G.R. No. L-12592 - MARCH 1959 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-12592March 31, 1959 Tiburcio Somera, et al. vs. Agripino Galman, et al. G.R. No. L-12282March 31, 1959 Board of Directors of the SMB Workers vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-12128March 31, 1959 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Antonio Noblejas, et al. G.R. No. L-12104March 31, 1959 Casimiro Garganta, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-12064March 31, 1959 Republic vs. Roberto Zurbano, etc. G.R. No. L-11785March 31, 1959 Gabino Bachoco vs. Ignacia Esperancilla, et al. G.R. No. L-10884March 31, 1959 Philippine National Bank vs. Philippine Leather Co. Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-7954March 31, 1959 B.A. Crumb, et al. vs. Margarito Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-13298March 30, 1959 Jose U. Ochate vs. Diego H. Ty Deling, et al. G.R. No. L-12944March 30, 1959 Maria Natividad vda. de Tan vs. Veterans Backpay Commission G.R. No. L-12729March 30, 1959 Arsenio R. Reyes vs. Marcial de la Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-11569March 30, 1959 Rogerio Gendrala vs. Teofisto Cordova, etc. G.R. No. L-11472March 30, 1959 Obdulia Aragon, et al. vs. Francisco Aragon, et al. G.R. No. L-12703March 25, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Maxima Orpilla-Molina, et al. G.R. No. L-12078-79March 25, 1959 Matias Belarmino, et al. vs. Pantaleon F. Alihan, et al. G.R. No. L-10883March 25, 1959 Teresa Realty, Inc. vs. State Construction and Supply Co., et al. G.R. No. L-11928-11930March 24, 1959 Vedasto Jesalva, et al. vs. Jose S. Bautista G.R. No. L-12698March 23, 1959 Philippine National Bank vs. Philippine Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-12695March 23, 1959 City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian Villanueva, et al. G.R. No. L-12497March 23, 1959 Primitivo A. Macaraig vs. Vicente Dy Sun, Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-12343March 23, 1959 Luneta Motor Company vs. Alfonso Lopez, et al. G.R. No. L-9724March 23, 1959 Tomas B. Berva vs. City Mayor of Naga City, et al. G.R. No. L-13204March 20, 1959 Enrique C. Servo vs. Mariano Alcanaba, et al. G.R. No. L-14819March 19, 1959 Alfredo B. Saulo vs. Pelagio Cruz, etc. G.R. No. L-11741March 18, 1959 El Ahorro Insular, et al. vs. Victorino T. Aquino G.R. No. L-11315March 18, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Eustaquio Hinaut, et al. G.R. No. L-11981March 17, 1959 Ciriaco Santiago vs. Manuel Conde G.R. No. L-11596March 16, 1959 Alto Surety & Insurance Co. vs. Eleuterio Limcaco, et al. G.R. No. L-11223March 16, 1959 Pablo C. Ventura, et al. vs. Nicasio Yatco G.R. No. L-10611March 13, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Divinagracia G.R. No. L-10460March 11, 1959 Republic vs. Juana B. vda. de del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-12163March 4, 1959 Paz Fores vs. Ireneo Miranda The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Tiburcio Somera, et al. vs. Agripino Galman, et al. Board of Directors of the SMB Workers vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, etc., et al. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Antonio Noblejas, et al. Casimiro Garganta, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Republic vs. Roberto Zurbano, etc. Gabino Bachoco vs. Ignacia Esperancilla, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Philippine Leather Co. Inc., et al. B.A. Crumb, et al. vs. Margarito Rodriguez, et al. Jose U. Ochate vs. Diego H. Ty Deling, et al. Maria Natividad vda. de Tan vs. Veterans Backpay Commission Arsenio R. Reyes vs. Marcial de la Cruz, et al. Rogerio Gendrala vs. Teofisto Cordova, etc. Obdulia Aragon, et al. vs. Francisco Aragon, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Maxima Orpilla-Molina, et al. Matias Belarmino, et al. vs. Pantaleon F. Alihan, et al. Teresa Realty, Inc. vs. State Construction and Supply Co., et al. Vedasto Jesalva, et al. vs. Jose S. Bautista Philippine National Bank vs. Philippine Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian Villanueva, et al. Primitivo A. Macaraig vs. Vicente Dy Sun, Sr., et al. Luneta Motor Company vs. Alfonso Lopez, et al. Tomas B. Berva vs. City Mayor of Naga City, et al. Enrique C. Servo vs. Mariano Alcanaba, et al. Alfredo B. Saulo vs. Pelagio Cruz, etc. El Ahorro Insular, et al. vs. Victorino T. Aquino People of the Philippines vs. Eustaquio Hinaut, et al. Ciriaco Santiago vs. Manuel Conde Alto Surety & Insurance Co. vs. Eleuterio Limcaco, et al. Pablo C. Ventura, et al. vs. Nicasio Yatco People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Divinagracia Republic vs. Juana B. vda. de del Rosario, et al. Paz Fores vs. Ireneo Miranda The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-12592             March 31, 1959

TIBURCIO SOMERA, JULIAN DOMINGO AND CIRIACO POMEDA,petitioner,
vs.
AGRIPINO GALMAN AND THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS,respondents.

Jose C. Concepcion for petitioners.
Santos K. Maranan for respondent A. Galman.

REYES, J.B.L.,J.:

This is a petition to review bycertiorarithe decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations in Case No. 224-NE-56 ordering respondents Tiburcio Somera, Julian Domingo and Ciriaco Pomeda (petitioners herein) to reinstate petitioner Agripino Galman (respondent herein) as tenant in the landholding in question, and reimburse the latter, jointly and severally, 116 and 15/100 cavans of 46 kilos each, representing over deliveries made to the former for the agricultural year 1954-1955, after a liquidation was undertaken by the court.

It appears that petitioner Tiburcio Somera is the owner of a tract of land comprising an area of about 56 hectares situated at barrio Sta. Barbara, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija. The clearing and cultivation of said land was first begun in the agricultural year 1954-55. Respondent Agripino Galman, who claims to be share tenant of Somera, received at the end of each agricultural year a certain quantity of palay depending on the amount of the produce. Hence, for the crop harvest year 1954-55, he received 160 cavans of palay and for the succeeding year, 355 cavans.

On April 21, 1956, Somera leased to his co-petitioners Julian Domingo and Ciriaco Pomeda the property in question. By virtue of this lease contract, petitioners admitted having ejected Galman, rendering him without work. This suit was originated by the latter with the agrarian court seeking for his reinstatement as tenant and a reliquidation of the harvest for the past agricultural years.

It is the contention of the petitioners in the court below, as well as in the appeal, that no tenancy relationship was established between Somera and Galman, claiming that the latter was but a mere trusted farm watcher, and that there was no need for a tenant as the land is and always been under mechanized farming. We believe otherwise.

The tenancy relationship between petitioner Somera, as the landholder, and respondent Galman, as the tenant, is borne out by the evidence and the findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations. For instance, Galman has been shown to beprincipallyresponsible, through his labor, in the cultivation of the land, with the help of his two sons, Adriano and Anselmo; the former operating the tractor and the latter, together with hired laborers engaged by the landowner, broadcasting the seeds. It is admitted that for his work, Galman receives not a fixed amount or paid an ordinary wage, as is usually the case amount or paid an ordinary wage, as is usually the case for hired farm hand, but a certain quantity of palay depending on the yearly harvest.

The fact that the holding is under mechanized farming does not alter the situation, nor does it necessarily preclude the employment of tenants by the landholder within the meaning of the law, aside from or in addition to hired laborers; and once this tenancy relationship is established, the tenant is entitled to the security of tenure and may not be dispossessed except for just causes provided in the law, or until the tenancy relationship is legally terminated. (See Primero vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al., 101 Phil., 675; 54 Off. Gaz. [20] 5506.) The work of hired farm laborers is delineated usually by the landowner, while that of a tenant is defined under the law (see sections 23 and 38, Republic Act No. 1199).

Of course, under section 50 of the tenancy Act, thebona fideintention of the landholder to cultivate the land "himself", either, personally or through the employment of mechanical implements gives him right to dispossess the tenant of the land: but he can do so only upon authority of the agrarian court and after complying with certain procedural requirements (see section 50 (a), Republic Act No. 1199), that were not observed. Since in this case, the immediate cause for the dispossession of the tenant Galman, as found by the agrarian court, was the leasing of the land to the petitioners Domingo and Pomeda, the ejectment was illegal and null and void (Primero vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al.,supra; Sec. 9, Rep. Act No. 1199).

Before leasing the property in question to the petitioners Domingo and Pomeda, Somera announced his intention of leasing the same to the respondent herein, who manifested his desire to be the lessee himself provided, however, that the tractor be included in the contract. This did not materialize on account of Somera's refusal to include the same. We cannot agree with the petitioner's proposition that this act of the respondent constituted a voluntary surrender of the land on his part (a cause for dispossession under Sec. 9, Republic Act 1199). Nothing appears to have been further said or done by the respondent as would warrant such a conclusion.

Passing now to the method of reliquidation used by the agrarian court. The sharing agreement between Somera and Galman was found to be 70-30 in favor of the landholder, the latter supplying the farm implements, seedingsand all expenses for clearing, broadcasting and cultivation, while the tenant supplied labor and manpower, conformably to the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act.

The evidence and findings of the lower court show that for the agricultural years 1954-55 and 1955-56, the landholding in question had a gross harvest of 645 and 1,827 cavans of palay, respectively. The deductible items for the first crop harvest year were itemized and proven to be 34 cavans for seeds, 109 cavans for reaping and 32.5 cavan (equivalent to 52% of 645) for threshing. However, for the second agricultural year, no deductible items were proven (according to the lower court, because of oversight of counsel)except for 54 cavans incurred for seedling purposes. In fairness to the petitioner Somera the agrarian court awarded in his favor deductible items of 109 cavans for reaping and 52% of the gross harvest of 1,827 cavans for threshing based on the proceeding year.

The computation made by the lower court for the agricultural year 1954-55 is not disputed. However, for the year 1955-56, petitioners question the deduction of only 109 cavans of palay as reaping expenses, claiming that said quantity is based on the gross harvest of only 645 cavans for the year 1954-55 while the gross harvest for the second year was 1,827. We find merit in this contention, for necessarily, a greater harvest entails increased reaping expenses. As stated by the petitioners, based on the proceeding agricultural year of 1954-55, the reaping expenses are approximately 16.9%, and applying this to the gross harvest of 1,827 cavans in 1955-56, the deductible item on this account should be 308.76 cavans instead of 109. Thus, we have the following final computation:

Wherefore, petitioners are ordered to reimburse to the respondent, jointly and severally, 56.22 cavans of palay 46 kilos each for the crop harvest year 1955-56. In all other respects, the decision is affirmed. Without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ.,concur.