MONICO CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. CAMILO PANGAN AND SOTERA (PANGAN) SANTIAGO, RESPONDENTS.

LABRADOR, J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Hon.
Guillermo S. Santos, presiding, in CAR Case No, 371 and CAR Case No. 368.

CAR Case No. 371

The facts necessary to an understanding of this case (No. 371) are as
follows: Camilo Pangan and Sotera Santiago, spouses, are the tenants of a parcel
of land of three hectares, more or less, in the barrios of San Isidro and Santo
Rosario, Paombong, Bulacan, belonging to Leonila Tiongson. Two hectares of the
land is planted to palay, while the remaining one hectare is devoted to other
crops, Camilo Pangan cultivated the land under the share tenancy system. Camilo
Pangan was a tenant since 1917. In December, 1959, Pangan filed a petition
demanding a change in the sharing arrangement from 50 to 70-30 in his favor.
Respondent, on February 17, 1960, filed a motion to dismiss the case alleging
that she had sold the land subject of the tenancy on September 8, 1958 to Monico
Cruz, who, therefore, succeeded her in all the obligations over the
landholding.

CAR Case No. 368

In CAR Case No, 368 Monico Cruz filed a petition on December 11, 1959 against
Camilo Pangan alleging that he has purchased the land tenanted by Pangan from
Leonila Tiongson; that he has notified Pangan of his intention to personally
cultivate the land but Pangan refused to accede to his request that he be
allowed to cultivate the land.

The above two cases were heard jointly and after trial the court entered
judgment, which is as follows:

“(4) Granting MONICO CRUZ authority to eject tenant CAMILO PANGAN from the
land in question, subject to the provision of Sec. 22 pars. (3) and (4), RA
1199, as amended, and to the further condition that should the landholder-owner
petitioner MONICO CRUZ fail to cultivate the land him-self personally for at
least three (3) years after dispossession of tenant PANGAN, it shall be presumed
that he acted in bad faith and the latter, shall, upon proper petition, be
reinstated in the holding with the corresponding damages for any loss incurred
by him because of said dispossession (Sec. 50 (a)in relation to Sec. 22, pars.
(3) and (4), RA 1199, as amended) ;”

The above decision was rendered on January 6, 1062.On March 31, 19’52, upon
motion, the court set aside the above judgment. The findings of fact made by the
court in the original decision are as follows:

“It appears that the amount paid for the land in question was realized from
the sale of Monico Cruz’s holding at Lugam, Malolos, Bulacan which was sold for
the amount of THIRTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY TWO AND NINETY FIVE CENTAVOS
(P13,622.95) to the spouses Delfin Franco and Leoniza Agustin (Exh. ‘D’). The
sale of the land in question by Leonila Tiongson to Monico Cruz is evidenced by
a deed of sale and the holding is duly registered in the latter’s name (Exhs ‘A’
& ‘A-l’). The holding was sold upon sufficient consideration—224,225. sq. m.
for THIRTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY NINE PESOS and TWENTY CENTAVOS
(P113,499.20). The Deed of Sale between the parties and the registry of the
holding in Monico Cruz’s name are presumed to be regular (Sec. 69 (l) & (2),
Rule 123, Rules of Court). While Pangan’s application of the tenancy law to
their relation may have been the reason for the sale of the disputed holding by
Tiongzon to Monico Cruz, we cannot believe—in the absence of convincing
proofs–that Tiongson simulated the sale to Cruz, who is also her tenant, merely
to eject Pangan from the holding. It is true that the subject holding is located
on the middle of a larger tract of agricultural land owned by Tiongson, but the
owner has the right to choose which portion of the property to sell. Pangan
purchased the subject holding instead of the l/2 hectare tumana worked by him,
because the same is located in the vicinity of his residence, is bigger in area
than the tumana and is planted to palay. We, therefore, do not find sufficient
evidence to show that the sale registration of the land were fraudulent
transactions solely to effect tenant Pangan’s ejectment. It is incumbent upon
tenant Pangan to prove that these are fraudulent subterfuges to dispossess him
of the holding due to his demand for a lawful sharing basis. This, he failed to
do.”

In reconsidering the above findings of fact and changing the decision the
court said:

“Certain tell-tale circumstance of this case would tend to show that the
former owner, Leonila Tiongson, and petitioner, Cruz, in effecting the transfer
of ownership of the landholding contrived to effect the ejectment of respondent
Pangan. It appears that the former owner, Leonila Tiongson, told respondent
Pangan that she would eject him from the landholding after respondent Pangan
sought the application of the 70-30 sharing basis with her; that the land was
sold to petitioner after respondent sought the proper application of the 70-30
sharing basis between them; that the payment for the consideration of the Lugam
property—even assuming that there was actual monetary consideration—was made in
the house of said Leonila Tiongson: that the landholding in question is located
in the middle—or nearly so–of the 22-hectare, more or less, holding owned by
Leonila Tiongson ; that apart from respondent, no petition for the proper
sharing by the other tenants on the landholding against the former owner has
been filed; and, finally, that the consideration paid by petitioner Cruz for the
landholding in question is P13,499.20 as against its assessed value of
P11,560.00, while the purchase price of the Lugam property which petitioner Cruz
acquired from Rosa Reyes Tantoco–a relative of Leonila Tiongson—was P12,463.55
as against its assessed valued of only P2,830.00. These circumstances taken in
consideration with the respondent’s witnessess’ testimonies point to the design
of petitioner and the former landowner to effect respondent’s ejectment, by
petitioner, himself a tenant of the former owner, Leonila Tiongson—who
personally-being a woman—could not have filed, this action. This being so, the
intention of petitioner to cultivate the holding cannot be bona fide. It is
tainted with mala fide and, therefore, should not be granted.”

In view of the above considerations, the court re-considered its previous
decision authorizing Monico Cruz to cultivate the land himself, and, reversing
its former stand denying the petition of Pangan for a change in the tenancy
system in the land of Leonila Tiongson, declared that he was entitled to such a
change from a sharing basis to that of 70-30. In arriving at the above
conclusions the court below found that the purchase by Monico Cruz of the
property tenanted by Pangan was tainted with bad faith, that Monico Cruz in
purchasing the land had conspired with Leonila Tiongson to deprive Pangan of the
tenancy of the land. We are not prepared to hold that the circumstances given by
the court to justify its conclusion of the existence of bad faith on the part of
Monico Cruz are not sufficient in substance to sustain that conclusion. The
court saw the witnesses testify and the above is its conclusion from their
testimonies and of the circumstances. That, the three-hectare land is in the
middle of a 22-hectare parcel makes the sale, if not improbable, at least
suspicious. In any case, We are without authority to set aside the find in that
the purchase of the property of Tiongson by Monico Cruz was tainted with bad
faith, there being special reasons justifying the conclusion. In view of Our
inability to review this finding of fact, which appears sufficiently justified
by the circumstances. We find no reason or ground for disturbing the decision
sought to be reviewed and We, therefore, affirm it. Without costs. So
ordered.

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