G.R. No. L-14314. February 22, 1961
AGATON MATEO, PETITIONER, VS. GREGORIO DURAN AND THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, SECOND REGIONAL DISTRICT, CABANATUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Relations, dated April 11, 1958, in CAR Case No. 25-ISA-57, rendered
upon a tenant’s complaint for re-liquidation of harvests, the
dispositive part of which reads:
“Wherefore,
the Court finds and so holds that the sharing ratio of fifty-fifty
(50-50) upon which was based the liquidation of the parties’ harvest
for the agricultural year 1953-54 to 1956-57 inclusive, although this
sharing basis was agreed upon by the parties, is contrary to Sec. 11-A,
par. (a) of Republic Act 1199, and hence, void.The
respondent is hereby ordered to deliver to the petitioner the quantity
of ninety-three (93) cavans and twenty-one (21) kilos of palay
“Ordinario”, at forty-six (46) kilos per cavan. The same represents
petitioner’s short-share for the agriculture years 1953 1954,
1954-1955, 1955-1966, and 1956-1967.SO ORDERED.”
In this appeal by the petitioner landlord, Agaton Mateo, he contends
that the area of the landholding in question is only a little over two
(2) hectares, not four (4) hectares as found by the court below; that
accordingly, the total harvest for the agricultural years in question
was very much less than the 620 cavans found by the Agrarian Court;
that petitioner landlord shouldered the coat of transplanting and
should be credited with that item of production; and that the reaping
expenses fixed at “6 cavans of palay for every cavan of seedlings” was
excessive and unreasonable.
In finding that the area of the
landholding was four (4) hectares, the Agrarian Court took account of
the fact that as testified to by Gregorio Duran, petitioner landlord
furnished the former four and a half (4-1/2) cavans of seedlings yearly
for transplanting on the land; that under the usual proven farm
practices, it takes less than one cavan of seedlings to transplant one
hectare of land; and that since it is not made to appear that the
transplanting methods employed by Duran deviated from proven farm
practices, the area could not be less than four hectares. Lending
credence to the above finding, it appears that Iluminada de la Cruz
herself, a witness for appellant Mateo, asserted that on the average,
she supplied, as labor contractor, for every transplanting 36 persons,
at P1.50 each but admitted that from her experience, it takes only
about 8 persons to plant a hectare of land. Based on four hectares as
the area, it needs no elaborate argument to see that the 620 cavans
found by the Court below as total harvest for the 1953-54 to 1956-57
agricultural years, inclusive, is a more realistic approximation than
the 381 cavans as claimed by petitioner landlord.
This Court
is not impressed by the claim that petitioner landlord shouldered the
cost of transplanting. As observed by the court below, the testimony of
Iluminada de la Cruz on this point was hardly credible. Not being a
farmer, she claimed to be some sort of “cabecilla” who contracted farm
laborers for supplying labor to other tenants; that she contracted and
supplied the laborers who transplanted the seedlings in petitioner
landlord’s riceland. Her assertion that she dealt directly with Mateo
in the matter of transplanting expenses appears belied by Mateo
himself, who declared that Duran, in his first year as tenant, asked
P50 from him (Mateo) for transplanting expenses. Mateo also claimed
that for transplanting, he spent P38 in 1954 and 1956, and P37 in 1957.
Iluminada, however, asserted that in 1954, she employed 35 persons to
plant the land, at P1.50 each, or a total of P52.50; and that on the
average, she supplied 36 laborers at P1.50 each for every
transplanting, at a cost of about P54. On the other hand, the court
below expressly found that Duran’s testimony, to the effect that he
shouldered the cost of transplanting through the “bayani” or “suyuan”
system, rang with sincerity and candor. That no cash was paid by
respondent-tenant for the labor of those who transplanted the land
under the “bayani” system does not in any way militate against the
testimony of Epifanio Saraza, witness for Duran, that the latter
shouldered the transplanting expenses.[1]
The fact is that he paid for the food of the helpers under the
so-called “bayani” system, hence, the tenant ultimately shouldered the
burden of transplanting and should rightly be credited with that item
of production. Likewise, the finding of “6 cavans of palay for every
cavan of seedlings”, as reaping expenses, is not shown to be so
excessive or unreasonable as to require reduction by this Court. On the
whole, the factual findings of the Court below in this case have not
been shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence and should not be
disturbed. (Paz vs. G. Santos, et al., L-12047, September 30, 1959; Cahilo vs. De Guzman, 106 Phil., 520; 57 Off. Gaz. (14) 2486; Yusay vs. Alojado, 107 Phil., 1156)
Petitioner landlord, however, claims that in determining the class of
the land, the produce for the 1956-57 agricultural years should not
have been considered, since this was not normal, being unusually low.
The contention is untenable. Petitioner landlord did not present
evidence to show that the low produce of the 1956-57 crop year was
affected by or due to mismanagement, drought, or other unusual cause.
The land, in the agricultural years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57, had a
total gross harvest of 465 cavans, or an average of 38.75 cavans per
hectare. It was therefore, properly classified as second class land.
On the basis of the parties’ contribution to the items of production, the percentage of liquidation should be as follows:
(1) As owner of 2nd class (1) Labor land (2) Farm Implements (2) Furnishing work (3) Final Harrowing animals (4) Cost of Transplanting
Having shared the past harvest on a 50-50 basis, the tenant is still
entitled to a further 20% of the net produce for each agricultural
year. To be deducted from the gross produce per agricultural year are
the following: (1) seeds cavans of seedlings, or 27 cavans; (3)
Threshing fee of 4.5% of gross produce.
However, we find
merit in the contention that the reliquidation for the 1953-54
agricultural year has prescribed, under Section 17, par. 3 of Republic
Act No. 1199, providing that on action therefor should be brought
within 3 years from the threshing of the crop in question. It is
alleged, and nowhere denied, that the threshing of the 1953-54 crop
terminated on May 18, 1954, while the petition for reliquidation was
filed only on May 29, 1957. More than three years having elapsed from
the threshing reliquidation could no longer be sought by the tenant for
that particular crop year. We see no difference between an action for
accounting and one for reliquidation, both of which involve the
determination, adjustment and settlement of what is due the parties
under the law (see Yusay vs. Alojado, 107, Phil., 1156; 58 Off.
Gaz., [24] 4502). As found by the Agrarian Court, the harvest should be
divided between the parties as follows:
Gross Harvest
Less: Seeds Reaping Threshing (4.5% of 162 cavs.)
Net Produce …………………………………………………………………….
20% of 123.21 24.64 cavs. still due to
Gross Harvest
Less: Seeds Reaping Threshing (4.5% of 173 cavs.)
Net Produce
20% of 133.72 26.74 cavs. still due to
Gross Harvest
Less: Seeds Reaping Threshing (4.5% of 130 cavs.)
Net Produce …………………………………………………………………….
20% of 92.65 18.53 cavs. still due to
The
decision appealed from is modified, in the sense that petitioner
landlord should deliver to respondent tenant only 69 cavans and 41.86
kilos of palay “Ordinario”, at 46 kilos per cavan, representing the
deficiency in Duran’s share for the agricultural years 1954-55 to
1956-57, inclusive. No costs.
Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.
[1]
Under the “bayani” “suyuan” or “anuyo” system, a tenant request for the
labor of neighbor tenants who are not paid in cash but only fed, the
unwritten code being that the tenant who made the request will in turn
contribute his labor in transplanting the landholdings of those who
helped him.