ManilaSECOND
DIVISION
JOSE
ROSELLO and GAUDENCIO MALAZARTE,
Petitioners-Appellants,
G. R. No. L-24733
August 5, 1980
-versus-
HON.
PASTOR P. REYES,
as Judge of the Court of
Agrarian Relations,12th Regional District Branch
II, Ormoc Cityand NICANOR LEGISTA,
Respondents-Appellees.
D
E C I S I O N
FERNANDO,
C.J
.:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Petitioners-appellants,
Jose Rosello and Gaudencio
Malazarte, in this certiorari proceeding by way of review of a decision
of the Court of Agrarian Relations, were sued in the Court of Agrarian
Relations by private respondent Nicanor Legista, seeking
"reinstatement,
payment for coconut trees planted by him, reimbursement of unrealized
shares
in the coconut produce, recovery of the value of his house and
claims
for moral and exemplary damages."[1]
The reinstatement was ordered as well as payment in the amount of
P360.00
corresponding to the value of the improvements introduce by private
respondent.
From the recital of the facts as found by respondent Judge Pastor
P. Reyes now retired, the conclusion reached by this Court is that
reinstatement
is not warranted but reimbursement in the above sum should stand.
According to the
decision under review:
"lt appears that the land holding in question with an area of seven [7]
hectares and situated in Buncanag, Pinamudlan, San Francisco, Leyte del
Sur, is formerly owned by Patrocinio Ibanez, father-in-law of Jose
Rosello.
As owner, said Patrocinio Ibanez engaged the services of Nicanor
Legista
to tenant his landholding planted with coconut and bananas. As a
tenant,
plaintiff took care of the coconut trees and even constructed a house
in
his landholding. Sometime in 1947, the owner, [now deceased] with the
right
to repurchase, sold the property to Jose Rosello. Being in possession
of
this landholding, the new owner retained the services of plaintiff,
permitted
him to live in the same house and also allowed him to take care of the
coconuts and bananas. As tenant, plaintiff shared the produce equally
with
his new landholder. The coconuts yield a harvest of 5,000 fruits every
three [3] months which, when converted to copra, amounts to 1,700
kilos.
In the locality, a kilo of copra costs P0.35. From time to time,
plaintiff
planted some 60 coconuts, 30 of which are now fruit bearing and about
120
banana groups. In accordance with the verbal agreement between the
parties,
herein defendant agreed to reimburse plaintiff for the plantings he
made
at the rate of P5.00 for every fruit-bearing coconut, P3.00 for
non-fruit-bearing
and P1.00. for every group of banana. Prior to August, 1962, Jose
Rosello filed a case against his brother-in-law, a certain Alfonso
Ibanez.
In that case, Nicanor Legista testified in favor of his brother-in-law
and against herein defendant. As a consequence of this incident "our
good
friendship was severed." [See t.s.n., p. l0, hearing of June 26, 1964].
As the parties could not see eye to eye nor were they in speaking
terms,
and for reasons of his own, plaintiff left his landholding, although,
he
continued to live in his same house unmolested by herein defendant.
Necessarily,
defendant, in order to protect his property, had to hire Gaudencio
Malazarte
as tenant. In the light of the foregoing circumstance, We could not see
our way clear to uphold plaintiff 's claim that he was dispossessed
of
landholding by defendant, in or about August, 1962. We are more
inclined
to believe that because of that incident, plaintiff left his
landholding
and chose to take the cudgels with defendant in Court. We could not
reconcile
the idea of defendant having ejected plaintiff, and yet the latter
still
remained and continued to live in the same property owned by the
former.
Hence, plaintiff's pretenses of having been ejected from his
landholding
is hereby dismissed."[2]
Nonetheless, the judgment under review ordered petitioner Rosello "to
reinstate
[respondent Legista] immediately over said landholding with an
approximate
area of seven [7] hectares, situated at Buncanag, Pinamudlan, San
Francisco,
Leyte del Sur, and to maintain him in peaceful possession and
cultivation."[3]
Hence this petition.cralaw:red
In the brief for
petitioners, the order of reinstatement
was assigned as the first error, reliance being on the applicable
statute[4]
which includes voluntary surrender or abandonment of the land as a
cause
for the tenancy relationship being extinguished. The brief for
petitioners
pointed out that "the acts of the respondent-appellee Nicanor Legista
constituted
an abandonment of the tenement of the petitioner-appellant herein; and
in consequence thereof, the relationship between the
petitioner-appellant
and respondent-appellee in this case, if there was any, was then
severed."[5]
So it ought to
have been held by respondent Judge.
For as categorically stated by him: "Hence, plaintiff's pretenses of
having
been ejected from his landholding is hereby dismissed.[6]
An order of reinstatement ought not to have been issued. It is the
settled
law that a well-nigh conclusive effect is accorded the findings of fact
of the Court of Agrarian Relations.[7]
There is thus an obvious incompatibility between the fact of
abandonment
which, in the well-written opinion, was the conclusion reached and the
order of reinstatement. In Flores v. Flores,[8]
this Court stressed "that for the lower court to make such detailed
findings
of fact and thereafter disregard with impunity what as a consequence is
required by law was to act with manifest unfairness."[9]
That would not be in accordance with the requirements of due process.
Reinstatement,
to repeat, is not warranted.cralaw:red
The award of
reimbursement in the sum of P360.00
should stand. The findings of fact demonstrated quite clearly that
improvements
in that amount were introduced by private respondent Legista. The
second
error assigned by petitioners-appellants is thus devoid of merit.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
judgment is reversed insofar as
it ordered reinstatement of private respondent Nicanor Legista and
affirmed
insofar as it ordered petitioners-appellants to pay and deliver to him
the total amount of P360.00 corresponding to the value of the
improvements
introduced by him in the landholding. Costs against
petitioners-appellants.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Barredo,
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and
De Castro, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., is on leave.
_______________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Decision, Annex "A" to Petition, 1.
[2]
lbid., 2-4.
[3]
lbid., 5-6.
[4]Section 9, Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263,
provides: "Severance of relations. The tenancy relationship is
extinguished
by the voluntary surrender or abandonment of the land by, or the death
or incapacity of the tenant."
[5]
Brief for the Petitioners-Appellants, 4.
[6]
Decision, Annex "A" to Petition, 4.
[7]
Atayde v. De Guzman, 103 Phil. 187 [1958]; Escato de Miranda v. Reyes,
103 Phil. 207 [1958]; Cahilo v. De Guzman 106 Phil. 520 [1959]; Yusay
v.
Alojado, 107 Phil. 1156 [1960]; Ulpiendo v. Court of Agrarian
Relations,
109 Phil. 964 [1960]; Cañada v. Rubi 110 Phil. 505 [1960]; Mateo
v. Duran, L-14314, Feb. 22, 1961, 1 SCRA 508; Domingo v. Court of
Agrarian
Relations, L-12116, April 28, 1962. 4 SCRA 1151; Silva v. Cabangon,
L-14801,
Jan. 31, 1963, 7 SCRA 33; Bermudez v. Fernando, L-18610, April 22,
1963,
7 SCRA 682; Toledo v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-16054, July 31,
1963,
8 SCRA 499; Lustre v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-19654, July 31,
1963,
10 SCRA 659; De Lamera v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-20299, May 31,
1966, 17 SCRA 368; Gagola v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-19740, Dec.
17, 1966, 18 SCRA 992; Lapina v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-20706,
Sept. 25, 1967, 1967, 21 SCRA 194; Ibaviosa v. Tuazon, L-21641, Dec.
29,
1967, 21 SCRA 1438; Picardal vs. Lladas, L-21309, Dec. 29, 1967,
21 SCRA 1483; Del Rosario v. De los Santos, L-20589-90, March 28, 1968,
22 SCRA 1196; Beltran v. Cruz, L-20973, Oct. 26, 1968, 25 SCRA 607;
Teodoro
v. Macaraeg, L-20700, Feb. 27, 1969, 27 SCRA 7; Lim, Sr. v. Secretary
of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, L-26990, Aug. 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 751;
Resuena v. Bas, L-19641, Aug. 14, 1970, 34 SCRA 386; De Chavez v.
Zobel,
L-28609, Jan. 17, 1974, 55 SCRA 26.
[8]
L-28930, August 17, 1973, 52 SCRA 293.
[9]
Ibid., 300. |