Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > September 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19961 September 14, 1966 PILAR REYES v. JOSE M. SANTOS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19961. September 14, 1966.]

PILAR REYES, Petitioner, v. HON. JOSE M. SANTOS, as ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, and MAXIMINO ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.

Venancio E. Calpatura for Petitioner.

J. U. Montemayor for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. AGRICULTURAL TENANCY LAW (ACT NO. 1199); ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. — The only question in this case is the constitutionality of Section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law (Act No. 1199) giving the tenant the privilege to change the agreement from share tenancy to leasehold. Petitioner submits that said provision violates the Constitution because it (1) results in deprivation of property without due process of law; (2) impairs the obligation of contracts; and (3) constitutes class legislation. Held: The same questions have been raised in other cases decided by this Court, and the constitutionality of the law has been repeatedly upheld. (Ramas v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L- 19555, May 29, 1964; Macasaet v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L- 19750, July 17, 1964; Uichanco v. Gutierrez, L-20275-20579, May 31, 1965; Gamboa v. Pallarca, L-20407, March 31, 1966; and Cuizon v. Ortiz, L-20905, April 30, 1966).


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

Petitioner Pilar Reyes is the owner of a parcel of land of about two hectares located in barrio Lawa, Calamba, Laguna, which was being worked by respondent Maximino Enriquez under a verbal agreement of tenancy, under which they shared both the expenses and the harvest equally. On November 18, 1960, that is, one month before the next agricultural year started, respondent notified petitioner that he was changing their relationship from share tenancy to leasehold. On December 17, 1960 petitioner informed respondent that she was opposed to the change. On May 2, 1961 she filed a petition in the Court of Agrarian Relations alleging the aforementioned facts and asking that an interlocutory order be issued for the division of the existing palay crop as follows: 50% for the tenant, 20% for the landowner, and 30% to be deposited with the municipal treasurer of Calamba, pending final determination of the controversy, concerning the constitutionality of the provision of the Agricultural Tenancy Law (Act No. 1199) giving the tenant the privilege to change the agreement from share tenancy to leasehold tenancy, which was under consideration by this Court in Juliano v. Magtibay (L-17627), 1 so that should the said provision be declared unconstitutional the parties would respect their original sharing agreement.

The court issued the interlocutory order prayed for and the parties subsequently stipulated on the facts set forth above.

On June 6, 1962 the court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and ruled that respondent had the right, upon proper notice, to change the prevailing tenancy system to one of leasehold tenancy.

Petitioner appealed and now raised the sole question of the validity of Section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law, as amended, which states: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 is duly registered, the right to change from one crop sharing arrangement 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."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner submits that this provision violates the Constitution because it: (1) results in deprivation of property without due process of law; (2) impairs the obligation of contracts; and (3) constitutes class legislation.

The same questions have been raised in other cases decided by this Court, and the constitutionality of the law has been repeatedly upheld. (Ramas v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-19555, May 29, 1964; Macasaet v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-19750, July 17, 1964; Uichanco v. Gutierrez, L-20575-20579, May 31, 1965; Gamboa v. Pallarca, L-20407, March 31, 1966; and Cuizon v. Ortiz, L-20905, April 30, 1966).

The decision of the lower court is therefore affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Regala, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. The case was decided on November 29, 1962.




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-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20745 September 2, 1966 DOLORES GRANADA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20867 September 3, 1966 SALVADOR APRUEBA, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON

  • G.R. No. L-23681 September 3, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORATO GENILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20851 September 3, 1966 JESUS AGUIRRE v. VICTOR S. PHENG

  • G.R. No. L-17009 September 13, 1966 BRITISH-AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. ALTO SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19961 September 14, 1966 PILAR REYES v. JOSE M. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-19798 September 20, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALOD MANOBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20645 September 22, 1966 GO TIAN CHAI v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-22797 September 22, 1966 MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL. v. FLORA BLAS DE BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. L-19259 September 23, 1966 GENERAL TRAVEL SERVICE, LTD. v. EDILBERTO Y. DAVID

  • G.R. No. L-20946 September 23, 1966 EUGENIO C. DEL PRADO v. AUREA S. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21212 September 23, 1966 CITIZENS LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS, ET AL. v. MACAPANTON ABBAS

  • G.R. No. L-21413 September 23, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-21697 September 23, 1966 FRED ENRIQUEZ v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

  • G.R. No. L-22170 September 23, 1966 IN RE: BERTHA ANN RIVERA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22531 September 23, 1966 REMEGIA RIEGO, ET AL. v. PABLO RIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24702 and L-26357 September 23, 1966 FABIAN GARCIA, ET AL. v. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24873 September 23, 1966 BASILISA ROQUE, ET AL. v. ARACELI W. VDA. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20988 September 27, 1966 JACINTO DECENA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21871 September 27, 1966 PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. RODOLFO GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26387 September 27, 1966 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ADRIANO V. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21875 September 27, 1966 MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. JOSEFINA SEGARRA VDA. DE LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24736 September 27, 1966 FRANCISCO MALVAR, ET AL. v. PABLO PALLINGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20438 September 27, 1966 NEW MANILA LUMBER CO., INC. v. FERMIN CENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21224 September 27, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CARMEN PLANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21170 September 27, 1966 LEONARDO CABUDOL, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22031 September 28, 1966 CHAN SHU LOU v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-21412 September 28, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-21438 September 28, 1966 AIR FRANCE v. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21571 September 29, 1966 MERCY’S INCORPORATED v. HERMINIA VERDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21282 September 29, 1946

    CONSOLACION INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. ANGEL H. MOJICA

  • G.R. No. L-19082 September 29, 1966 IN RE: CASIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19808 September 29, 966

    ELDO J. CARIÑO, ET AL. v. AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20609 September 29, 1966 JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS

  • G.R. No. L-21419 September 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO DE GRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21609 September 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. KER & COMPANY, LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-21967 September 29, 1966 EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. MACARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20149 September 29, 1966 IN RE: MANUEL SPIRIG LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23140 September 29, 1966 MARTA MENDOZA, ET AL. v. FELISA DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18760 September 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. KAMAD AKIRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19650 September 29, 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ENRICO PALOMAR

  • G.R. No. L-20483 September 30, 1966 IN RE: YONG SAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20657 September 30, 1966 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. BERNARDO P. LANDETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21193 September 30, 1966 IN RE: ANACLETO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21475 September 30, 1966 AMANCIO BALITE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21766 September 30, 1966 FELICISIMA BALLECER, ET AL. v. JOSE BERNARDO

  • G.R. No. L-21988 September 30, 1968

    ALICIA S. GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, DISTRICT ENGINEER