PILAR REYES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JOSE M. SANTOS, AS ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, AND MAXIMINO ENRIQUEZ, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Pilar Reyes is the owner of a parcel of land of about two
hectares located in barrio Lawa, Calamba, Laguna, which was being
worked by respondent Maximino Enriquez under a verbal agreement of
tenancy, under which they shared both the expenses and the harvest
equally. On November 18, 1960, that is, one month before the next
agricultural year started, respondent notified petitioner that he was
changing their relationship from share tenancy to leasehold. On
December 17, 1960 petitioner informed respondent that she was opposed
to the change. On May 2, 1961 she filed a petition in the Court of
Agrarian Relations alleging the aforementioned facts and asking that an
interlocutory order be issued for the division of the existing palay
crop as follows: 50% for the tenant, 20% for the landowner, and 30% to
be deposited with the municipal treasurer of Calamba, pending final
determination of the controversy, concerning the constitutionality of
the provision of the Agricultural Tenancy Law (Act No. 1199) giving the
tenant the privilege to change the agreement from share tenancy to
leasehold tenancy, which was under consideration by this Court in
Juliano v. Magtibay (L-17627), ^[1] so that should the said provision be declared unconstitutional the parties would respect their original sharing agreement.

The court issued the interlocutory order prayed for and the parties subsequently stipulated on the facts set forth above.

On June 6, 1962 the court dismissed the petition for lack of merit
and ruled that respondent had the right, upon proper notice, to change
the prevailing tenancy system to one of leasehold tenancy.

Petitioner appealed and now raises the sole question of the validity
of Section 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law, as amended, which states:

“The tenant shall have the right
to change the tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to leasehold
tenancy and vice versa and from one crop sharing arrangement to another
of the share tenancy. If the share tenancy contract is in writing and
is duly registered, the right to change from one crop sharing
arrangement to another may be exercised at least one month before the
beginning of the next agricultural year after the expiration of the
period of the contract. 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.”

Petitioner submits that this provision violates the Constitution
because it: (1) results in deprivation of property without due process
of law; (2) impairs the obligation of contracts; and (3) constitutes
class legislation.

The same questions have been raised in other cases decided by this
Court, and the constitutionality of the law has been repeatedly upheld.
(Ramas v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-19555, May 29, 1964; Macasaet
vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-19750, July 17, 1964; Uichanco vs.
Gutierrez, L-20575-20579, May 31, 1965; Gamboa vs. Pallarca, L-20407,
March 31, 1966; and Cuizon vs. Ortiz, L-20905, April 30, 1966.)

The decision of the lower court is therefore affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon, JP, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., no part.

^[1] The case was decided on November 29, 1962.