Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > March 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-44587 March 25, 1988 - AMADO BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-44587. March 25, 1988.]

SPOUSES AMADO BUENAVENTURA and IRENE BUENAVENTURA, QUINTIN HERNANDEZ and CLARO FRANCO, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and RAFAEL ESPIRITU, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. ID.; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT GENERALLY UPHELD ON APPEAL. — Concerning the nature of the lease, we uphold the factual conclusions of the trial court, it appearing that they are based on substantial evidence and are not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. As found by the agrarian court and affirmed by the respondent court, the private respondent was actually an agricultural lessee of the petitioners’ fishpond and their share tenant of the saltbeds the produce of which they divided equally.

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; AGRARIAN REFORM; AGRICULTURAL TENDENCY; MODE OF PAYMENT OF RENTALS, MAY BE SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT OF PARTIES. — The only argument invoked by the petitioners in claiming that Espiritu was a civil law lessee is that the rentals were stipulated to be paid in advance, but that is not decisive of the nature of this transaction. In fact, such kind of consideration and the manner of its payment may be agreed upon by the agricultural lessor and lessee in accordance with Republic Act No. 1199. In our view, the mere fact that the rentals were supposed to be paid in advance did not necessarily mean that they were not to be taken from the produce of the land after, and even before, the lessee’s share was collected.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FISHPONDS AND SALTBEDS, COVERED THEREBY. — The contention that fishponds and saltbeds are not covered by the share tenancy system under Section 35 of Rep. Act No. 3844 is incorrect. That provision merely says that the consideration, as well as the tenancy system prevailing, shall be governed not by that law but by Rep. Act No. 1199, as amended. Section 46 of the said law simply provides that "the consideration for the use of sugarlands, fishponds, saltbeds and of lands devoted to the raising of livestock shall by governed by the stipulation between the parties." There is nothing in this section even remotely suggesting that the transaction in dispute does not come under the general provisions of the first-mentioned law.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; USE OF LAND BY TENANT FOR FIXED AMOUNT, ELEMENT OF TENANCY. — On the fixed yearly rentals of P1,000.00 from the fishpond, we have held that the use of the land by the tenant for a fixed amount in money or in produce or in both as consideration is an element of tenancy under the Agricultural Tenancy Act. In the present case, the consideration was stipulated between the parties pursuant to the aforementioned Section 46 of Rep. Act No. 1199, as amended.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; SHARE TENANT ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF TENURE. — As share tenant of the saltbeds and agricultural lessee of the fishpond, the private respondent was entitled to security of tenure and so could not be dispossessed of the subject properties by a mere notice to vacate from the petitioners. It is not true that he abandoned the said properties for the fact is that he had to leave because he was being pressured to do so by the petitioners. While there was no physical coercion imposed upon him, the moral ascendancy of the petitioners over the private respondent, who was merely their tenant, must have become unbearable to such an extent that he had to seek the counsel and assistance of the Department of Agrarian Reform.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; HAVING SEVERAL PROFESSIONAL CHILDREN, NOT A DISQUALIFICATION. — We are not impressed with the argument that the private respondent could not have been a mere share tenant and agricultural lessee because he has several children who are professionals. That will not necessarily make him prosperous himself nor does it mean he can stop making his own living. A man does not have to depend upon his children for his livelihood even if they are well off as long as he retains his strength and his pride to continue charting his own life and earning his own keep. There are thousands of such proud parents who are able to provide their children with a good education and a brighter future while themselves remaining as humble tillers of the soil and beholden to no man for their sustenance.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


This is a petition for review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of a decision of the respondent court * sustaining the Court of Agrarian Relations in holding that the private respondent was an agricultural lessee and share tenant and so protected under the Agricultural Tenancy Act. 1

In 1950, private respondent Rafael Espiritu leased from the petitioner spouses a fishpond belonging to them for the yearly rental of P1,000.00, payable in advance, under the additional condition that he would maintain the property in good condition and provide water for the latter’s salted. 2 In 1955, Espiritu leased from the petitioners 18 of the 200 saltbeds which he also worked together with the fishpond. 3 In November 1972, the petitioners demanded that the private respondent leave the leased premises on the ground of alleged violation of the conditions of their lease contract. 4 The private respondent eventually did so but later complained to the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance Office, which helped him file a complaint against the herein petitioners with the Court of Agrarian Relations. 5 After trial, the court decided in favor of the private respondent and, on appeal, was sustained by the respondent court. 6 The basic finding was that the contract of lease between the parties was not governed by the Civil Code, as asserted by the herein petitioners, but under the tenancy laws. 7

We dismiss outright the petitioner’s claim that the Court of Agrarian Relations lost jurisdiction to render its decision after the lapse of the reglementary period prescribed by Section 11(1), Article X, of the 1973 Constitution. This matter was categorically resolved in Marcelino v. Cruz, 8 later affirmed in New Frontier Mines v. NLRC 9 and Federation of Free Farmers v. Court of Appeals, 10 and in any event has become academic under the new Constitution. 11

Concerning the nature of the lease, we uphold the factual conclusions of the trial court, it appearing that they are based on substantial evidence and are not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. As found by the agrarian court and affirmed by the respondent court, the private respondent was actually an agricultural lessee of the petitioners’ fishpond and their share tenant of the saltbeds the produce of which they divided equally. 12 The only argument invoked by the petitioners in claiming that Espiritu was a civil law lessee is that the rentals were stipulated to be paid in advance, 13 but that is not decisive of the nature of this transaction. In fact, such kind of consideration and the manner of its payment may be agreed upon by the agricultural lessor and lessee in accordance with Republic Act No. 1199. In our view, the mere fact that the rentals were supposed to be paid in advance did not necessarily mean that they were not to be taken from the produce of the land after, and even before, the lessee’s share was collected.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The contention that fishponds and saltbeds are not covered by the share tenancy system under Section 35 of Rep. Act No. 3844 is incorrect. That provision merely says that the consideration, as well as the tenancy system prevailing, shall be governed not by that law but by Rep. Act No. 1199, as amended. Section 46 of the said law simply provides that "the consideration for the use of sugarlands, fishponds, saltbeds and of lands devoted to the raising of livestock shall by governed by the stipulation between the parties." There is nothing in this section even remotely suggesting that the transaction in dispute does not come under the general provisions of the first-mentioned law.

On the fixed yearly rentals of P1,000.00 from the fishpond, we have held that the use of the land by the tenant for a fixed amount in money or in produce or in both as consideration is an element of tenancy under the Agricultural Tenancy Act. 14 In the present case, the consideration was stipulated between the parties pursuant to the aforementioned Section 46 of Rep. Act No. 1199, as amended.

As share tenant of the saltbeds and agricultural lessee of the fishpond, the private respondent was entitled to security of tenure and so could not be dispossessed of the subject properties by a mere notice to vacate from the petitioners. It is not true that he abandoned the said properties for the fact is that he had to leave because he was being pressured to do so by the petitioners. 15 While there was no physical coercion imposed upon him, the moral ascendancy of the petitioners over the private respondent, who was merely their tenant, must have become unbearable to such an extent that he had to seek the counsel and assistance of the Department of Agrarian Reform. 16

We are not impressed with the argument that the private respondent could not have been a mere share tenant and agricultural lessee because he has several children who are professionals. That will not necessarily make him prosperous himself nor does it mean he can stop making his own living. A man does not have to depend upon his children for his livelihood even if they are well off as long as he retains his strength and his pride to continue charting his own life and earning his own keep. There are thousands of such proud parents who are able to provide their children with a good education and a brighter future while themselves remaining as humble tillers of the soil and beholden to no man for their sustenance.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto. The petition is DENIED, with costs against the petitioners. It is so ordered.

Teehankee (C.J.), Narvasa, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Delfin FL. Batacan, J., ponente, and Ramon C. Fernandez and Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, JJ.,

1. Rollo, pp. 15-25.

2. Rollo, p. 3.

3. Ibid.

4. Id., p. 20.

5. Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, p. 10.

6. Rollo, p. 25.

7. Ibid., pp. 22-24.

8. 121 SCRA 51.

9. 129 SCRA 502.

10. G.R. No. L-41222, November 13, 1985.

11. Article VIII, Sec. 15(4).

12. Rollo, pp. 19-20.

13. bid., p. 20.

14. Gabriel v. Pangilinan, 58 SCRA 590.

15. Rollo, p. 20.

16. Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, p. 10.




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





March-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-59118 March 3, 1988 - JUAN DIZON, ET AL. v. VICENTE EDUARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24054 March 7, 1988 - IN RE: MARTIN NG

  • A.C. No. 140-J March 8, 1988 - AMBROSIO SABAYLE v. TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62089 March 9, 1988 - PASCUAL MENDOZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38999 March 9, 1988 - OSCAR HONORIO v. GABRIEL DUNUAN

  • G.R. No. L-37707 March 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIQUITA J. CAPARAS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-612-MTJ March 10, 1988 - ARNULFO F. LIM, ET AL. v. SIXTO S. SEGUIBAN

  • G.R. No. 78470 March 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 34313 March 11, 1988 - SALVADOR ASCALON, ET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77188 March 14, 1988 - CELSO BONGAY, ET AL. v. CONCHITA J. MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-57204 March 14, 1988 - FORTUNATO BORRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56613 March 14, 1988 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55222 March 14, 1988 - LILIA CAÑETE, ET AL. v. GABRIEL BENEDICTO

  • G.R. No. L-53194 March 14, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ROMULO S. QUIMPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47398 March 14, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN CAYAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42964 March 14, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ESCABARTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39383 March 14, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO B. GUTIERREZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 77194 March 15, 1988 - VIRGILIO GASTON, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74122 March 15, 1988 - GUILLERMO NACTOR, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2756 March 15, 1988 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77869 March 16, 1988 - EMILIO ENRIQUEZ v. FORTUNA MARICULTURE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-61553 March 16, 1988 - PONCIANO ESMERIS v. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-52824 March 16, 1988 - REYNALDO BAUTISTA v. AMADO C. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48594 March 16, 1988 - GENEROSO ALANO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-48157 March 16, 1988 - RICARDO QUIAMBAO v. ADRIANO OSORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47148 March 16, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FABIAN QUILO

  • G.R. No. L-41358 March 16, 1988 - ABELARDO APORTADERA, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39083 March 16, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ANIÑON

  • G.R. No. L-36388 March 16, 1988 - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-36220 March 16, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO

  • G.R. No. L-36136 March 16, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO B. ISAAC

  • G.R. No. L-28141 March 16, 1988 - HONORATA B. MANGUBAT v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-75160 March 18, 1988 - LEONOR FORMILLEZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-54159 March 18, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GLICERIO V. CARRIAGA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-53776 March 18, 1988 - SILVESTRE CAÑIZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-34959 March 18, 1988 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34500 March 18, 1988 - MOISES OLIVARES v. CARLOS V. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-33924 March 18, 1988 - MARIA BALAIS v. BUENAVENTURA BALAIS

  • A.M. No. R-66-RTJ March 18, 1988 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. DIONISIO M. CAPISTRANO

  • G.R. No. L-80879 March 21, 1988 - HONORIO SAAVEDRA, JR. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-73380 March 21, 1988 - MARTE SACLOLO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. L-72335-39 March 21, 1988 - FRANCISCO S. TATAD v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-63155 March 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASTULO CORECOR

  • G.R. No. L-45785 March 21, 1988 - EDUARDO LAGINLIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-35506 March 21, 1988 - CHRISTOFER TEJONES v. LEOPOLDO B. GIRONELLA

  • G.R. No. L-71413 March 21, 1988 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. v. SEVERO M. PUCAN

  • G.R. No. L-82082 March 25, 1988 - INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA v. EPIFANIA SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-78671 March 25, 1988 - TIRZO VINTOLA v. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA

  • G.R. Nos. L-77850-51 March 25, 1988 - JUAN L. DUNGOG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-75390 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-74331 March 25, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74211 March 25, 1988 - P.E. DOMINGO & CO., INC. v. REMIGIO E. ZARI

  • G.R. No. L-73564 March 25, 1988 - CORNELIA CLANOR VDA. DE PORTUGAL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-73534 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-71122 March 25, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ARNOLDUS CARPENTRY SHOP, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-57268 March 25, 1988 - MANILA MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORP. v. NUWHRAIN (Ramada Chapter)

  • G.R. No. L-52008 March 25, 1988 - LEONOR G. CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-51777 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO B. MUSTACISA

  • G.R. No. L-45772 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

  • G.R. No. L-44587 March 25, 1988 - AMADO BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-41970 March 25, 1988 - CENON MEDELO v. NATHANAEL M. GOROSPE

  • G.R. No. L-31245 March 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO LAURETA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-30240 March 25, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME DE LOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-77049 March 28, 1988 - MANUEL B. OSIAS v. JAIME N. FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-74992 March 28, 1988 - HEIRS OF LUISA VALDEZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74799 March 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO D. TUAZON

  • G.R. No. L-73451 March 28, 1988 - JUANITA YAP SAY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-47203 March 28, 1988 - LUCIO MUTIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-39810 March 28, 1988 - CARLOS LLORAÑA v. TOMAS LEONIDAS

  • G.R. No. L-38569 March 28, 1988 - B.F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-35696 March 28, 1988 - ARSENIO OFRECIO v. TOMAS LISING

  • G.R. No. L-34568 March 28, 1988 - RODERICK DAOANG v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE, SAN NICOLAS, ILOCOS NORTE

  • G.R. No. L-34492 March 28, 1988 - MIGUEL GUERRERO v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES

  • G.R. No. L-32339 March 29, 1988 - PHOENIX PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC. v. JOSE T. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-76185 March 30, 1988 - WARREN MANUFACTURING WORKERS UNION v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-59913 March 30, 1988 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-50884 March 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO SALUFRANIA

  • G.R. No. L-50320 March 30, 1988 - PHILIPPINE APPAREL WORKERS UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-49536 March 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RESAYAGA

  • G.R. No. L-45770 March 30, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34672 March 30, 1988 - UNITED CHURCH BOARD FOR WORLD MINISTRIES v. ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. L-33492 March 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-26348 March 30, 1988 - TRINIDAD GABRIEL v. COURT OF APPEALS