Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > January 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 55457 January 20, 1989 - FILOMENO QUILLIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 55457. January 20, 1989.]

FILOMENO QUILLIAN, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SILVERIO ALITPRIMO ASLEYER and CONSTANCIO GEOLINGO, Respondents.

Panfilo O. Castro for Petitioner.

Enrique V. Olmedo for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRARIAN LAW; REFERRAL TO THE MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN REFORM; COMPLIANCE THERETO MANDATED ONLY WHERE A CASE WAS INSTITUTED AGAINST A TENANT AND NOT ONE FILED BY THE TENANT. — The case at bar does not fall within the purview of Sec. 2, P.D. 316 in the category of "any ejectment case or any other case designed to harass or remove a tenant." It is noted that petitioner as the one who instituted the case in the lower-court to reinstate him as tenant. Necessarily the law would apply if indeed petitioner was a tenant and was being ejected or harassed. In effect therefore the validity of the document (Exh. "1") executed in the local Ilongo dialect and signed by the petitioner together with one Bienvenido Clapis declaring that they would work as paid laborers and not as tenants of Constancio Geolingo in the landholding in question for the period covering the duration of the lease of Constancio Geolingo, is the real issue. The action therefore, filed by the petitioner before the trial court was neither an action for ejectment nor harassment of tenants. It being the case, it was not one where referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement as provided for under Sec. 2, of P.D. 316.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE. — The purpose for referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) under the aforesaid decree is to enable said Ministry to determine if the case is intended to harass tenant and farmers. Oddly enough, the case in the lower court was initiated by petitioner himself and hence, there is no case of harassment or ejectment involved (Castro v. Court of Appeals, 99 SCRA 722).

3. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; PARTIES BOUND BY THE STIPULATION THEREIN. — Parties to a contract are bound to abide in good faith by their contractual commitments which do not militate against the law, good customs, good morals, public order, and public policy.

4. ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — It is clear from the contract entered into between the petitioner and the lessee Geolingo that the former would work on the land as a mere hired laborer and not as a tenant. This stipulation was in turn the result of a previous agreement between Geolingo and Alit (the owner of the land) that Geolingo would not place any tenant on the land. The stipulation adverted to in the contract is completely valid, and as such, binds petitioner herein.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Before Us is a petition to review by certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 10748-CAR, * which set aside the decision of the trial court in CAR Case No. 5561 and ordered the remanding of the records of the case to the court a quo for referral to the Minister of Agrarian Reform or his duly authorized representative pursuant to Sec. 2 of Pres. Decree No. 316 and thereafter for the lower court to decide the case accordingly.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Respondent herein, Silverio Alit, is the owner of Lot No. 888-A, Bago Cadastre, with an area of 15.1480 hectares and leased to respondent Constancio Geolingo under a contract (Exh. "5") for a period of six (6) agricultural crop years, commencing from agricultural crop year 1972-1973 and terminating in crop year 1977-78, stipulating therein that the lessee Constancio Geolingo "should not hire or place tenants in the leased premises during the duration of the contract, and upon the termination of the Contract of Lease, the Lessee binds himself to return or deliver back the premises free from any tenant." (p. 58, Rollo)

On May 3, 1974, petitioner Quillian together with one Bienvenido Clapis signed a document (Exh. "1") executed in the local Ilongo dialect declaring that they would work as paid laborers and not as tenants of Constancio in the landholding in question for the period covering the duration of the lease of Constancio Geolingo.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

After the expiration of the lease to Constancio Geolingo. Silverio Alit, the owner of the land, leased the property to private respondent Primo Esleyer under a Contract of Sale on Installments with Lease (Exh. "6") wherein it was expressly stated that the land was free from any tenant and that during the term of the lease, the lessee shall not introduce or allow tenants on the property otherwise the lessee would be liable for the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) per hectare for each hectare of land occupied by a tenant introduced or allowed by the lessee upon the expiration of the lease (Exh. "6-D").

Petitioner Quillian filed his complaint against the three respondents, particularly respondent Constancio Geolingo for reinstatement as tenant of about 1/3 of a hectare of the landholding in question alleging that on July 10, 1978 he was forcibly ejected therefrom.

In their answer, defendants (respondents) denied the claim of plaintiff (petitioner) alleging that petitioner was not a tenant but merely a laborer. Documentary and oral evidence were presented in Court by both parties to substantiate their averments. Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision ordering defendants Silverio Alit and Primo Esleyer to reinstate plaintiff (petitioner) Filomeno Quillian to the landholding involved.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals by defendants, the decision of the trial court was reversed. Hence, the instant petition by certiorari, petitioner assigning three errors, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES IN CAR CASE NO. 5561, ENTITLED "FILOMENO QUILLIAN VS. SILVERIO ALIT, ET AL." FALL UNDER SECTION 2 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 316.

2. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY A MERE DISTRICT OFFICER OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, BACOLOD CITY, IS THE CERTIFICATION REQUIRED AND CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 316.

3. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN DISTURBING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT (CAR, BRANCH I, BACOLOD CITY) INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT ARE SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. (Rollo, p. 5)

It is the position of petitioner as reflected in his assignments of error that referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reforms (MAR) under Sec. 2 of P.D. 316 is in order only when the case is one that is filed by the landowner for the purpose of ejecting, ousting, removing or harassing the tenant from his landholding. Corollarily, this case is not within the scope of the law since this is one filed by a tenant-farmer for reinstatement to his farmholding. On this point, We agree with the petitioner.

Sec. 2, P.D. 316 reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 2 — Unless certified by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform as a proper case for trial or hearing by a court judge or other officer of competent jurisdiction, no judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Court of First Instance, municipality or city court, or any other tribunal or fiscal shall take cognizance of any ejectment case or any other case designed to harass or remove a tenant of an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn, and if any such cases are filed, these cases shall first be referred to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative in the locality for a preliminary determination of the relationship between the contending parties. If the Secretary of Agrarian Reform finds that the case is a proper case for the court or judge or other hearing officer to hear, he shall so certify and such court, judge or other hearing officers may assume jurisdiction over the dispute or controversy." (Emphasis ours)

The case at bar does not fall within the purview of Sec. 2, P.D. 316 in the category of "any ejectment case or any other case designed to harass or remove a tenant." It is noted that petitioner as the one who instituted the case in the lower-court to reinstate him as tenant. Necessarily the law would apply if indeed petitioner was a tenant and was being ejected or harassed. In effect therefore the validity of the document (Exh. "1") executed in the local Ilongo dialect and signed by the petitioner together with one Bienvenido Clapis declaring that they would work as paid laborers and not as tenants of Constancio Geolingo in the landholding in question for the period covering the duration of the lease of Constancio Geolingo, is the real issue. The action therefore, filed by the petitioner before the trial court was neither an action for ejectment nor harassment of tenants. It being the case, it was not one where referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement as provided for under Sec. 2, of P.D. 316. The purpose for referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) under the aforesaid decree is to enable said Ministry to determine if the case is intended to harass tenant and farmers. Oddly enough, the case in the lower court was initiated by petitioner himself and hence, there is no case of harassment or ejectment involved (Castro v. Court of Appeals, 99 SCRA 722).chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Parenthetically, even if a referral was indeed required, still in the instant case there was a referral to the district officer of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) a person duly authorized to represent the Minister.

Ordinarily, We would have remanded this case to the trial court for further proceedings, but inasmuch as on the basis of the facts before Us, We can already decide the case on the merits, We hereby proceed to do so. It is clear from the contract entered into between the petitioner and the lessee Geolingo that the former would work on the land as a mere hired laborer and not as a tenant. This stipulation was in turn the result of a previous agreement between Geolingo and Alit (the owner of the land) that Geolingo would not place any tenant on the land. Parties to a contract are bound to abide in good faith by their contractual commitments which do not militate against the law, good customs, good morals, public order, and public policy. The stipulation adverted to in the contract is completely valid, and as such, binds petitioner herein.

WHEREFORE, The appealed decision is SET ASIDE and a new one is RENDERED dismissing the complaint filed in the trial court by Quillian. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Penned by Justice Guillermo P. Villasor and concurred in by Justice Venicio Escolin and Onofre A. Villaluz.




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






January-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78315 January 2, 1989 - COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 72806 January 9, 1989 - EPIFANIO CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLANT COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74806 January 9, 1989 - SM AGRI AND GENERAL MACHINERIES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76761 January 9, 1989 - ASST. EXECUTIVE SEC. FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77959 January 9, 1989 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS. v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 79123-25 January 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELIANO TRINIDAD

  • G.R. No. 78169 January 12, 1989 - BIBIANO REYNOSO IV v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 43862 January 13, 1989 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO.

  • G.R. No. 47425 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. METODIO S. BASIGA

  • G.R. No. 51554 January 13, 1989 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. 53955 January 13, 1989 - MANILA BANKING CORP. v. ANASTACIO TEODORO JR.

  • G.R. No. 54330 January 13, 1989 - JULIO E. T. SALES v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 66712 January 13, 1989 - CALIXTO ANGEL v. PONCIANO C. INOPIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 66865 January 13, 1989 - MAGTANGGOL QUE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74047 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GRACIANO E. GENEVEZA

  • G.R. No. 75016 January 13, 1989 - PERLA C. BAUTISTA v. BOARD OF ENERGY

  • G.R. No. 76592 January 13, 1989 - ERDULFO C. BOISER v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77298 January 13, 1989 - ANGELES CENTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79518 January 13, 1989 - REBECCA C. YOUNG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 36187 January 17, 1989 - REYNOLDS PHILIPPINE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 73835 January 17, 1989 - CHINA AIRLINES, LTD. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 33425 January 20, 1989 - PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 42278 January 20, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 48008 January 20, 1989 - BARTOLOME MACARAEG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49739 January 20, 1989 - BONIFACIO LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 55457 January 20, 1989 - FILOMENO QUILLIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 61167-68 January 20, 1989 - FIDEL A. DE GUZMAN v. THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO BENITEZ

  • G.R. No. 66350 January 20, 1989 - ALBERTO DE GUZMAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 67115 January 20, 1989 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74249 January 20, 1989 - CORNELIO T. RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74679 January 20, 1989 - ROSITA DE ASIS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78524 January 20, 1989 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83616 January 20, 1989 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 72306 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 78648 January 24, 1989 - RAFAEL N. NUNAL v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83882 January 24, 1989 - IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU v. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO

  • A.C. No. 3277 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 33955 January 26, 1989 - FORTUNATO DA. BONDOC v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. 34613 January 26, 1989 - ANTONIO J. CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 40778 January 26, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCILLO MANLOLO

  • G.R. Nos. 44715-16 January 26, 1989 - ERLINDA BARRERAS v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 49410 January 26, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 51214 January 26, 1989 - EDGARDO DORUELO v. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. 66807 January 26, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELITONA ALAGAD

  • G.R. No. 74246 January 26, 1989 - MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75079 January 26, 1989 - SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYA v. WENCESLAO M. POLO

  • G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989 - JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA v. IGNACIO ALMODOVAR

  • G.R. No. 75439 January 26, 1989 - SILVINO P. PIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79347 January 26, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 80680 January 26, 1989 - DANILO B. TABAS v. CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 81816 January 26, 1989 - NATIVIDAD Q. SALOMON v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION

  • A.M. No. R-225-RTJ January 26, 1989 - HIMINIANO D. SILVA v. GERMAN G. LEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 29541 January 27, 1989 - CARLOS GABILA v. PABLO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 47027 January 27, 1989 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50041 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO L. ABONADA

  • G.R. No. 56457 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO PEDROSA

  • G.R. No. 56524 January 24, 1989 - RAMON ARENAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79404 January 27, 1989 - FELICIANO BEJER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79955 January 27, 1989 - NELSON L. CERVANTES v. GINA C. FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 29184 January 30, 1989 - BENEDICTO LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 37704 January 30, 1989 - ERLINDA TALAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 44466 January 30, 1989 - MAGDALENA V. ACOSTA v. ANDRES B. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 70149 January 30, 1989 - EUSEBIO C. LU v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72222 January 30, 1989 - INT’L CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74423 January 30, 1989 - EUSTAQUIO BAEL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78298 January 30, 1989 - WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42808 January 31, 1989 - ROSARIO VDA. DE SUANES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 43602 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PAILANO

  • G.R. No. 46807 January 31, 1989 - MAURO OMANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 48066 January 31, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. KALAHI INVESTMENTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 56705 January 31, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG CORP.

  • G.R. No. 58797 January 31, 1989 - ANTONIO QUIRINO v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. Nos. 65345-47 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENEGILDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 66178-79 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN PELOTIN

  • G.R. No. 70446 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 70926 January 31, 1989 - DAN FUE LEUNG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72828 January 31, 1989 - ESTELITA S. MONZON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73886 January 31, 1989 - JOHN C. QUIRANTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73913 January 31, 1989 - JERRY T. MOLES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75082 January 31, 1989 - JOSE F. PUZON v. ALEJANDRA ABELLERA

  • G.R. No. 75853 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES BUGTONG

  • G.R. No. 76988 January 31, 1989 - GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWEAR CORP. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 77116 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND CAMALOG

  • G.R. No. 78687 January 31, 1989 - ELENA SALENILLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79570 January 31, 1989 - GASPAR MEDIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83268 January 31, 1989 - JOSEFINA B. CALLANGAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84423 January 31, 1989 - JOSE B. NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-181 January 31, 1989 - ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON v. MATEO MAGBANUA