February 1967 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > February 1967 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-21012 February 25, 1967 - GLICERIO TINIO, ET AL. v. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL, ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-21012. February 25, 1967.]
GLICERIO TINIO and TEODORA LIMBAN, Petitioners-Appellants, v. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL, LUIS MARIN, ERNESTO PUNO, PABLO PUNO, TOMAS SAGUN, CIRILO MARIANO, VICTORIANO TUMIBAY, BUENAVENTURA TALAO, VICTOR PUYAT, PEDRO MANA, and THE HONORABLE JOSE M. SANTOS, Presiding Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Second Regional District, Cabanatuan City, Respondents-Appellees.
Florencio F. Talens for petitioners and appellants.
Teodoro P. Santiago for respondents and appellees.
N. G. Nostratis and R. S. Fajardo for respondent Court of Agrarian Relations.
SYLLABUS
1. TENANCY; PROVISION OF REP. ACT NO. 1199 ALLOWING CHANGE FROM SHARE TO LEASEHOLD SYSTEM CONSTITUTIONAL. — The provision of Section 14, of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, granting the tenant the unilateral right to make such change from share to leasehold system is not unconstitutional, because it is a reasonable and valid exercise of the police power of the State to afford relief to a socio-economic problem existing in the Philippines (Ilusorio v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-20344, May 16, 1966; Cuizon v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L- 20905; April 30, 1966; Gamboa v. Pallarca, L-20407, March 31, 1966; Uichangco v. Gutierrez, Et Al., L-20275, May 31, 1965; Macasaet v. Court of Industrial Relations, Et Al., L-19750, July 17, 1964; and Ramas v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-19555, May 29, 1964).
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations granting the petition of herein respondents, Rodrigo Macapagal and ten (10) other persons, 1 for a change of their tenancy contract with petitioners herein, Glicerio Tinio and Teodora Limban, from share to leasehold system, as provided in Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, granting the tenant the unilateral right to make such change. 2
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the grant of said option as a denial of both due process and equal protection. These objections have, however, been repeatedly rejected by this Court, 3 upon the ground that the contested legal precept is a reasonable and valid exercise of the police power of the State, to afford a relief to a socio-economic problem existing in the Philippines, and we find no justification to revise or otherwise alter our view thereon.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners-appellants. It is so ordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the grant of said option as a denial of both due process and equal protection. These objections have, however, been repeatedly rejected by this Court, 3 upon the ground that the contested legal precept is a reasonable and valid exercise of the police power of the State, to afford a relief to a socio-economic problem existing in the Philippines, and we find no justification to revise or otherwise alter our view thereon.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners-appellants. It is so ordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Luis Marin, Ernesto Puno, Pablo Puno, Tomas Sagun, Cirilo Mariano, Victoriano Tumibay, Lorenzo Macapagal, Buenaventura Talao, Victor Puyat and Pedro Mana.
2. Sec. 14. Change of System — The Tenant shall have the right to change the tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to leasehold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop sharing arrangement to another of the share tenancy. If the share tenancy contract is in writing and duly registered, the right to change from one crop sharing arrangement to another may be exercised at least one month before the beginning of the next agricultural year after the expiration of the period of the contract. In the absence of any registered written contract, the right may be exercised at least one month before the agricultural year when the change shall be effected.
3. Ilusorio v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-20344 (May 16, 1966), Cuizon v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-20905 (April 30, 1966), Gamboa v. Pallarca, L-20407 (March 31, 1966), Uichangco v. Gutierrez, Et Al., G.R. No. L-20275 (May 31, 1965), Macasaet v. Court of Industrial Relations, Et Al., No. L-19750 (July 17, 1964) and Ramas v. Court of Agrarian Relations, No. L-19555 (May 29, 1964).
