Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > April 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12570 April 28, 1962 - VICENTE PAZ, ETC., ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12570. April 28, 1962.]

VICENTE PAZ, etc., Et Al., Petitioners, v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL., Respondents.

Ricardo M. Vergara, for Petitioners.

Nora L. Nostratis and Josefina S. Sioson for respondent Court of Agrarian Relations.

Agustin R. Remiriajes for other Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LANDLORDS AND TENANTS; DISPOSSESSION; INDEMNITY FOR PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS AND CLEANING EXPENSES NOT PROVIDED IN SECTION 22, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1199. — Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199 does not provide for indemnity for the value of permanent improvements existing on the land, other than the tenant’s dwelling, or for the expenses in clearing the same upon taking possession thereof originally by the tenant. Any award, that may be made with regard to the value of said permanent improvements, or the expenses for the clearing of the land, is improper and unauthorized.

2. ID.; ID.; TENANT ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY FOR DWELLING ONLY IF EJECTMENT IS WITHOUT CAUSE. — Section 22, paragraph 3, of Republic Act No. 1199, provides that the tenant shall be entitled to indemnity for his dwelling only when he is ejected without cause.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


The owners of a 6-hectare land which forms part of Hacienda Florentino located in Buguey, Cagayan, filed a petition before the Court of Agrarian Relations praying that they be allowed to separate from their landholdings the tenants named therein for having failed to deliver to them their share of the palay crop corresponding to the agricultural years 1952-1953 and 1953-1954. After trial on the merits, the court rendered decision granting the authority requested. The tenants named therein did not appeal, and so the decision became final and executory. However, the court stated in the decision that the dispossession of the tenants should be made subject to the provisions of Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199, and to carry out this directive, an appraisal committee was created composed of the provincial treasurer, the provincial commander of the constabulary, and one Luis Florentino, charged with the duty to appraise "the value of the improvements, expenses for clearing the land, seedlings, planting and cultivation, and damages suffered by respondents."cralaw virtua1aw library

Acting on this instruction, the committee conducted an ocular inspection of the 6-hectare landholding of the tenants and thereafter submitted its report to the court. On June 3, 1957, the court, presided over by Judge Pastor L. de Guzman, issued a resolution adopting integrally the report and awarded to the tenants an indemnity in the total sum of P5,510.35 which the landowners must pay before effecting the ejectment of said tenants. Dissatisfied with this resolution, the landowners interposed the present petition for review.

Petitioners pose the following issues in refutation of the resolution of the trial court: (1) Did the court a quo act legally when it ordered the landowners to indemnify the tenants for the full value of the rice crop existing on the land as well as for the full value of the fruit trees planted thereon and their respective produce?; (2) Did it act legally when it awarded the tenants an indemnity for the value of their house and granary built on their landholdings? and (3) Is the order of the court a quo awarding the tenants an indemnity of P1,200.00 for clearing fruit land and the amount of P540.00 for clearing talahib land supported by the facts and the law?

It should be stated at the outset that the decision of the agrarian court authorizing the landowners to terminate their relation with their tenants merely contains the condition that the same shall be subject to the pertinent provisions of Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199. These provisions are contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of said section which provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(3) The tenant’s dwelling shall not, without his consent, be removed from the lot assigned to him by the landholder, unless there is a severance of the tenancy relationship between them as provided under Section nine, or unless the tenant is ejected for cause, and only after the expiration of forty-five days following such severance of relationship or dismissal for cause.

"If the tenant is dismissed without just cause and he is constrained to work elsewhere, he may choose either to remove his dwelling at the landholder’s cost or demand the value of the same from the landholder at the time of the unjust dismissal.

"(4) The tenant shall have the right to be indemnified for his labor and expenses in the cultivation, planting, or harvesting and other incidental expenses for the improvement of the crop raised in case he is dispossessed of his holdings, whether such dismissal is for a just cause or not provided the crop still exists at the time of the dispossession."cralaw virtua1aw library

How did the appraisal committee carry out the instruction of the court a quo relative to the implementation of the pertinent portion of its decision? It proceeded to determine not only the reasonable value of the dwelling of the tenants and of the value of their labor, expenses in the cultivation, planting, or harvesting and other incidental expenses for the improvement of the crop standing thereon at the time of their dispossession, as prescribed in Section 22, but also the value of the fruit trees existing on the land and their respective produce for the agricultural year 1956-1957, as well as the expenses for clearing the land, whether it is fruit land or talahib land, which are not contemplated in the aforesaid section. Thus, the following is a resumé of the appraisal made by the committee:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) For fruit trees P1,008.15

(2) For expected produce this 1956-1957 522.2

(3) For clearing fruit land 1,200.00

(4) For clearing ‘talahib’ land 540.00

(5) For rice crop 1956-1957 280.00

(6) For the house of Braulio Villegas 280.00

(7) For the house of Manuel Villegas 180.00

(8) For the house of Aniceto Villegas 500.00

(9) For the house of Catalino Villegas 670.00

(10) For the house of Braulio Villegas 180.00

(11) For granary 150.00

————

GRAND TOTAL P5,510.35"

Petitioners contend that this is unfair not only because it is not within the purview of the law but because it is tantamount to giving the tenants an indemnity which is much more than the value of the land. There is merit in this contention. It is obvious that the tenants cannot be given more than what it is awarded to them in the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations and the only thing that was provided for therein is that the ejectment should be subject to the provisions of Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199. These provisions are (a) that the tenant’s dwelling cannot be removed from his landholding without his consent unless there is a severance of the tenancy relationship between them as provided for by law, or unless the tenant is entitled to be indemnified, and (b) that the tenant should be indemnified for his labor and expenses in the cultivation, planting, or harvesting and other incidental expenses for the improvement of the crop raised, provided the crop still exists at the time of his dispossession. Said section does not provide for indemnity for the value of permanent improvements existing on the land, other than the tenant’s dwelling, nor for the expenses in clearing the same upon taking possession thereof originally by the tenant, as was done by the appraisal committee. Such being the case, any award that may be made with regard to the value of said permanent improvements, or the expenses for the clearing of the land, whether fruit land or talahib land, is improper and unauthorized, and so the court a quo erred in including in the award an indemnity for the items abovementioned.

The provision relative to the dwelling of a tenant has also been misconceived by the court a quo. It has apparently the impression that in case of severance of the tenancy relationship, whether for cause or otherwise, the tenant is entitled to indemnity. Such impression is incorrect, for Section 22, paragraph 3, provides that only when the tenant is ejected without cause is he entitled to indemnity for his dwelling, and not otherwise. In the present case, the tenants were ejected for cause, and so they are not entitled to indemnity.

Summarizing, we find that the tenants are only entitled to indemnity for their labor and expenses in the cultivation, planting, or harvesting of the crop raised on the land at the time of their dispossession which, according to the appraisal committee, amounts to P280.00.

WHEREFORE, the resolution appealed from is hereby modified in the sense that respondents-tenants are only entitled to an indemnity of P280.00 being the value of the crop existing at the time of their dispossession. In all other respects, the resolution is reversed. The right of the tenants to sue for indemnity for permanent improvements is reserved. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., took no part.




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-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18462 April 13, 1962 - MENELEO B. BERNARDEZ v. FRANCISCO T. VALERA

  • G.R. No. L-13704 April 18, 1962 - BENJAMIN T. ASUNCION v. LUZ DE ASIS DE AQUINO, ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15162 April 18, 1962 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN DRUG CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16642 April 18, 1962 - ANTONIO RAGUDO, ET AL. v. EMELITA R. PASNO

  • G.R. No. L-16864 April 18, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ CO. INC. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19440 and L-19447 April 18, 1962 - CESAR CLIMACO, ET AL. v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 518 April 23, 1962 - DOMINADOR CARLOS v. BENIGNO PALAGANAS

  • G.R. No. L-11816 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14716 April 23, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. JOSE SISON

  • G.R. No. L-15499 April 23, 1962 - ANGELA M. BUTTE v. MANUEL UY & SONS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15634 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO LLANTO

  • G.R. No. L-15714 April 23, 1962 - LORENZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15778 April 23, 1962 - TAN TIONG BIO, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15892 April 23, 1962 - FERNANDO LACSON, ET AL. v. BACOLOD CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16665 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO SANTELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17344 April 23, 1962 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17349 April 23, 1962 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. MARTIN ARTOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12219 April 25, 1962 - FRANCISCO PASCUAL v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13918 April 25, 1962 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-14530 April 25, 1962 - LEONA AGLIBOT, ET AL. v. ANDREA ACAY MAÑALAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14591 April 25, 1962 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE P. DANS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15080 April 25, 1962 - IN RE: RICARDO R. CARABALLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15404 April 25, 1962 - ILDEFONSO SUZARA v. HERMONES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16066 April 25, 1962 - ENCARNACION BACANI, ET AL. v. FELICISIMA PAZ SAMIA GALAURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16856 April 25, 1962 - OLIVO G. RUIZ v. CEDAR V. PASTOR

  • G.R. No. L-16954 April 25, 1962 - ARMINIO RIVERA v. LITAM & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16997 April 25, 1962 - RAMCAR INCORPORATED v. DOMINGO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-17016 April 25, 1962 - WORLDWIDE PAPER MILLS, INC. v. LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12174 April 26, 1962 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-14455 April 26, 1962 - LINO GUTIERREZ v. LUCIANO L. MEDEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15369 April 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15427 April 26, 1962 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. ELPIDIO FLORESCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15638 April 26, 1962 - HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. v. FRANCISCO F. GONZALES IV

  • G.R. No. L-16384 April 26, 1962 - IN RE: JAYME S. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • Nos. L-17325 and L-16594 April 26, 1962


  • SYLLABUS


    1. TAXATION; PERCENTAGE TAXES; FORFEITURE OF BOND WITHIN TEN YEARS. — Upon the execution of a bond to guarantee the payment of an internal revenue tax, the tax-payer, as principal, and the bondsman, as surety, assumed an obligation entirely distinct from the tax and became subject to an entirely different kind of liability. A bond being a written contract imposing rights and liabilities, the government, pursuant to article 1144 of the new Civil Code, has the right to take court action for its forfeiture within 10 years from the accrual of the right of action.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION 332 (c) OF REVENUE CODE NOT APPLICABLE. — Section 332 (c) of the Revenue Code, is not applicable to actions for forfeiture of bonds. The period of limitation provided in this section is evidently confined to actions for the collection of taxes.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR PAYMENT OF TAX INTERRUPTED BY EXECUTION OF BOND. — Obligations contracted in a bond by a tax-payer constitute written acknowledgments of the debt and interrupt the 5-year period of prescription for the payment of tax.

    G.R. No. L-15265 April 27, 1962 - BAGUIO GOLD MINING COMPANY v. BENJAMIN TABISOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16467 April 27, 1962 - FLORENTINA MATA DE STUART v. NICASIO YATCO

  • G.R. No. L-11964 April 28, 1962 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-12116 April 28, 1962 - MACARIA TINIO DE DOMINGO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12570 April 28, 1962 - VICENTE PAZ, ETC., ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14166 & L-14320 April 28, 1962 - FINLEY J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14231 April 28, 1962 - CATALINO BALBECINO, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14546-47 April 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14833 April 28, 1962 - OROMECA LUMBER CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15089 April 28, 1962 - TEODULO DOMINGUEZ, ET AL. v. ROMAN B. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15338 April 28, 1962 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-PAFLU v. ANTONIO LUCERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16005 April 28, 1962 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-16172 April 28, 1962 - ARSENIO SUMILANG v. GUALBERTO CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16219 April 28, 1962 - NATIVIDAD VERNUS-SANGCIANGCO v. DIOSDADO SANGCIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16716 April 28, 1962 - PEDRO R. JAO, ET AL. v. ROYAL FINANCING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16804 April 28, 1962 - FRANCO J. ALTOMONTE v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN DRUG COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17044 April 28, 1962 - EUSTAQUIO JUAN, ET AL. v. VICENTE ZUÑIGA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17047 April 28, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT TERMINAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17247 April 28, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17481 & L-17537-59 April 28, 1962 - LIBERATA ANTONIO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17887 April 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-18751 April 28, 1962 - A. C. ESGUERRA & SONS v. DOMINADOR R. AYTONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10909 April 30, 1962 - ADELAIDA TABOTABO, ET AL. v. AGUEDO TABOTABO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16843 April 30, 1962 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17082 April 30, 1962 - MERCEDES RAFFIÑAN v. FELIPE L. ABEL

  • G.R. No. L-17378 April 30, 1962 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.