Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25035. February 26, 1968.]

EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS (Fifth Regional District, Branch III, Angeles City), BENIGNO MANABAT, DONATO LACANILAO, BENJAMIN SANGALANG, LUCIANO PELAYO, JULIO TANCUANCO, EMILIO QUILANTANG, RUBEN MANALASTAS, JUAN MANALASTAS, ET AL., Respondents.

Sycip, Salazar, Luna, Manalo & Feliciano for Petitioner.

Alberto A. Reyes for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; SHARE TENANCY, ABOLITION OF; EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER AS JUSTIFICATION. — Section 4 of the Agricultural Reform Code which provides for the abolition of the share tenancy and the compulsion on the landowner and/or tenant to enter into the leasehold system is justified by the right of the state to exercise its police powers. The sponsor of said legislation before the Senate stated in his address similar instances where the state imposed its will in its exercise of police power. Here, individual rights to contract and to property had to give way to police power exercised for public welfare.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; POLICE POWER; PUBLIC WELFARE AS BASIS FOR ITS EXERCISE. — The exercise of police power is alleged to be unreasonable because share tenancy does not involve health, morals and public safety; that the constitutionality of section 14 of Republic Act 1199 was upheld as a valid exercise of police power as against the freedom to contract and not against deprivation of property without due process of law. The argument is unacceptable. Police power is broad enough to be exercised on the basis of the economic need for the public welfare. And, we do not see why property should not be made to prevail through the state’s exercise of its police power.

3. ID.; ID.; JUST COMPENSATION NOT REQUIRED IN EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER. — It is alleged that rentals fixed by the court based on the stipulation of facts yield an unreasonable return of only 3.42% to 4.56% to the estate amounting to a confiscation of property without due process of law. It must be pointed out that just compensation is not required in the exercise of police power. Besides, the constitutionality of a law may not be made to depend on the effects of a conclusion based on a stipulation of facts entered into by the parties. Otherwise, the law could be constitutional in certain cases and unconstitutional in others.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Eduarda S. Vda. de Genuino is the judicial administratrix of the estate of the deceased Jacinto Genuino, Jr., part of which were lands in Mandili and Mapaniqui, Candaba, Pampanga, all devoted to rice production. On May 25, 1964, the share tenants of said lands filed the following complaints against Eduarda S. Vda. de Genuino before the Court of Agrarian Relations of Angeles City, Pampanga:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) CAR Case No. 21-P-64 filed by the following 8 tenants occupying 24 hectares in Mandili, Candaba, Pampanga: Benigno Manabat, Donato Lacanilao, Benjamin Sangalang, Luciano Pelayo, Julio Tancuanco, Emilio Quilantang, Ruben Manalastas and Juan Manalastas.

(2) CAR Case No. 23-P-64 filed by the following 14 tenants occupying 44 hectares in Mapaniqui, Candaba, Pampanga: Leon Campo, Hermogenes Turla, Ricardo de la Vega, Gualberto Puno, Marcelino Reyes, Servillano Punzalan, Jose de la Cruz, Gaudencio Reyes, Homer Lacanilao, Candido Punzalan, Florentino Punzalan, Jose G. de la Cruz, Eleuterio Amurao and Jacinto Pamintuan.

The purpose of the these complaints was the conversion of the tenancy relationship from share tenancy to leasehold tenancy pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act 8844, 1 in relation to Section 14 of Republic Act 1199, 2 as amended. The normal average produce for the past three agricultural years, less expenses, was alleged in the complaints.

Eduarda S. Vda. de Genuino, in separate answers, on September 22, 1964, denied the alleged normal average produce and as an affirmative defense, questioned the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 34 of Republic Act 3844.

After both cases, being on the same point of law, were consolidated, the parties, on November 9, 1964, stipulated for purposes only of the preliminary hearing of the defendant’s special and affirmative defenses, that the gross produce of the lands 3 involved are as alleged in the complaints but from which should be deducted seed, threshing, reaping and hauling expenses for purposes of determining lease rentals.

On January 23, 1965, after the parties had filed their memoranda, the Court of Agrarian Relations denied defendant’s prayer for dismissal on the ground that the issue of constitutionality of Sections 4 and 34 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act 3844) will not directly affect the tenants’ rights in the case because even if said sections were declared unconstitutional, Section 14 of Republic Act 1199, providing also for change from sharehold to leasehold tenancy, which was already held constitutional by the Supreme Court, would still apply. As to the limitation in Section 34 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code of the maximum rental, it ruled that the limitation was not really burdensome, for the decrease of 5% of the owner’s share, 4 is offset by the advantages he gets under the law.

A reconsideration was denied the defendant and the Court of Agrarian Relations subsequently, on August 31, 1965, promulgated its decision granting and authorizing the leasehold system starting from agricultural year 1965-1966 on the ground that the issue had become moot since the Supreme Court had upheld the legality of the change from sharehold to leasehold tenancy at the tenant’s option pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act 1199, as amended. And hence, this petition for review before Us.

Section 4 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code in part provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Agricultural share tenancy, as herein defined, is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy and shall be abolished: Provided, That existing share tenancy contracts may continue in form and effect in any region or locality, to be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, until the end of the agricultural year when the National Land Reform Council proclaims that all the government machineries and agencies in that region or locality relating to leasehold envisioned in this Code are operating, unless such contracts provide for a shorter period or the tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the leasehold system: . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The abolition of the share tenancy and the compulsion on the landowner and/or tenant to enter into the leasehold system is questioned as unconstitutional on the ground that the freedom of contract is violated and that it is a deprivation of property without due process of law. This is not the case. Said legislation is justified by the right of the state to exercise its police powers The sponsor of said legislation before the Senate, on June 14, 1963, aptly stated in his address similar instances where the state imposed its will in its exercise of police power: the enactment of the Social Security System Law, Child Labor Law, Law on Company Unions, Blue Sunday Law, and the law declaring the charge of 15% interest on loans illegal. Here, individual rights to contract and to property, had to give way to police power exercised for public welfare.

In the case at bar, the exercise of such a power was the result of the intention of Congress to do away with the share tenancy completely. However, as this was then considered premature, a compromise was arrived at by giving the tenant the choice between continuing with share tenancy or electing leasehold tenancy. 5 This right was embodied in section 14 of Republic Act 1199, as amended, he constitutionality of which We have already upheld in several decisions, 6 the latest of which is Gamboa v. Pallarca, L-20407, March 31, 1966. Realizing that despite the option, conditions were such that the tenants, completely controlled by landholders, were not in a position to exercise the same, Congress stepped in and exercising the police power of the state, abolished share tenancy.

And, besides, as the Court of Agrarian Relations correctly held then that even if the challenged provisions of the Agricultural Land Reform Code be declared unconstitutional, the effect would be the same for the Code provides that while the National Land Reform Council has not declared the Code operative in the region, the provisions of Republic Act 1199, as amended, would apply. Section 14 of Republic Act 1199, which grants this option to choose the leasehold relationship to the tenant and binding to the landowner, is as earlier pointed out, constitutional. Consequently, regardless of the Land Reform Code, petitioner Eduarda S. Vda. de Genuino must give in to the desired change of system.

The exercise of police power is alleged to be unreasonable because share tenancy does not involve health, morals and public safety; that the constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act 1199 was upheld as a valid exercise of police power as against the freedom to contract and not against deprivation of property without due process of law. The argument is unacceptable. Police power is broad enough to be exercised on the basis of the economic need 7 for the public welfare. And, We do not see why public welfare when clashing with the individual right to property should not be made to prevail through the state’s exercise of its police power.

Finally, it is alleged that rentals fixed by the court based on the stipulation of facts yield an unreasonable return of only 3.42% to 4.56% to the estate, amounting to a confiscation of property without due process of law. It must be pointed out that just compensation is not required in the exercise of police power. And besides, the constitutionality of a law may not be made to depend on the effects of a conclusion based on a stipulation of facts entered into by the parties. Otherwise, the law should be constitutional in certain cases and unconstitutional in others. And when questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of a law, the presumption of constitutionality must prevail unless some factual foundation of record is proved. 8 Undoubtedly, this factual foundation must be shown to exist independently of mere stipulation of facts.

As regards the rentals to be paid, the Court of Agrarian Relations erred in not deducting expenses from the gross harvest, so that the rentals computed are higher. We observe however, that the tenants did not appeal. This point, therefore, cannot now be disturbed.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed and herein petitioner is ordered to abide with the same in all respects. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.

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

Castro, J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. Agricultural Land Reform Code.

2. Agricultural Tenancy Act.

3. First class lands worth P3,000 to P4,000 per hectare.

4. Before it was 70-30%, now it is 75-25% under the Agricultural Land Reform Code.

5. Congressional Record, Senate, 3rd Congress, First Session, Vol. 1, No. 76, May 19, 1954, p. 1348; No. 8, July 24, 1964, p. 104.

6. Ramos v. CAR, L-19555, May 29, 1964; Macasaet v. CAR, L-19750, July 17, 1964; Uychangco v. Gutierrez, L-20275-79, May 31, 1965.

7. Veix v. Sixth Ward Building & Loan Association, 310 US, 32.

8. Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City of Manila, L-24693, July 31, 1967.




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






February-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA