MANUEL IBAVIOSA, PETITIONER, VS. BENIGNO TUAZON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal by certiorari to review the de­cision rendered,
on July 8, 1963, by the Court of Agra­rian Relations, Second
Regional District, Cabanatuan
City, in CAR Case No. 2204-NE ’60,
relating to an action for a change of tenancy system from crop sharing to
leasehold.

Respondent Benigno Tuazon
– hereinafter referred to as tenant – is
a share tenant of the petitioner, Ma­nuel Ibaviosa
– hereinafter referred to as landowner
-on a parcel of first class riceland situated in
barrio Malabon, municipality of Jaen,
province of Nueva Ecija,
with an area of 3.75 hectares,
more or less, since the agricultural year 1957-1958, under the sharing arrangement of 50-50, with the tenant contributing
to the product­ion his labor, work animal, farm implements and expenses for
final harrowing, and the landowner his land and ex­penses for
transplanting.  The relationship between
the parties was not governed by any
registered written tenancy contract.

On or about February 20,
1960, the tenant sent a letter, by registered mail, to the
landowner, informing the latter of his (tenant’s) desire to change their
tenancy relationship from share to leasehold effective with the agricultural
year 1960-1961.  On March 26, 1960, the land­owner’s son, Constante Ibaviosa, replied to
the tenant’s letter of February 20,
1960, acknowledging receipt of the same and denying the request
contained therein regarding the change of tenancy system.

On October 20, 1960, the tenant filed a petition before the Court
of Agrarian Relations, Second Regional District, Cabanatuan
City, which was docketed as CAR Case No. 2204-NE ’60, praying, among others, that
judgment be rendered ordering the landowner to adopt the leasehold system of
tenancy with the tenant, effective the current agricultural year 1960-1961 and
to fix the legal rental therefor in the amount of 22 cavans.

Meanwhile, during the pendency of the
case, the harvests for the agricultural years 1960-1961 up to 1962-­1963 were
temporarily liquidated by the parties under a sharing
ratio of 70-30 in favor of the tenant, the said tenant having contributed all
the items of production except the land.

After due hearing, the respondent agrarian court rendered a
decision on July 8, 1963,
approving the change in the tenancy system between the parties from share to
leasehold effective with the agricultural year 1963-1964 and fixing the rental
of the landholding at 53 cavans and 28 kilos of palay per agricultural year, consisting of the same variety
actually and usually planted on said landholding, payable immediately upon the
threshing of the harvest at the threshing site. 
On July 16, 1963,
the landowner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision, which
motion was denied by the respondent agra­rian court on July 23, 1963. 
Hence the instant appeal.

In this appeal, the landowner raises two issues:

“I

The lower court erred in taking jurisdiction of the instant case in
view of the fact that the
petition had been filed with­out the period required by law.

II

The lower court erred in not finding Section 14 of Republic Act No.
1199 uncon­stitutional.”^[1]

In support of the first
assignment of error, the landowner contends that the respondent agrarian court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the notice for a change of
tenancy relationship supposedly sent by the tenant to him (landowner) was never
received by him and that he had never authorized his son Constante
Iba­viosa to reply to the letter of the tenant; that
it was not shown that Constante Ibaviosa
was acting as agent of his father (the landowner); and finally that the
tenant’s petition asking for a change in tenancy relationship be­ginning with
the agricultural year 1960-1961 was not filed on time since the same was only filed in court on October 20, 1960 when it should have
been filed at least before May 1, 1960, considering that the agricultural year
began in the month of June or July, 1960, at the latest, and further,
because the law (Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199), requires at least one
month before the agricultural year when the change shall be effected.

The landowner’s
contentions are without any merit.  Aside
from the fact that the reasons advanced by the land­owner relate to questions
of fact which this Court will not now review, We find that the evidence on
record sup­ports the finding of the respondent agrarian court that the denial
of the landowner regarding the receipt of the tenant’s letter of notification
does not deserve any cre­dence.  The record shows that the landowner, himself, “admitted on the witness stand that his
son, Constante Ibaviosa,
had acted as his representative in dealing with the tenants,”^[2] including tenant Benigno
Tuazon.  The
land­owner’s admission, alone, is more than sufficient reason for the
respondent agrarian court to reject the landowner’s denial of receipt of
respondent’s letter.  Moreover, as it appears in the record, the landowner’s son, Constante Ibaviosa, did not only
receive the tenant’s letter of notification, but also, acting within his
authority as his father’s representative with the tenants, sent a reply to
tenant Tuazon acknowledging receipt of the lat­ter’s
letter of notification and at the same time denying the request contained
therein regarding the change of tenancy system.

Likewise, the conclusion reached by the respondent agrarian court
regarding the timeliness and validity of the tenant’s exercise of his right to
change tenancy sys­tem between him and the landowner being a question of fact should not be disturbed.  It is noteworthy that in
the decision of the respondent Court of Agrarian Rela­tions, the change in the
tenancy system was made effect­ive only beginning with the agricultural year
1963-1964, because as far as the harvests for the agricultural years 1960-1961
to 1962-1963 temporary liquidations were made on the 70-30 sharing basis.  The requirement of the law regarding notice
by the tenant to the landowner regard­ing the change of tenancy system had,
therefore, been duly complied with.

With respect to the issue regarding the constitu­tionality of
Section 14 of Republic 1199, We do not consider it
necessary to dwell on this subject any more because this Court, in a long line
of decisions, has al­ready declared said section constitutional.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should
be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner-landowner, Manuel Ibaviosa.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., took no apart.

^[1]
Respondent did not file any brief.

^[2]
CAR decision, p. 13,
Brief for Petitioner-Appel­lant.

^[3]
Primero v. CAR, et al., 101 Phil., 675; Mateo de Ramas v. CAR, et al., L-19555, May 29,
1964; Caridad Vda. de Macasaet v. CAR, et al., L-19750, July 17,
1964; Ui­chanco, et al. v. Gutierrez, et al., L20275-79, May 31,
1965; Gamboa v. Pallarca, et
al., L-20407, March 31, 1966; Marta A. Vda. de Cuizon v. Ortiz, et al.,
L-20905, April 30, 1966; Ilusorio, et al. v.
CAR, et al., L-20344, May 16, 1966; Enriquez v. Cabangon,
et al., L-21697, Septem­ber 23, 1966; and Diaz v. Molina, et al., L-21550,
April 27, 1967.