EDUARDO JOSON, ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS VS. BIENVENIDO LAPUZ, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

Petition to review a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, petitioners
being respondents in the case decided against them by said court.

Lucia vda. de Tinio was the owner of an hacienda in barrio Bantug, Licab,
Nueva Ecija with 8 tenants (the respondents herein). The hacienda having been
leased by her to one of the petitioners herein Eduardo Joson, then mayor of the
municipality of Quezon in that same province, the latter some time in 1950,
acting through his overseer Candido Cruz, a lieutenant of his civilian guards,
ejected old tenants from the land and put in their stead his co-petitioners here
in, who were then members of his civilian guards. For fear of Mayor Joson and
his civilian guards, the ousted tenants did not then report the matter to the
authorities. But in the early part of 1954, having heard Judge Arsenio Roldan of
the Court of Industrial Relations declare in conferences held in that province,
that tenants who had been unlawfully ejected from their landholdings had the
right to be reinstated, the old tenants, on March 4, 1954, filed a petition in
the Court of Industrial Relations asking that they be reinstated. Made
respondents in that petition were the landowner Lucia vda. de Tinio and her
lessee Eduardo Joson, But the petition was amended to include as respondents the
other petitioners herein and also to have one of the petitioners, who had
already died, substituted by his widow.

Answering the complaint, the landowner admitted having leased the land in
1949 to Mayor Joson and that, in that same agricultural year, Joson put his men
on the land in place of the old tenants. And affirming that she had nothing to
do with the ejectment, she manifested that as the lease had already expired she
was willing to iiave the old tenants reinstated if the new occupants would
vacate the premises.

Joson’s men, the new occupants, answered, claiming that the old tenants were
dismissed with cause and also invoking prescription as a special defense.

Joson did not answer the petition although in one of the hearings he
manifested in open court that he had never leased the land from its owner and
could, therefore, not have ejected the landowner’s old tenants.

The case
having been transferred to the Court of Agrarian Relations, that court, after
considering the evidence, rendered its decision, the dispositive part of which
reads as follows:

“IN VIEW OF AIL THE FOREGOING, respondents Macario Pineda, Felix Mesina,
Domingo Mesina, Procopio Calison, Rolando Vicente, Dominador Pineda and
Florentino Floras, the present occupants of the landholdings of petitioners
Bienvenido Lapug, Silvino Jaime, Isaias Madriega, Benjamin de la Merced,
Gertrudo Rimando, Valentin Domingo and Francisco Jacinto located at barrio
Bantug, Licab, Nueva Ecija, are ordered to vacate the same effective at the
close of the agricultural year 1955-56 but in no case later than April 30,
1956,

“Thereafter, respondent Lucia vda. de Tinio is directed to reinstate said
petitioners in their respective landholdings with all the rights recorded and
the obligations imposed by law, except petitioner Isaias Madriaga, now deceased,
when she may replace with another tenant of her choice, preference to be given
to the wife and children of the deceased, if physically capable of farm
work.

“The petitioners’ reinstatement shall be without prejudice to their filing of
claim for damages against respondent Eduardo Joson by virtue of their unlawful
ejectment.”

Not satisfied with the decision, the respondents below, with the exception of
the landowner, brought the case here for review, alleging that the court below
erred:

1. In ordering the petitioners herein to vacate the land-holdings before
   decisions has become final and conclusive;

2. In ordering the petitioners to vacate landholdings before the decision has
   become final and conclusive without requiring the posting of bonds from the
   respondent;

3. In giving preferential right to the wife and children of a deceased tenant
   over that of a tenant who is in actual possession in good faith;

4. In reinstating the respondents to the land-holdings without obtaining the
   prior consent of their present landholders and without terminating their tenancy
   relations with such landholder for just cause;

5. In not holding that the respondents have abandoned their landholdings and
   are not entitled to reinstatement.

6. In ejecting the petitioners herein without just and lawful cause in
   accordance with law in stead of imposing fine or damages on the erring land
   holder;

7. In its finding that petitioner Eduardo Joson was the lessee of the
   landholding;

8. In not holding that Candido Cruz was the lessee of the lands and Eduardo
   Joson was only a guarantor; and

9. In holding that the respondents were unlawfully ejected and that they
   maintained silence for fear of reprisal.

After going over the record, we find no reason for disturbing the following
findings of fact of the lower court (1) that following the lease of the land to
Mayor Joson, the latter, through a lieutenant of his civilian guards, ousted the
old tenants from the land, which they had been cultivating for not less than 16
years,and installed in their place his civilian guards; (2) that the ouster was
without lawful cause and against the will of the ousted; and (3) that if they
did not report the matter at once to the authorities, it was because they were
afraid of Mayor Joson and his civilian guards. This disposes of alleged errors
Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9.

Under section 50 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, a tenant cannot be
dispossessed except for causes enumerated therein. With the exception of
abandonment, none of those causes is invoked, and wilful abandonment is not to
be deduced from the way the old tenants were ejected in this case.

Having been illegally deprived of their landholdings,the old tenants had a
right to be reinstated. But it is contended that the new occupants are
themselves tenants, not mere intruders, and they cannot be ejected before the
decision in the case has become final and without the old tenants filing a bond.
But the law requires no such bond and, as the trial court has found – and we
think correctly -the new occupants “are, in legal contemplation, not tenants at
all, since they entered upon the landholding under illegal circumstances and
from indications, were even privy with the respondent Eduardo Joson in the
illegal and summary ejectment of tenant-petitioners.” This disposes of alleged
errors Nos. 1 and 2.

In connection with the 3rd specification of errors, the petitioners claim
that the court had no authority to require the landholder to choose from among
the heirs of the decease tenant Isaias Madriaga the one to succeed him in the
land-holding on the theory that under section 9 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act,
the heirs of a deceased tenant have the right to continue working only up to the
close of the agricultural year in which their predecessor in interest died. But
the landholder did not appeal from this ruling, for she is not a party to the
present petition, while, on the other hand, in the answer filed by her in the
court below she manifested her willingness to reinstate her old tenants since
her lease to Mayor Joson had already expired.

In connection with the 4th specification of error, petitioners claim that
three of the herein respondents are now tenants of another landowner, Macaria
Tinio de Domingo, and to reinstate them in their former landholdings
without Macaria Tinio’s consent, is contrary to section 24, paragraph 1
of the Agricultural Tenancy Act. This, however, should not be any concern of the
herein petitioners. On the other hand, no showing has been made that Macaria
Tinio de Domingo is opposed to the reinstatement of these three respondents.
Moreover, the law does not prohibit a tenant from cultivating two or more
landholdings so long as the total area of these does not exceed five hectares,
and there is no showing in this case that the holdings of these three
respondents would exceed that area if they were restored to their former
holdings.

As to alleged error No. 6, sentencing herein petitioners merely to pay
damages instead of making them vacate the land to give way to the old occupants
would be contrary to the purpose of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, which is to
give security of tenure to legitimate tenants.

In view of the foregoing, the decision below is affirmed with costs against
the petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and
Felix, JJ., concur.