MAMERTO TUBERA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. MARGARITA FERNANDO, RESPONDENT.

Petitioners who are tenants of Margarita Fernando claiming that
respondent refused to give their shares for the crop year 1959-1960,
without just cause; that respondent has exacted from them usurious
interests on their loans at a rate of 33%; and that they have suffered
actual and moral damages, instituted before the Court of Agrarian
Relations, Cabanatuan City Branch, CAR Case No. 1924-NE-60. After
respondent has presented her Amended Answer, the parties entered into a
partial “Stipulation of Facts”, portions of which are reproduced
hereunder:

7. That the petitioners caused the reaping of their
harvests in the said agricultural year, and the parties hereby agree
that 5% of the gross produce should be deducted therefrom and delivered
to the petitioners for payment of the reaping fee;

8. That
the petitioners admit that 3/4 of the expenses for transplanting were
defrayed by the respondent, and 1/4 of the same by them, while the
respondent claims that she shouldered all the said transplanting
expenses;

9. That the petitioners deny that they have
secured fertilizers from the respondent and applied the same to their
landholdings in said agricultural year, while the respondent claims
that she furnished each of the petitioner 3 bags of fertilizer per
hectare, costing P15.00 per bag;

10. That in accordance
with the contracts of tenancy executed by the said petitioners and the
respondent, the agreed sharing ratio is 50-50 subject to the terms and
conditions stipulated in the afore-said contracts.”

The record fails to show whether there was a hearing or not,
although the pleadings of the parties clearly state that there was a
trial wherein evidence, oral and documentary, was adduced by them. On
February 8, 1961, the CAR rendered judgment, the pertinent parts of
which recite:

“x x x. The claim of the petitioners that they paid
1/4 of the transplanting expenses, the same having been considered as
their indebtedness with the respondent is without merit for nowhere in
the memorandum of indebtedness of the petitioners could we find that
their share of the transplanting expenses was recorded. x x x. Since
the landholdings in question are first class rice lands (stipulation of
facts), the legal sharing ratio in the division of crops should be 55%
for the respondent (land, 30%, transplanting expenses, 25%) and 45% for
the petitioners (labor, 30%, work animal, 5%, implements, 5%, final
harrowing, 5%) (Section 42 R.A. No. 1199).

With respect to
the claim of the petitioners that they have not used fertilizer in the
productions of crops, we find by pre-ponderance of evidence that all of
the sixteen (16) tenants of the respondent in the vicinity where the
landholdings are located including the petitioners herein have used
fertilizer in their respective landholdings in the agricultural year
1959-1960 advanced by her. x x x.

The memoranda of indebtedness duly signed by the petitioners for the agricultural year 1958-1959 and 1959-1960, do not show any proof that the, respondent exacted usurious interest on the loans obtained by them.
x x x. The argument of the petitioners that the allegation of usury in
the petitioners has been admitted by the failure of the respondent to
deny the same under oath is of no moment for this Court is not bound
strictly by the rules of procedure and evidence (R.A. No. 1267, as
amended by R.A. No. 1409).

x x x x x.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
awarding to the respondent the remaining balance of the palay deposited
with the San Jose Facoma, San Jose, Nueva Ecija, under warehouse,
receipts Mos. 369Y1 to 36976, and ordering the Manager of said Facoma
to release the same in favor of respondent upon payment of the
corresponding fees and charges.

The petitioners are hereby
ordered to pay respondent the amounts set opposite their respective
names, subject to the provisions of Section 19, R.A. 1199, as follows:

x x x x x.”

Upon the denial of the motion to reconsider the above judgment, the
petitioners appealed to this Court, assigning six (6) principal issues
and five (5) sub-topics, among which are hereunder reproduced:

“14. That, the mixed question of law and fact involved in this petition are:

(1).
The proper interpretation and application of the right of the
petitioners for an accounting of their past harvest pursuant to
Section 17 of Republic Act No. 1199 and the unjustified refusal of the
respondent court to compel the respondent, Margarita Fernando, to make
said accounting.

(2). The proper interpretation and application of section 56 of Republic Act No. 1199 and Article 24 of the New Civil Code in the appreciation of the evidence in the following disputed facts:

(a) ls the respondent, Margarita Fernando, guilty of usury in the dispensation of loans to the herein petitioners daring the crop year 1958-1959 or not?

(b)
Was there a liquidation of the harvest of the petitioners for the crop
year 1958-1959 or not? And did the petitioners receive their shares or
not?

(c) Did the petitioners shoulder one fourth of the transplanting expenses for the crop year 1959-1960 or not?

(d) Did the petitioners use

fertilizer

or not in the crop year 1959-1960?

(e) Did the petitioner, Angel Bermudez, contracted a total indebtedness of P449.76 or not?

The petitioners themselves admit that there are mixed factual and
legal issues. Obviously, an examination of the evidence adduced during
the trial is imperative in order to resolve the factual issue raised.
Moreover, the questions of law which petitioners ask this Court to rule
upon, cannot be completely resolved without first passing upon the
questions of facts similarly raised.

The present petition prays, among others, that the respondent Court
be ordered to make a finding of whether the landholding of the
petitioner, Celestino Galdones, was increased from 3 to 6 hectares in
the crop year 1959-1960; that a basis should be laid for an
arithmetical computation of the respective shares of the parties; that
a new trial be held to compel the respondent to make an accounting and
liquidation of the harvest of the petitioners for the crop year
1958-1959 and that the indebtedness of petitioner Angel Bermudez should
be P349.76, and not P449.76, as found by the trial court. And there
being no question of jurisdiction or constitutionality of any of the
provisions of Act No. 1199 involved, by virtue of section 156 of the
Agricultural Land Reform Code Act No 3844), the Clerk of this Court is
hereby directed to forward this case to the Court of Appeals, for
proper disposition.

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