Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > April 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16391 April 30, 1964 - HECTOR MORENO v. MACARIO TANGONAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16391. April 30, 1964.]

HECTOR MORENO, Petitioner, v. MACARIO TANGONAN, ET AL., Respondents.

Pedro T. Davila, Jr. and Job E. Rubio for Petitioner.

Nostratis & Allado for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.

Nicanor Serrano for other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. AGRICULTURE TENANCY; EJECTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF CONTRACT FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY CHANGE OF CONTRACT; CASE AT BAR. — Facts: In the case at bar, the respondent tenants had the right to change the crop-sharing ratio in their favor at the expiration of their tenancy contracts a right which they attempted to exercise too late in the agricultural year. Nevertheless, they are deemed to have acted in good faith because right from the start of that agricultural year, respondents had refused to renew their contracts and proceeded, instead, with the final harrowing and transplanting operations on their respective landholdings without asking for the landholder’s share in the expenses. Held: This was sufficient notice to the landholder of their desire to have the original contracts modified, particularly with respect to the sharing ration agreed upon. Although the late request to have such change effected was a mistake sufficient to deprive them of the right to change the sharing ratio for that agricultural year, yet it was not sufficient to constitute a violation of their contracts of tenancy as would justify their ejectment as tenants under Section 50, paragraph (b), of Republic Act 1199.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Petition filed by Hector Moreno for a review of the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations in CAR Case No. 119-Gba.-59 entitled Hector Moreno v. Macario Tangonan and Eugenio Tagatac, of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, this case is hereby dismissed, and the petitioner is hereby ordered to maintain the respondents herein in the peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective landholdings, as share tenants, with all the rights and obligations prescribed by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondents Macario Tangonan and Eugenio Tagatac are tenants of petitioner in his hacienda at Barrio Recuerdo, Nampicuan, Nueva Ecija, under written contracts of tenancy executed on February 1, 1956, and duly registered with the office of the municipal treasurer of Nampicuan on June 26 of the same year. The period stipulated was from June 1, 1956, to May 31, 1957, and from year to year thereafter, unless notice was given by either party to the other before the expiration of the initial period agreed upon, or any year subsequent thereto. The sharing ratio stipulated was 55-45, in favor of respondents, with both parties equally bearing the expenses for final harrowing and transplanting. The net harvest for the agricultural year 1956-1957 were divided accordingly.

At the start of the following agricultural year 1957-1958, however, respondents refused to renew their contracts aforementioned and proceeded, instead, with the final harrowing and the transplanting on their respective landholdings without asking for petitioner’s share of said expenses in spite of the virtual offer thereof to them by the latter’s overseer. In September, 1957, after said phases of cultivation had been completed, respondents manifested their desire to change the sharing ratio for that year (1957-1958) to 70-30 in their favor, as they had shouldered all the expenses of cultivation. As petitioner did not accede to their demand, respondents filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations (Case No. 870-NE-58) for the determination of the proper sharing ratio for the year aforesaid. After proper proceedings therein, said Court rendered judgment to the effect that the harvest for the agricultural year 1957-1958 should be divided on the same sharing ratio of 55-45 in favor of respondents, as in 1956-1957.

Subsequently, petitioner filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations seeking respondents’ ejectment from their respective landholdings on the ground that they had violated and failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of their tenancy contracts by refusing to receive petitioner’s share of the expenses for final harrowing and transplanting in the agricultural year 1957-1958 — allegedly a sufficient legal ground for their ejectment under Section 50, paragraph (b), of Republic Act No. 1199. After trial, the Court rendered the decision appealed from.

It cannot be denied that respondents had the right to change the crop-sharing ratio agreed upon (45-55) to 70-30, in their favor, at the expiration of their contracts of tenancy on May 31, 1957. As the Court of Agrarian Relations held, however, they attempted to exercise this right too late — in September, 1957. It is to be noted, nevertheless, that the same Court held that they acted in good faith. We agree entirely with this conclusion, supported as it is by the circumstance — fully established by the evidence — that, right from the start of the agricultural year 1957-1958, respondents had refused to renew their contracts and proceeded, instead, with the final harrowing and the transplanting operations on their respective landholdings without asking for petitioner’s share in the expenses. This, in Our opinion, was sufficient notice to the latter of their desire to have the original contracts modified, particularly with respect to the sharing ratio agreed upon. That it was only in September 1957, that they actually asked petitioner to have such change effected was, perhaps, a mistake which, while sufficient in the opinion of the Court of Agrarian Relations to deprive them of the right to change the sharing ratio for the agricultural year 1957-1958 (Annex C attached to the petition for certiorari), was not, however, sufficient to constitute such violation of their contracts of tenancy as would justify their ejectment as tenants pursuant to the provision of Section 50, paragraph (b), of Republic Act 1199.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision under review is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




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-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16037 April 29, 1964 - MONCADA BIJON FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18120 April 29, 1964 - DALMACIO DADURAL, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19063 April 29, 1964 - JULIANA CALADIAO, ET AL v. MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS

  • G.R. No. L-19863 April 29, 1964 - NAT’L., DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19866 April 29, 1964 - DAVAO STEEL CORP. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14336 April 30, 1964 - LA TONDEÑA, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15975 April 30, 1964 - HEIRS of the DECEASED JUAN SINDIONG, ET AL v. COMMITTEE ON BURNT AREAS & IMPROVEMENTS OF CEBU,

    ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16147 April 30, 1964 - LUZON COMMODITIES CORP. v. AMOR and SAYO, , ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16391 April 30, 1964 - HECTOR MORENO v. MACARIO TANGONAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16483 April 30, 1964 - MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL v. PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-16520 April 30, 1964 - JUAN CABUNGCAL, ET AL. v. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-16986 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS SAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17438 April 30, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RITA LIM DE YU

  • G.R. No. L-17776 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. RAFAEL HUGANAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17917 April 30, 1964 - VICTORIO GUY CO CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17954 April 30, 1964 - TAN CHING v. HON. A. GERALDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18202 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERCIVAL GILO

  • G.R. No. L-18271 April 30, 1964 - FELIX V. ESPINO v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18784 April 30, 1964 - CITY OF MANILA, ET AL v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-18889-90 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. ANTONIO HERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18993 April 30, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19001 April 30, 1964 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19007 April 30, 1964 - PHIL. COAL MINER’S UNION v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. -19020 April 30, 1964 - ANTONIO M. SAMIA v. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19298 April 30, 1964 - EUGENIO S. DE GRACIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-19317 April 30, 1964 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MAXIMO S. SAVELLANO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19370 April 30, 1964 - GENARO PRADO v. APOLINARIO CALPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19383 April 30, 1964 - UNITED STATES LINES CO. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19589 April 30, 1964 - RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19624 April 30, 1964 - BARTOLOME PUZON v. HON. MANUEL P. BARCELONA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19628 April 30, 1964 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19759 April 30, 1964 - CONCEPCION MONTELIBANO, ET AL v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19760 April 30, 1964 - MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL. v. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19761 April 30, 1964 - QUINTINA S. VDA. DE AMPIL, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19767 April 30, 1964 - RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW), ET AL v. MADRlGAL & CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19896 April 30, 1964 - REMEDIOS LAYAG, ET AL. v. JUAN GERARDO

  • G.R. No. L-20044 April 30, 1964 - NATIONAL UNION OF RESTAURANT WORKERS (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.