Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > August 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22966 August 10, 1967 - FAUSTO MIPALAR v. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22966. August 10, 1967.]

FAUSTO MIPALAR, Petitioner, v. HON. JOSE M. SANTOS, as Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, EUGENIO SAGUN, SOTERO FERNANDEZ, ET AL., Respondents.

Rafael E. Villarosa for Petitioner.

Santos K . Maranan for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. TENANCY; NOTICE OF DISPOSSESSION. — Section 50(a), of Republic Act No. 1199 plainly requires that within the period therein stated, two notice be made: (1) to the Court of Agrarian Relations; and (2) to the tenant. Accordingly, if notice to the court is within the period but notice to the tenant is outside the same; or if notice to the tenant falls inside the period but notice to the court lies beyond it, the statutory requisite of notices are not complied with, and the petition cannot be entertained.

2. ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the present case, notices to the tenants were made within the abovementioned period, that is, at least one year but not more than two years prior to the filing of the petition. Not so, however, with the notice to the court. It was filed more than two years prior to the filing of the petition for mechanization; to be precise, two years and one month before such filing. It follows that for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 50(a) no notices, requisites that are substantive, not merely procedural (Tolentino v. Alzate, 98 Phil. 781), the petition was rightly dismissed.

3. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; TENANCY LAWS; CASE AT BAR. — In the interpretation of Republic Act No. 1199, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the tenant (Sec. 56, Rep. Act No. 1199). And while it would be favorable to the tenant to count the one-year period before which the petition cannot be filed, from whichever notice comes later, it would be unfavorable to him to count the two-year period, after which the petition cannot be filed, from whichever notice is later. For while in the first case, the tenant would in effect have a longer owner would be given a longer period to ask for his dispossession. To prevent such unfavorable effects on the tenant such time to stay on the land, in the second case, the landholder, as, for instance, the filing of the petition after one year notice to the court but less than one year from notice to the tenant; or, as in this case, more than two years from notice to the court, the rule should be, in accordance with the statute’s obvious import, that both notices should be made within the period laid down — at least one year but not more than two years prior to the filing of the petition to dispossess under Section 50(a) of Republic Act No. 1199.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


A petition for mechanization of a 45-hectare rice-land in Canaan, Rizal, Nueva Ecija, was filed by Fausto Mipalar on January 28, 1963 in the Court of Agrarian Relations against the fourteen tenants thereon.

Said petition stated that: Petitioner-landowner Fausto Mipalar had previously sent notices to said tenants in writing in the dialect known to them of his intention to cultivate the landholdings thru the use of farm machineries. The respondents-tenants received these notices on January 28, 1961 and subsequent dates, the last being February 23, 1961. And earlier, on December 28, 1960, Fausto Mipalar filed notice with the Court of Agrarian Relations, stating his intention to cultivate the same landholdings thru the use of farm machineries.

A motion to dismiss was filed by respondents tenants on the ground that the petition for mechanization was filed beyond the reglementary period of two years as required by law (Sec. 50[a], R.A. 1199 as amended). Acting thereon, the Court of Agrarian Relations, on February 13, 1964, dismissed the case, sustaining the ground aforestated. Petitioner-landowner now appeals from the dismissal order.

Section 50 (a) of Republic Act 1199, as amended, provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 50. Causes for the Dispossession of Tenant. — Any of the following, and no other, shall be sufficient cause for the dispossession of a tenant from his holdings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) The bona fide intention of the landholder-owner or his relative within the first degree by consanguinity to cultivate the land himself personally or through the employment of farm machinery and implements: . . . Provided, further, That the landholder-owner or the afore-said relative shall, at least one year but not more than two years prior to the date of his petition to dispossess the tenant under this subsection, file notice with the court and shall inform the tenant in writing in a language or dialect known to the latter of his intention to cultivate the land himself, either personally or through the employment of mechanical implements: . . .

The statute plainly requires that within the period therein stated, two notices be made: (1) to the Court of Agrarian Relations; and (2) to the tenant. Accordingly, if notice to the court is within the period but notice to the tenant is outside the same; or if notice to the tenant falls inside the period but notice to the court lies beyond it, the statutory requisites of notices are not complied with, and the petition cannot be entertained.

In the present case, notices to the tenants were made within the abovementioned period, that is, at least one year but not more than two years prior to the filing of the petition. Not so, however, with the notice to the court. It was filed more than two years prior to the filing of the petition for mechanization; to be precise, two years and one month non-compliance with the requirements of Section 50(a) before such filing. It follows that for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 50(a) on notices, requisites that are substantive, not merely procedural (Tolentino v. Alzate, 98 Phil. 781), the petition was rightly dismissed.

Appellant would contend that a liberal interpretation should be followed, and the two-year period should be considered in relation to either of the notices, or whichever is later. The statute uses the word "and" not "or." In the interpretation of Republic Act 1199, moreover, all doubts are to be solved in favor of the tenant (Sec. 56, R. A. 1199). And while it would be favorable to the tenant to count the one-year period, before which the petition cannot be filed, from whichever notice comes later, it would be unfavorable to him to count the two-year period, after which the petition cannot be filed, from which ever notice is later. For while in the first case, the tenant would in effect have a longer time to stay on the land, in the second case, the landholder-owner would be given a longer period to ask for his dispossession. To prevent such unfavorable effects on the tenant, such as, for instance, the filing of the petition after one year from notice to the court, but less than one year from notice to the tenant; or, as in this case more than two years from notice to the court, the rule should be, in accordance with the statute’s obvious import, that both notices should be made within the period laid down — at least one year but not more than two years prior to the filing of the petition to dispossess under Sec. 50(a) of R.A. 1199.

Wherefore, the dismissal order is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

Reyes, J .B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., are on official leave.




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





August-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20218 August 8, 1967 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22254 August 8, 1967 - QUIRICO DEL MAR v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22966 August 10, 1967 - FAUSTO MIPALAR v. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21542 August 10, 1967 - IN RE: JOSEPH C. GO YANKO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23558 August 10, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24103 August 10, 1967 - BEATRIZ G. VDA. DE DIOS v. LEANDRO BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23281 August 10, 1967 - BILLY MILLARES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19531 August 10, 1967 - CLOROX COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21311 August 10, 1967 - PELAGIA PUGUID v. CIRILO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-21902 August 10, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24109 August 10, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIA P. DE OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. L-18805 August 14, 1967 - THE BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. MAXIMO M. KALAW, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 407 August 15, 1967 - IN RE:JOSE AVANCEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-22029 August 15, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO JARAVATA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22821 August 15, 1967 - ASUNCION CONUI-OMEGA v. CESAR SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-27017 August 15, 1967 - PACIFICO M. BRAGANZA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22380 August 15, 1967 - FERMIN SARE v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-24114 August 16, 1967 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22042 August 17, 1967 - DIONISIA GUINGON, ET AL. v. ILLUMINADO DEL MONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21013 August 17, 1967 - UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. RICE AND CORN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19707 August 17, 1967 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22516 August 17, 1967 - LITTON & CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21806 August 17, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINGO DY OLIVA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23167 August 17, 1967 - IN RE: GEORGE QUE LIONG SIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24614 August 17, 1967 - JULIA DE LA MERCED, ET AL. v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25171 August 17, 1967 - NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION (PAFLU) v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21128 August 19, 1967 - IN RE: AO SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21835 August 19, 1967 - CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24031 August 19, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22348 August 23, 1967 - GREGORIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23617 August 26, 1967 - ANGELO KING v. PABLO JOE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24383 August 26, 1967 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE & CASUALTY CO., INC. v. SMITH, BELL & CO., (PHIL.) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-27206 August 26, 1967 - IN RE: ANDRES M. CULANAG v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-23561 August 28, 1967 - ALFONSO DARAN v. DOMINADOR ANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-20991 August 30, 1967 - RUFINO CIELOS, ET AL. v. BACOLOD MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21011 August 30, 1967 - ISABEL OCAMPO v. IGNACIO DOMALANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21448 August 30, 1967 - POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO. v. JUDITH ASIAIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22072 August 30, 1967 - ALFONSO BUN RAMOS, ET AL. v. EMILIANO CONDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22260 August 30, 1967 - TEODORICO C. QUIOCHO v. BERNARDO P. ABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26532 August 30, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 516 August 30, 1967 - TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR. v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. L-22301 August 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO M. MAPA

  • G.R. No. L-21501 August 30, 1967 - MANILA CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION v. MANILA CLUB, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21963 August 30, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ROBERTA RONGAVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22108 August 30, 1967 - GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. MARCELINO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24066 August 30, 1967 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-21467 August 30, 1967 - RIO Y COMPANIA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18877 August 31, 1967 - JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22047 August 31, 1967 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22618 August 31, 1967 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23406 August 31, 1967 - IN RE: O KU PHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18778 & L-18779 August 31, 1967 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHIL. v. DAVAO SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 August 31, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22536 August 31, 1967 - DOMINGO V. AUSTRIA v. ANTONIO C. MASAQUEL

  • G.R. No. L-20708 August 31, 1967 - IN RE: FELIMON TSE, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20527 August 31, 1967 - VICENTE Y. REALIZA v. GASPAR DUARTE

  • G.R. No. L-22684 August 31, 1967 - PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY & INSURANCE, INC. v. WOODWORKS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22810 August 31, 1967 - FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.