which it deemed established upon the tenants’ demand, the Agrarian Court made a computation of rentals to be paid and distribution of the harvests — with facts and figures. We have been shown no error in its computation. The sole issue presented for our determination is validity of the law, which appellants assail on constitutional grounds. On that issue, consistently with our previous rulings, we have to uphold the legislative enactment.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Agrarian Court must be, and is hereby, affirmed. Without costs.

Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Concepcion and Dizon, JJ., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Ramos v. Court of Agrarian Relations.

2. Macasaet v. Court of Agrarian Relations.

3. Law existing at time of contract governs its interpretation and application, U. S. v. Conde, 42 Phil. 766; Cabauatan v. Uy Hoo, 88 Phil. 103.

4. In subsisting tenancy contracts.




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






May-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16784 May 19, 1965 - IN RE: LIANE C. GOMEZ v. AUGUSTO G. SYJUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19997 May 19, 1965 - VISAYAN BICYCLE MANUFACTURING CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20139 May 19, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO MARQUEZ Y CASTRO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20282 May 19, 1965 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. EUSEBIO DAPLAS

  • G.R. No. L-20791 May 19, 1965 - MANUEL F. AQUINO, ET AL v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20815 May 19, 1965 - SANTIAGO MANZANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-18766 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19727 May 20, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-20430 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUVIGES SAN ANTONIO

  • A.C. No. 611 May 25, 1965 - BONIFACIO GARCIA, ET AL v. ATTY. ABELARDO MILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20448 May 25, 1965 - NAPOLEON MAGALIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20618 May 25, 1965 - HERMENEGILDO R. ROSALES v. FLAVIANO YENKO

  • G.R. No. L-14532 & L-14533 May 26, 1965 - JOSE LEON GONZALES v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13469 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO EGUAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15706 May 27, 1965 - ILDEFONSO D. YAP, ET AL v. MANUEL L. CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-18804 May 27, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WESTERN PACIFIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-21997 May 27, 1965 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-13816 May 31, 1965 - SEVERO ROMERO, ET AL. v. ISABELO DE LOS REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-17132 May 31, 1965 - JUAN BENEMERITO, ET AL v. PETRONILA COSTANILLA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17320 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PAZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17712 May 31, 1965 - BASILIO UNSAY, ET AL v. CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18038 May 31, 1965 - ROSA GUSTILO v. AUGUSTO GUSTILO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18348 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO CALACALA

  • G.R. No. L-18443 May 31, 1965 - ENRIQUE SISON, ET AL v. JUAN PAJO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 31, 1965 - AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-18497 May 31, 1965 - DAGUPAN TRADING COMPANY v. RUSTICO MACAM

  • G.R. No. L-19346 May 31, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. LACSON, ET AL. v. ABELARDO G. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. L-19587 May 31, 1965 - RAFAEL JALOTJOT v. MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19646 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: ESPIRITU NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19659 May 31, 1965 - DR. POLICARPIO C. ALISOSO v. TARCELA LASTIMOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19967 May 31, 1965 - ARSENIO REYES v. SINAI C. HAMADA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20202 May 31, 1965 - CIRIACO HERNANDEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20227 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: GO KEM LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20275-79 May 31, 1965 - VIRGINIA B. UICHANCO, ET AL v. FIDEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20394 May 31, 1965 - STEPHEN W. MARTIN v. CELESTINO GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20472 May 31, 1965 - MARIO F. OUANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20577 May 31, 1965 - VISAYAN PACKING CORP. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20617 May 31, 1965 - BRUNO GARCIA v. DALMACIO ANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20737 May 31, 1965 - ROQUE ESCAÑO v. RODRIGO C. LIM

  • G.R. No. L-20792 May 31, 1965 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. ALLIED WORKERS ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20950 May 31, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AYALA Y CIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21235 May 31, 1965 - RODOLFO TIRONA v. M. CUDIAMAT

  • G.R. No. L-21653 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE DE LARA, JR., ET AL v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21764 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE CABILING, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO PABULAAN, ET AL.