MARTA A. VDA. DE CUIZON, PETITIONER, VS. EMILIANO ORTIZ AND THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review
and set aside the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Second Regional District, Cabanatuan City, in its
CAR Case No. 2630-NE-61, approving the petition of the respondent Emiliano Ortiz, tenant, against the petitioner,
Marta A. Viuda de Cuizon, the landholder, for a change of
their tenancy contract from share tenancy to leasehold tenancy.

Respondent Emiliano Ortiz has been the share tenant of
the petitioner Marta A. Viuda de Cuizon on a riceland with
an area of 3 hectares, more or less, seeded to to 2 cavans
and 8 gantas of palay, situated in the barrio of Sto. Cristo,
Gapan, Nueva Ecija, since the agricultural year 1944-45 without the benefit of a registered written tenancy contract.
Up to the agricultural year 1957-58 the sharing ratio was
50-50; and from the agricultural year 1958-59 up to the agricultural year 1960-61 the sharing ratio was 70-30 in favor
of the tenant, the latter contributing all the items of production with the exception of the land.

On February 13, 1961 tenant Emiliano Ortiz sent a letter to landholder Marta A. Viuda de Cuizon by registered
mail, informing the latter of his (tenant’s) desire to change
their tenancy system from share to leasehold tenancy effective
the agricultural year 1961-62, which notice was received by
the landholder on March 18, 1961. The agricultural season for
the first crop in 1961 started in the month of May of the
same; year, so that the tenant had timely and validly exercised his right to change the tenancy system from share to
leasehold tenancy effective the agricultural year 1961-62.
The right availed of by the tenant is provided for in Section
14 of Rep. Act 1199 as amended by Rep. Act 2263, the pertinent
provisions of which reads as follows:

“The
tenant shall have the right to change the tenancy contract from one of
share tenancy to leasehold tenancy and vice-versa * * * In the
absence of any registered written contract the right may be exercised
at least one month before the agricultural year when the change shall
be effected.”

The landholder not
having agreed to the change in the tenancy system, tenant Emiliano
Ortiz filed before the respondent Court of Agrarian Relations on April
18, 1961 a petition for a change in the tenancy system from share to
leasehold tenancy.

In her amended answer to the tenant’s petition, the
landholder contends that Section 14 of R.A. No. 1199, as
amended by R.A. No. 2263, which grants to the tenant the
right to change the tenancy contract from one of share to
leasehold tenancy is unconstitutional and, therefore, null
and void because (1) it impairs the obligation of contract;
(2) it is a class legislation; and (3) it deprives the
landholder of her property without due process of law.

After
hearing, the respondent Court of Agrarian Relations rendered a decision
declaring the tenancy system between the tenant (herein respondent
Emiliano Ortiz) and the landholder (herein petitioner Marta A. Viuda de
Cuizon) to be under the leasehold tenancy system effective as of the
agricultural season for the second crop from September 1962 to February
1963. The respondent court fixed the leasehold rentals as follows: for
the first crop, at 36 cavans and 34.96 kilos of palay; and for the
second crop, at 37 cavans and 34.8 kilos of palay—all of the same
variety actually and usually planted in said landholding payable at the
threshing site immediately upon the threshing of the harvest every
agricultural season.

Her petition for reconsideration of the decision rendered by the respondent court having been denied, landholder
appealed to this Court by way of a petition for certiorari.

The only question to be resolved by this Court in the
present appeal is the constitutionality of Section 14 of R.A.
No. 1199 as amended by R.A. No. 2263.

The landholder, now petitioner, Marta A. Vda. de Cuizon,
contends that said Sec. 14 of R.A. No. 1199, as amended by
R.A. 2263, is unconstitutional because: (1) said law constitutes an impairment of the obligations of contract; (2) it
is not regulatory in nature; (3) it is discriminatory;
(4) it violates due process of law and the principle of social
justice.

Since this case was submitted for decision on November 11,
1963, this Court has rendered no less than three decisions
where the constitutionality of Sec. 14 of R.A. 1199, as amended
by R.A. 22631 was upheld (Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, G.R. No. L-19555, May 29, 1964; Macasaet vs. Court of
Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-19750, July 17, 1964;
and Uichangco vs.
Gutierrez, et al. G.R. No. L-20275-20279, May 31, 1965). In the
decisions in these three cases practically all the grounds adduced by
the herein petitioner, Marta A. vda. de Cuizon, in assailing the
constitutionality of Sec. 14 of R.A. 1199, as amended by R.A. 2263, had
been passed upon by this Court, and we do not consider it necessary to
elaborate further on the matter. Very recently this Court, in the case
of Gamboa vs. Pallarca, G.R. No. 20407, March
31, 1966, also upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 14 of R.A. 1199, as
amended by R.A. 2263, precisely on the authority of the three cases we
have herein cited.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari should be, as it
is hereby denied; and the decision appealed from is affirmed.
With costs against the petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Sanchez, JJ., concur.