FIRST DIVISION
HENRY L. MON,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
118292
April 14, 2004
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS,
HON. LEOPOLDO SERRANO, JR.,
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN
REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD
AND SPOUSES LARRY
AND JOVITA VELASCO,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The
Case
This is a petition for
review assailing the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 31763, which affirmed in toto
the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
Central
Office[2]
(“DARAB”) in DARAB Case No. 0274. In its decision, the DARAB
reversed
the ruling of the DARAB Regional Adjudication Office[3]
(“Regional Office”) in favor of petitioner Henry L. Mon (“petitioner”)
in DARAB Case No. LU-043-89.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Facts
The petition stems from
an affidavit-complaint for ejectment filed on 4 December 1989 by
petitioner
against private respondents Jovita and Larry Velasco (“Spouses
Velasco”)
with the Regional Office in San Fernando, La Union. In his
complaint,
petitioner alleged that he is the owner-administrator of a parcel of
land
(“land”) planted to rice and tobacco in Sitio Torite, Barangay San
Cristobal,
Bangar, La Union. Petitioner further alleged that the Spouses
Velasco,
who cultivate the land, stole one sack of palay from the land’s harvest
and subleased the land to a certain Boy or Ansong Maala during the last
tobacco season.cralaw:red
In their Answer with
Counterclaim, the Spouses Velasco denied petitioner’s allegations as
fabricated
to achieve his long desired objective to possess and cultivate the
land.
As affirmative and special defenses, the Spouses Velasco countered that
they do not have the slightest intention to cheat
petitioner
and that the alleged hidden palay represented their
lawful
share of the harvest for the agricultural year 1988-1989. As
counterclaim,
the Spouses Velasco pointed out that since the beginning of their
tenancy,
petitioner had imposed on them a 50-50 sharing agreement, with the
Spouses
Velasco shouldering all expenses of production. Hence, the
Spouses Velasco sought a reliquidation of the previous palay harvests
to
determine their just share.cralaw:red
After several hearings,
the Regional Office required both parties to submit their respective
position
papers and exhibits. The Spouses Velasco submitted their position
paper on 9 May 1990, while petitioner submitted his position paper on
29
June 1990. The parties submitted supporting exhibits on later
dates.cralaw:red
On 20 February 1991,
the Regional Office issued an Order disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment
is issued in favor of the complainant and against the respondents:
1.
ORDERING the respondents to vacate and turn-over possession and
cultivation
to the complainant;
2.
No pronouncement as to cost.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[4]
In arriving at its decision,
the Regional Office found that Larry Velasco subleased the land to a
certain
Francisco Maala as shown by the affidavit of one Camilo Moskito.
The Regional Office ruled that Section 27(2) of Republic Act No. 3844
(“RA
3844”) prohibits subleasing and violation of this provision constitutes
a ground for ejectment. On the other charge that the Spouses
Velasco
stole a sack of palay, the Regional Office held that there was no
convincing
evidence to support this accusation.cralaw:red
Aggrieved, the Spouses
Velasco appealed under Section 2, Rule XIII, of the DARAB Revised Rules
of Procedure. On 12 July 1993, the DARAB rendered a Decision
reversing
the Order of the Regional Office as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the appealed Order dated February 20, 1991, of the Regional
Adjudication Officer at (sic) San Fernando, La Union, is hereby SET
ASIDE
and the instant case is hereby remanded to the DAR Provincial
Adjudicator,
DAR Provincial Adjudication Office, San Fernando, La Union, for:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
Determination of the lease rentals to be paid by the
defendants-tenants,
spouses Larry and Jovita Velasco, to the plaintiff-landowner, Henry
Mon;
and
2.
Reliquidation of the crop harvests from 1986 up to the time the lease
rentals
shall have been determined by the Provincial Adjudicator as above
ordered;
and ordering the plaintiff-landowner Henry Mon to return to the
defendants-tenants
spouses Larry and Jovita Velasco, the quantity of palay (or its
equivalent
value in cash) which may have been collected by the said
plaintiff-landowner
over and above the legal lease rentals as determined by the Provincial
Adjudicator.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[5]
Unsatisfied with the
DARAB Decision, petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals.
On 9 December 1994, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the DARAB’s
Decision
thus:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, this Court AFFIRMS IN TOTO the appealed decision (dated
July
12, 1993) of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(Central
Office) in DARAB Case No. 0274. No pronouncement as to costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[6]
Hence, the instant petition.
The DARAB and the
Court of Appeals’ Rulings
In reversing the Regional
Office’s Order, the DARAB noted that both the Hearing Officer and the
Regional
Adjudicator overlooked that the agrarian laws had long abolished and
declared
illegal share tenancy. The Spouses Velasco had raised in their
pleadings
before the Regional Adjudication Office the validity of the share
tenancy
relationship that petitioner imposed on them. The DARAB held that
share tenancy can no longer exist between landowner and tenant on rice
lands. What the law allows is only a leasehold relationship,
under
which the tenant shall pay only a fixed rental to the landowner.
The DARAB further held that petitioner has made much ado over the
supposed
“theft” of one sack of palay by Jovita Velasco. However, the
DARAB
pointed out that petitioner’s insistence on the outlawed 50-50 division
of the net harvest deprives the tenants of an even larger amount
corresponding
to the portion of the harvest legally due to them under leasehold
tenancy.
The DARAB held that the parties must comply with the requirements of
the
law governing the leasehold system particularly on the payment of a
fixed
rental by the tenant-lessee to the landowner-lessor. However, the
records do not contain sufficient data covering the gross harvests and
the deductible expenses, which could serve as legal basis for the DARAB
to compute the fixed rental the Spouses Velasco should pay
petitioner.
For this reason, the DARAB remanded the case to the DAR Provincial
Adjudicator
assigned in San Fernando, La Union. The DARAB ordered the
Provincial
Adjudicator to reliquidate the crop harvests, determine the gross
harvests
and compute the lease rental after due notice to the parties and
reception
of evidence on the matter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In affirming in toto
the DARAB’s Decision, the Court of Appeals simply held that there could
be no change of theory when a case is already on
appeal.
The Court of Appeals referred to petitioner’s claim that the
relationship
involved in the case is not that of landlord-tenant under agrarian laws
but that of lessor-lessee under the lease provisions of the Civil Code.
The Issues
In his memorandum, petitioner
raises the following issues:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ADOPTING THE POSTURE OF PUBLIC
RESPONDENTS
THAT PETITIONER CHANGED THE THEORY OF THE CASE ON THE CAUSE OF ACTION
AT
THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS;
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE DARAB CENTRAL OFFICE,
DILIMAN,
QUEZON CITY AND IN DISMISSING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE ORDER OF THE
DARAB REGIONAL ADJUDICATION OFFICE OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION DATED
FEBRUARY
20, 1991, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.[7]
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is bereft
of merit.cralaw:red
Changing Theory
of the Case
Petitioner argues that
from the beginning, the arrangement between him and the Spouses Velasco
- that of sharecropping as a means to pay the lease of the land - did
not
result in an agricultural leasehold contract. Petitioner contends
that the Spouses Velasco are civil law lessees, which did not give them
the right to be tenants under the agricultural leasehold system.
Petitioner insists that since the Regional Office found that the
Spouses
Velasco sublet the land in violation of Section 27(2) of RA 3844, he
has
the right under the same RA 3844 to evict the Spouses Velasco from his
land.cralaw:red
Petitioner’s stance
before the Court of Appeals is that the lease provisions in the Civil
Code
apply to the present case. On the contrary, we find that this is
not an ejectment case between a civil law lessor and lessee but a
dispute
between an agricultural landlord and tenant. If this were an ejectment
case between a civil law lessor and lessee, petitioner should have
brought
his action to the appropriate trial court instead of the DARAB Regional
Adjudication Office. Petitioner should also not have invoked
subletting
as a prohibited act under RA 3844. Obviously, petitioner is
clutching
at straws in changing his theory of the case on appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The settled rule in
this jurisdiction is that a party cannot change his theory of the case
or his cause of action on appeal. We have previously held that
“courts
of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in
issue.”[8]
A judgment that goes outside the issues and purports to adjudicate
something
on which the court did not hear the parties, is not only irregular but
also extra-judicial and invalid.[9]
The rule rests on the fundamental tenets of fair play. In the
present
case, the Court must stick to the issue litigated in the DARAB and in
the
Court of Appeals, which is whether petitioner has the right to eject
the
Spouses Velasco from the land under RA 3844.cralaw:red
Furthermore, petitioner’s
insistence on his new theory is fatal to his cause. This is
because
in a lease contract under the Civil Code,[10]
the rule is that the lessee can sublease the leased property, unless
there
is an express prohibition against subletting in the contract
itself.
To bar the lessee from subletting, the contract of lease must expressly
stipulate the prohibition on subletting.[11]
Petitioner did not allege nor present any contract that prohibited
subletting.cralaw:red
Disregarding Issue
of Ejectment
Petitioner contends
that the Spouses Velasco tried to evade the issue of ejectment by
raising
the issue of share tenancy and praying for reliquidation of the sharing
agreement between them. Petitioner is puzzled that on appeal, the
DARAB altogether ignored the issue of ejectment and ruled solely on the
issue of share tenancy. Petitioner further argues that the issue
of share tenancy does not preclude in any way petitioner from
exercising
his right to eject his tenants for valid grounds. Petitioner
insists
that the Spouses Velasco committed theft and subleased the land they
were
tilling in violation of RA 3844. With these illegal acts of the
Spouses
Velasco, petitioner claims he could not maintain the relationship
knowing
that there is always a possibility the Spouses Velasco might commit
these
illegal acts again. Petitioner asserts that the DARAB justified
the
“theft” by stating that petitioner’s imposition of share tenancy may
have
deprived the Spouses Velasco of an even larger amount corresponding to
the harvest legally due them. Petitioner counters that landowners also
deserve protection from the commission of illegal acts by their tenants.cralaw:red
Section 3 of Republic
Act No. 1199 or The Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines (“RA
1199”)
defines “agricultural tenancy” as the “physical possession by a person
of land devoted to agriculture belonging to, or legally possessed by,
another
for the purpose of production through the labor of the former and of
the
members of his immediate farm household, in consideration of which the
former agrees to share the harvest with the latter, or to pay a price
certain
or ascertainable, either in produce or in money, or in both.”
Under
RA 1199, there are two systems of agricultural tenancy
established:
(1) the share tenancy and (2) the leasehold tenancy.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
“Share tenancy” exists
whenever “two persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural
production
wherein one party furnishes the land and the other his labor, with
either
or both contributing any one or several of the items of production, the
tenant cultivating the land with the aid of labor available from
members
of his immediate farm household, and the produce thereof to be
divided
between the landholder and the tenant in proportion to their respective
contributions.”[13]
On the other hand, “leasehold tenancy” exists “when a person who,
either
personally or with the aid of labor available from members of his
immediate
farm household, undertakes to cultivate a piece of agricultural land
susceptible
of cultivation by a single person together with members of his
immediate
farm household, belonging to or legally possessed by, another in
consideration
of a price certain or ascertainable to be paid by the person
cultivating
the land either in percentage of the production or in a fixed amount in
money, or in both.”[14]
On 8 August 1963, RA
3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code abolished and outlawed
share tenancy and put in its stead the agricultural leasehold
system.
On 10 September 1971, Republic Act No. 6389 (“RA 6389”) amending RA
3844
declared share tenancy relationships as contrary to public
policy.
RA 6389 did not entirely repeal RA 1199 and RA 3844 even if RA 6389
substantially
modified them.[15]
Thus, RA 3844 as amended by RA 6389 (“RA 3844 as amended”) is the
governing
statute in this case. Petitioner filed his complaint on 8
December
1989 or long after the approval of RA 6389 but before Republic Act No.
6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (“RA
6657”).
Notably, RA 6657 only expressly repealed Section 35 of RA 3844 as
amended.cralaw:red
Section 4 of RA 3844
as amended provides:
Section. 4. Automatic
Conversion to Agricultural Leasehold. — Agricultural share tenancy
throughout
the country, as herein defined, is hereby declared contrary to public
policy
and shall be automatically converted to agricultural leasehold upon the
effectivity of this section.cralaw:red
The credit assistance
traditionally extended by a land-owner and a local lender to a tenant
under
the share tenancy systems in agriculture for production loans and loans
for the purchase of work animals, tillage equipment, seeds,
fertilizers,
poultry, livestock feed and other similar items, and advances for the
subsistence
of a lease and his family, may be continued by said landowner and local
lender: Provided, That the total charges on these loans, including
interest
and service, inspection and issuance fees, shall not exceed fourteen
per
cent per calendar year and the principal thereof shall not be subject
to
upward adjustment even in case of extraordinary inflation and/or
devaluation:
Provided, further, That on all loans or advances other than money, the
interest shall be computed on the basis of current price of the goods
at
the time when the loans or advances were made.cralaw:red
Any work animal and
tillage equipment in the possession of a share tenant but owned by a
landowner
shall automatically be sold to said tenant on installment for a period
not exceeding five years and at a price agreed upon by the parties:
Provided,
however, That the tenant shall pay in advance ten per cent of the price
agreed upon.cralaw:red
Existing share tenancy
contracts may continue in force and effect in any region or locality,
to
be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of Republic Act
Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, until the end of
the
agricultural year when the President of the Philippines shall have
organized
by executive order the Department of Agrarian Reform in accordance with
the provisions of this amendatory Act, unless such contracts provide
for
a shorter period or the tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the
leasehold system: Provided, That in order not to jeopardize
international
commitments, lands devoted to crops covered by marketing allotments
shall
be made the subject of a separate proclamation by the President upon
the
recommendation of the department head that adequate provisions, such as
the organization of cooperatives, marketing agreement, or other similar
workable arrangements, have been made to insure efficient management on
all matters requiring synchronization of the agricultural with the
processing
phases of such crops.cralaw:red
In case some agricultural
share tenants do not want to become agricultural lessees of their
respective
landholding, they shall, with the assistance of the Bureau of Agrarian
Legal Assistance, notify in writing the landowners concerned. In such a
case, they shall have one agricultural year from the date of the notice
to accept leasehold relationship, otherwise the landowner may proceed
to
their ejectment. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 5 of RA 3844
as amended reiterated the automatic conversion of share tenancy to
agricultural
leasehold thus -
Section 5. Establishment
of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. — The agricultural leasehold
relation
shall be established by operation of law in accordance with Section
four
of this Code and, in other cases, either orally or in writing,
expressly
or impliedly. (Emphasis supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An agricultural leasehold
relationship exists by operation of law when there is concurrence of an
agricultural lessor (one who furnishes the land as owner, civil law
lessee,
usufructuary or legal possessor) and agricultural lessee (the person
who
personally cultivates the land). This is clearly stated in
Section 6 of RA 3844 as amended, which reads:
Section 6. Parties to
Agricultural Leasehold Relation. — The agricultural leasehold relation
shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding, either as
owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and the
person
who personally cultivates the same.cralaw:red
The essential requisites
of tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landholder
and
the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is
consent;
(4) the purpose is agricultural production; and (5) there is
consideration.[16]
The records establish that the Spouses Velasco are agricultural tenants
of petitioner under the legal definitions. There is no dispute
that
petitioner is the owner-administrator of agricultural land planted to
rice
and tobacco by the Spouses Velasco who petitioner himself referred to
as
his “tenants.” There is also no dispute that the “50-50 share cropping
system between them was agreed upon by their predecessors and was
subsequently
carried by consensual agreement of the parties up to the
present.”
Taken together, all these clearly establish the status of the Spouses
Velasco
as agricultural tenants. Moreover, whether a person is an
agricultural
tenant or not is basically a question of fact. As a rule, this
Court
does not disturb the findings of fact of the DARAB when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals as in the present case.[17]
Section 7 of RA 3844
as amended provides that once there is a leasehold relationship, as in
the present case, the landowner cannot eject the agricultural tenant
from
the land unless authorized by the court for causes provided by
law.
RA 3844 as amended expressly recognizes and protects an agricultural
leasehold
tenant’s right to security of tenure, as follows:
Section 7. Tenure of
Agricultural Leasehold Relation. — The agricultural leasehold relation
once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to
continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is
extinguished.
The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his
landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the
Court
for causes herein provided. (Emphasis supplied)
R.A. 3844 as amended
vests the Spouses Velasco, as agricultural leasehold tenants, certain
specific
rights. These rights include the right to continue working the
land
as well as the right against ejectment from the land except for causes
provided by law as determined by the courts. This is
the clear import of Section 36 of RA 3844 as amended:
SECTION 36. Possession
of Landholding; Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any agreement as to the
period
or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue
in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his
dispossession
has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and
executory
if after due hearing it is shown that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1)
The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will
personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the landholding,
if
suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or school site or
other useful non-agricultural purposes: Provided; That the agricultural
lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five
years rental on his landholding in addition to his rights under
Sections
twenty-five and thirty-four, except when the land owned and leased by
the
agricultural lessor, is not more than five hectares, in which case
instead
of disturbance compensation the lessee may be entitled to an advanced
notice
of at least one agricultural year before ejectment proceedings are
filed
against him: Provided, further, That should the landholder not
cultivate
the land himself for three years or fail to substantially carry out
such
conversion within one year after the dispossession of the tenant, it
shall
be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have the
right
to demand possession of the land and recover damages for any loss
incurred
by him because of said dispossessions.cralaw:red
(2)
The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the
terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of this
Code
unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;
(3)
The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a
purpose
other than what had been previously agreed upon;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(4)
The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as
determined
under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;
(5)
The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is
substantially
damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated through the fault
or negligence of the agricultural lessee;
(6)
The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls
due:
Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop
failure
to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous
event,
the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although the
obligation
to pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished;
or
(7)
The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of the
terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.cralaw:red
Under Section 37 of
the same RA 3844, the burden of proving lawful cause for ejecting the
lessee
falls on the lessor-landowner, thus -
Section 37.
Burden of Proof— The burden of proof to show the existence of a
lawful
cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the
agricultural
lessor.cralaw:red
The Regional Office
found the allegation of theft unsupported by evidence while that of
subleasing
as proven by the statement of a certain Francisco Maala and affidavit
of
one Camilo Moskito. Both the DARAB and the Court of Appeals did
not
make a finding on this point. Not being a trier of facts, this
Court
cannot pass upon these factual issues. It is futile to determine
the truth or falsity of these accusations in view of the equity
principle
that the DARAB applied. In reversing the Regional Office’s decision to
turn over possession of the land to petitioner, the DARAB applied the
equity
principle that he who comes to court must come with clean hands.[18]
Otherwise, he not only taints his name, but also ridicules the very
structure
of established authority.[19]
A court may deny a litigant relief on the ground that his conduct has
been
inequitable, unfair, dishonest, fraudulent, or deceitful as to the
controversy
in issue.[20]
We agree with the DARAB that we cannot close our eyes and remain
indifferent
to the perpetuation of an act that the law has long ago declared
illegal
and contrary to public policy. The Court cannot allow petitioner
to invoke Section 27(2) of RA 3844 prohibiting subletting when he
himself
violated Sections 4 and 5 of the same RA 3844 outlawing share tenancy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We uphold the remand
of the case to the DAR Provincial Adjudicator to determine and fix the
rentals in accordance with Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended. The
law mandates that not more than 25% of the average normal harvest shall
constitute the just and fair rental rate for leasehold.[21]Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended reads:
Section 34. Consideration
for the Lease of Riceland and Lands Devoted to Other Crops. — The
consideration
for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops shall not be
more than the equivalent of twenty-five per centum of the average
normal
harvest or if there have been no normal harvests, then the estimated
normal
harvest during the three agricultural years immediately preceding the
date
the lease-hold was established after deducting the amount used for
seeds
and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing,
whichever are applicable: Provided, That if the land has been
cultivated
for a period of less than three years, the initial consideration shall
be based on the average normal harvest, or if there have been no normal
harvests, then the estimated normal harvest during the preceding
years when the land was actually cultivated, or on the harvest of the
first
year in the case of newly cultivated lands, if that harvest is normal
harvest,
the final consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest
during
these three preceding agricultural years.cralaw:red
In the absence of any
agreement between the parties as to the rental, the Court of Agrarian
Relations
shall summarily determine a provisional rental in pursuance of existing
laws, rules and regulations and production records available in the
different
field units of the department, taking into account the extent of the
development
of the land at the time of the conversion into leasehold and the
participation
of the lessee in the development thereof. This provisional rental
shall continue in force and effect until a fixed rental is finally
determined.
The court shall determine the fixed rental within thirty days after the
petition is submitted for decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If capital improvements
are introduced on the farm not by the lessee to increase its
productivity,
the rental shall be increased proportionately to the consequent
increase
in production due to said improvements. In case of disagreement,
the Court shall determine the reasonable increase in rental.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, we DENY the
petition and AFFIRM the assailed Decision dated 9 December 1994 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 31763. Costs against
petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr. with Associate Justices
Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr. and Artemon D. Luna concurring.
[2]
Composed of Ernesto D. Garilao as Chairman with
Leopoldo
M. Serrano, Jr., Jose C. Medina, Jr., Renato B. Padilla, Lorenzo
R. Reyes and Hector D. Soliman as members.
[3]
Hearing Officer Atty. Santiago T. Livara, Jr. and
concurred
in by Regional Adjudicator Atty. Hermogenes S. Reña.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid., pp. 32-33.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Ibid., p. 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, p. 159.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Bernas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85041, 5 August 1993, 225 SCRA 119.
[9]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
ART. 1650. When in the contract of lease of things there is no
express
prohibition, the lessee may sublet the thing leased, in whole or in
part,
without prejudice to his responsibility for the performance of the
contract
toward the lessor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Filoil Refinery Corporation v. Mendoza, No. L-55526, 15 June 1987, 150
SCRA 632.
[12]
Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136831, 30 July 2002, 385 SCRA 399.
[13]
Sec. 4, RA 1199.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Guerrero v. CA, 226 Phil. 62 (1986).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Spouses Cayetano, et al. v. CA, et al., 215 Phil. 430 (1984).
[17]
Guerrero v. CA, supra, note 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Jimenez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106136, 13 June 1994, 233 SCRA 93.
[19]
Marcos II v. CA, 339 Phil. 253 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Pilapil v. Hon. Garchitorena, 359 Phil. 674 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Cabatan v. Court of Appeals, Nos. L-44875-76; No. L-45160; Nos.
L-46211-12,
22 January 1980, 96 SCRA 323. |