VIRGINIA B. UICHANCO, EDUARDO LIM AND MERCEDES B. UICHANCO, PETITIONERS, VS. FIDEL GUTIERREZ, ETC., AL., RESPONDENTS.

Brought up on appeal from the
Court of Agrarian Relations of the Fifth Regional District, Sta, Cruz, Laguna, these five cases involve one single
issue: whether or not section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, is
constitutional.

Said section 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 and from one crop sharing arrangement to another of the share
tenancy. If the share tenancy contract is in writing and duly registered, the
right to change from one crop sharing arrangement lo another or from one tenancy
system 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.”
(As amended by Republic Act No. 2263)

According to the
record,

The herein five respondents were,
in the year 1960 and before—share tenants of the herein petitioners, who own
8mall rice farms in Calamba, Laguna. Pursuant to their
verbal tenancy agreement, they shouldered the expenses of production and divided
the harvest on a fifty-fifty basis. However, in the year 1960; the tenants
demanded the conversion of their relationship from “share tenancy” to
“lease-hold tenancy”. They invoked me right granted by
section 14 above quoted. The landowners opposed; so these five litigations
ensued.

The Court of Agrarian Relations,
following the provisions of the law, uphold the tenants’ demand and rendered
judgment accordingly.

In due time,
the landowners appealed to this Court, tendering the single issue of the
validity of statute hereinbefore copied. That law, they claimed, was
unconstitutional because:

1.     
It interferes with the freedom of
contract, and impairs contractual rights;

2.     
It deprives the landowner of his
property in giving the tenant the right to impose a new legal relationship
without his consent.

Their appeal was filed in
September 1962; at that time, the question had not been resolved; in fact, a
suit on the same issue pended before this Court (Juliano vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-17627).

However, in May 29, 1964, in
L-19555^[1] this Court rendered judgment
upholding the Constitutional validity of the statute. And we reiterated the same
view in L-19750. July 17, 1964.^[2]

It is unnecessary at this time to
add to the reasons already explained in said two decisions. But referring to the
circumstances in these litigations, we note that apparently the parties herein
entered the verbal tenancy relationship in 1956, at the earliest, because the
first harvest mentioned in the decision were those of October
1957.

Such being the case, it may be
said that as the law then existing (sec. 14) gave the tenant the right to demand
a leasehold arrangement in exchange for the share tenancy, that right should be
deemed included in their contract of tenancy; and the landlord may now be heard
to complain about interference with it or impairment thereof by the law.^[3]

It may be noted, in passing, that
the Land Reform Code, approved August 8, 1063, Republic Act 3844, abolished
agricultural share tenancy (sec. 4) even as it reaffirmed the privilege of tenants^[4] to elect the leasehold
system.

On the basis of a leasehold
system which it deemed established upon the tenants’ demand, the Agrarian Court
made a computation of rentals to be paid and distribution of the harvests—with
facts and figures. We have been shown no error in its computation. The sole
issue presented for our determination is validity of the law, which appellants
assail on constitutional grounds. On that issue, consistently with our previous
rulings, we have to uphold the legislative enactment.

Wherefore, the appealed decision of the
Agrarian
Court must be, and is hereby,
affirmed. Without costs.

Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L.,
Barrera, Paredes, Regala,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.
P. and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.

^[1] Ramos vs. Court of
Agrarian Relations.

^[2] Macasaet vs. Court of Agrarian
Relations.

^[3] Law existing at time of contract
governs its interpretation and application, U. S. vs. Conde, 42 Phil. 766; Cabauatan
vs. Uy Hoo, 88 Phil.
103.

^[4] In subsisting tenancy contracts.