ANGEL BERMUDEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. MARGARITA FERNANDO, RESPONDENT.

Petitioners Angel Bermudez and Isabelo Sampaga are tenants of
respondent Margarita Fernando in the latter’s landholdings situated at
barrio Sto. Nino Torcero, municipality of San Jose, Nueva Ecija. In the
agricultural year 1958-1959 they entered into the tenancy contracts
Exhibits A and B which provided, among other things, that the sharing
system shall be 50-50, the transplanting expenses being for the account
of respondent. The contracts were not renewed for the agricultural year
1960-1961.

In the month of August 1960, petitioners Bermudez and Sampaga refused
to accept the sums of P45.00 and P60.00 tendered to them, respectively,
by respondent for their planting expenses. In view thereof, on
September 15, 1960, respondent consigned the amounts with the Court of
Agrarian Relations, Cabanatuan City Branch (CAR Case No. 2188-NE’60)
and prayed that petitioners be compelled to accept them in discharge of
her obligation to defray the transplanting expenses for the
agricultural year 1960-1961.

Petitioners’ answer alleged that Sometime in the month of January 1960,
they notified respondent of their desire to change tlie nature of their
tenancy contracts, from sharehoid tenancy to leasehold tenancy,
pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1189, as amended, and that
they had already defrayed the transplanting expenses when respondent
tendered to them the amounts needed for the purpose.

After trial upon the issues thus raised, the court rendered judgment:

“* * * (1) declaring that the petitioner (respondent
herein) shall be deemed to have defrayed the transplanting expenses on
the landholdings of the respondents (petitioners herein) for the
agricultural year 1960-1961; (2) ordering the Clerk of Court to release
in favor of Angel Bermudez the sum of P45.00 and to Isabelo Sampaga the
sum of P60.00, deposited by the petitioner with him; and (3) ordering
the petitioner to pay Angel Bermudez life additional sum of P3.00 and
Isabelo Sampaga the additional sum of P12.00.”

Hence, this appeal.

With respect to
petitioners’ claim that in January 1960 they had notified respondent of
their desire to change their tenancy system to leasehold tenancy, the
respondent court found no sufficient evidence in the record to support
the same because, as a matter of fact, petitioners did not even mention
such contention in the course of their respective testimony.

With respect to their other contention that when respondent tendered to
them the transplanting expenses in the month of August 1960, they had
already defrayed such expenses themselves, the lower court found that
said tender was made to them “before the commencement of the
transplanting season in the place where the landholdings in question
are located.”

It is the well-settled rule that the findings of fact of the Court of
Agrarian Relations may not be reviewed and reversed so long as there is
substantial evidence in the record to support them. (Atayde vs.
de Guzman 103 Phil., 187). In the present case, the findings of fact
made by the respondent court, as stated heretofore, appear to be fully
supported by the evidence.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Barrera, Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.