Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1955 > May 1955 Decisions > G.R. No. L-7738 May 30, 1955 - BALDOMERO TACAD, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA VDA. DE CEBRERO

097 Phil 150:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-7738. May 30, 1955.]

BALDOMERO TACAD, ET AL., Petitioners, v. POTENCIANA VDA. DE CEBRERO, Respondent.

Nicolas V. Reyes, for Petitioners.

Onofre Guevara for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; PLANNING AND CULTIVATION DISTINGUISHED; RATIO OF SHARES; WHEN NO EXPENSE SHOWN FOR CULTIVATION. — Cultivation which has to do with the tilling of land, promoting the growth and taking care of the plants, is an operation distinct from the planting itself, and if no expense was incurred for such operation, it must be assumed that the work was done by the tenant himself. Such being the case, one half of the 30 percent alloted to planting and cultivation expenses must be credited to the tenant. It results that the liquidation should be made on the following basis: For the landlord 45 percent (30 percent for the land [capital] and 15 percent for the planting expenses) and for the tenant 55 percent (30 percent for labor aside from cultivation, 15 percent for cultivation, 5 percent for work animals and 5 percent for farm implements.)


D E C I S I O N


REYES, A., J.:


This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations.

The decision authorizes the ejectment of the herein petitioning tenants from their landholdings at the close of the 1953-1954 agricultural year and decrees that the 1952-1953 harvest be reliquidated on a 60-40 basis in favor of the respondent landowner.

Ground for the ejectment is the finding that the tenants were guilty of disobedience and negligence for "concertedly disappearing on the appointed dates for threshing" with the result that the thresher, who was then and there with his machine and a crew of not less than ten employees, was not able to do any threshing, and was for that reason requiring the landowner to compensate him for damages suffered. Petitioners dispute this conclusion on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence. But the question raised is factual, and findings on the weight of evidence by the Court of Industrial Relations are conclusive on this Court.

The question of reliquidation was submitted below on the following stipulation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) That the only year involved is the last agricultural year 1952-1953;

"(2) That in that agricultural year, the landlord:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) shouldered the planting expenses;

(b) furnished the seedlings;

(c) and shared equally in the threshing expenses;

"(3) That the tenants also in that agricultural year:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) supplied the farm implements and work animals;

(b) shouldered the harvesting expenses which was 5 cavans per cavan of seedlings;

(c) plowed and harrowed;

"(4) That the crop sharing basis was 50-50."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the basis of the above stipulation the lower court ordered a reliquidation on a 60-40 basis in favor of the landowner, stating its reasons as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . the Court should be guided by precedents particularly that laid down by our Supreme Court in the case of Sibulo v. Altar, G. R. No. L-1916. In that case the highest court established a fixed computation to be the basis in the determination of the proportionate shares in the harvest to which the tenant and the landlord are entitled, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First Class Second Class

Capital (land) 30 percent 25 percent

Labor 30 percent 35 percent

Expenses 30 percent 30 percent

Work animals 5 percent 5 percent

Farm animals 5 percent 5 percent

‘On the basis of the computation laid down by the Supreme Court, and considering the conditions as stipulated by the parties, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner who is the landlord is entitled to 30 percent for her capital (land) and another 30 percent for shouldering the expenses, including the seedings, and the respondents are entitled to 30 percent for labor, 5 percent for work animals, and another 5 percent for farm implements, or a total of 40 percent."cralaw virtua1aw library

This ruling is disputed by the tenants as a misapplication of the formula adopted in the case cited, it being contended that the respondent landowner should not here be credited with the whole 30% alloted by that case to the expenses of planting and cultivation because, according to the stipulation, she only shouldered "the planting expenses." In answer respondent’s counsel maintains in his brief that the expenses of planting must be deemed to include expenses of cultivation, if any. To this we can not agree. Cultivation, which has to do with the tilling of the land, promoting the growth and taking care of the plants, is an operation distinct from the planting itself, and if no expense was incurred for such operation it must be assumed that the work was done by the tenant himself. Such being the case, one-half of the 30% allotted to planting and cultivation expenses must be credited to the tenant. It results that the liquidation should be made on the following basis:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

For the landlord:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

30 percent for the land (capital)

15 percent for the planting expenses



45 percent

For the tenant:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

30 percent for labor aside from cultivation

15 percent cultivation

5 percent for work animals

5 percent for farm implements



55%

In view of the foregoing, the decision below is affirmed in so much as it authorizes the ejectment of the tenants and modified as to the reliquidation of the 1952-1953 crop in the sense that the basis thereof, should be 55-45 in favor of the tenants. Without costs.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





May-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7331 May 6, 1955 - CLEMENTE PASILAN v. FRANCISCO VILLAGONZA

    097 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTORIO HERNANDEZ

    097 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. L-7684 May 10, 1955 - AGRIPINO JOCSON v. ESPERIDION PRESBITERIO

    097 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-7516 May 12, 1955 - LEONOR P. REYES v. THE HONORABLE BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-8045 May 12, 1955 - VALENTINO TAYLO Y REYES v. TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

    097 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6963 May 13, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS PADIOS and FILEMON PADIOS

    097 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-7574 May 17, 1955 - FRANCISCO EPANG v. MARIA ORTIN DE LEYCO

    097 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-7862 May 17, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MAXIMO ABAÑO

    097 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-7894 May 17, 1955 - FERNANDO NIETO v. HON. BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-8276 May 17, 1955 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. HON. JOSE TEODORO

    097 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-7937 May 18, 1955 - JUANITA RONQUILLO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    097 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-7083 May 19, 1955 - JUAN EUGENIO ET AL. v. SILVINA PERDIDO

    097 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-7307 May 19, 1955 - PACITA ORTIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

    097 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-7385 May 19, 1955 - QUIRICO L. SATURNINO v. FELIZA LUZ PAULINO

    097 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-6776 May 21, 1955 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL v. UNG SIU SI TEMPLE

    097 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-7112 May 21, 1955 - TOMAS Q. SORIANO v. F. R. OMILA

    097 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-7234 May 21, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAZ M. DEL ROSARIO

    097 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-7595 May 21, 1955 - TEODORA DEMORAR v. HON. JUDGE ROMAN IBAÑEZ ET AL.

    097 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-7926 May 21, 1955 - OSCAR OLEGARIO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    097 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-7583 May 25, 1955 - JAMIE T. BUENAFLOR ET AL. v. CESARIO DE LEON

    097 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-7918 May 25, 1955 - MARIA GALASINAO v. ROSA M. AUSTRIA ET AL.

    097 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-8114 May 25, 1955 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

    097 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-8238 May 25, 1955 - CESAR M. CARANDANG v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    097 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-8806 May 25, 1955 - MARIA N. BANZON v. PEDRO ALVIAR

    097 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-6869 May 27, 1955 - SOLEDAD BELANDRES v. LOPEZ SUGAR CENTRAL MILL CO., INC.

    097 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-7224 May 27, 1955 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. A. GERGARAY TANCHINGCO

    097 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-7383 May 27, 1955 - XERXES G. GARCIA v. DAMIANA SANTICO

    097 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-7518 May 27, 1955 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. HON. MODESTO CASTILLO ET AL.

    097 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-7622 May 27, 1955 - GABRIEL MACLAN v. RUBEN GARCIA

    097 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7752 May 27, 1955 - SEC. OF AGRI. AND NAT. RESOURCES, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE, CFI OF MLA., ET AL.

    097 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-7248 May 28, 1955 - AMADO BERNARDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-8040 May 28, 1955 - VICENTE K. LAY v. ROCES HERMANOS INC., ET AL.

    097 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-7708 May 30, 1955 - JOSE MONDANO v. FERNANDO SILVOSA, ET AL.

    097 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-7738 May 30, 1955 - BALDOMERO TACAD, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA VDA. DE CEBRERO

    097 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-7959 May 30, 1955 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP., v. JUDGE OF CFI, ET AL.

    097 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-6707 May 31, 1955 - R. F. & J. ALEXANDER & CO., LTD., ET AL. v. JOSE ANG, ET AL.

    097 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-7019 May 31, 1955 - IN RE: EULOGIO S. EUSEBIO v. DOMINGO VALMORES

    097 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-7144 May 31, 1955 - FAR EASTERN EXPORT & IMPORT CO. v. LIM TECK SUAN

    097 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-7338 May 31, 1955 - PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., v. PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS ASSN.

    097 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-7358 May 31, 1955 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. AGUINALDO’S ECHAGUE, INC.

    097 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-7376 May 31, 1955 - FRANCISCO MARIANO v. APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-7614 May 31, 1955 - CONRADO POTENCIANO v. NAPOLEON DINEROS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 196

  • G.R. Nos. L-7771-73 May 31, 1955 - PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’ ASSN. v. PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

    097 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-7887 May 31, 1955 - MACLEOD & CO. OF THE PHIL. v. PROGRESSIVE FEDERATION OF LABOR

    097 Phil 205