GREGORIO RESUENA AND EPIFANIA E. RESUENA, PETITIONERS, VS. MARCIAL BAS, RESPONDENT.

Appeal by certiorari
taken by the spouses Gregorio and Epifania Resuena from the decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations in CAR Case No. 362 (Cebu)
promulgated January 17, 1962 dismissing their petition for the ejectment of Marcial Bas from
their landholding at Pook, Talisay,
Cebu.

Sometime before the filing of the instant case, the petitioners
sought the intervention of the
Agricultural Tenancy Commission to effect the ejectment
of respondent Bas from their land known as Lot No. 10190 of the Talisay-Minglanilla on the ground that they and their
children would cultivate it.  Having failed to comply with the
service of the notice required by sub-section (a), Section 50, R. A. No. 1199,
as amended, said ejectment proceeding was
dismissed.  (p. 7,
Commissioner’s report – Annex “A”).

On May 10, 1960
petitioners wrote a letter in Visayan (Cebuano) dialect to their tenant, Bas, informing him of
their intention to cultivate personally their landholding after the lapse of
one year.  Said notice was served by a
policeman of the place, but as Bas refused to receive it, the same was sent by
registered mail and was received on June
10, 1960.  On or about the
same date petitioners also filed a formal
notice with the Court of Agrarian Relations stating their intention to
cultivate personally their land and attaching thereto a copy of their letter addressed to Bas.  Despite the
lapse of 1 year following service of the notice aforesaid and repeated
demands on Bas for him to return the possession of the landholding, the latter
refused to do so.  Hence,
the present action for ejectment (Car Case No. 362 – Cebu 1961).

In his answer,
respondent admitted the ownership, identity, location and area of the
landholding as well as his tenancy
relation with the petitioners since 1954, and as counterclaim prayed for reliquidation
and moral damages.

After the presentation of petitioners’ evidence on October 9, 1961, the respondent moved
for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the petitioners had failed to
show their capacity to personally work on the land and their bona fide
intention to do so, but the
motion was denied by the hearing commissioner who proceeded to receive
respondent’s evidence.

On January 17, 1962,
the Agrarian Court rendered its decision dismissing petitioners’
case due to their failure to establish their good faith in seeking the
cultivation of the landholding in question through their son Aldrico, and likewise dismissed respondent’s counter-claim
for damages.  Petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration having been denied they took the present appeal by certiorari.

The only issue to be resolved
is whether the petitioners and
their children may eject the respondent tenant and personally cultivate their landholding under the
following provisions of Section
50(a) of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263:

“Causes for the Dispossession of Tenant.-
Any of the following, and no other, shall be sufficient cause for the
dispossession of a tenant from his holdings:

“(a)  The bona fide intention of the
landholder-owner or his relative within the first degree by consanguinity to
cultivate the land himself personally or through the employment of farm
machinery and implements:  Provided,
however, That should the landholder-owner or the aforesaid relative not
cultivate the land himself for at least three years or the landholder-owner and
his successor in interest should
fail to employ mechanical farm implements for a period of at least five years
after dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted in bad
faith and the tenant shall have the right to demand possession of the land and
damages for any loss incurred by him because of said dispossession:  Provided, further, That the landholder-owner
or the aforesaid relative shall,
at least one year but not more than two years prior to the date of his petition
to dispossess the tenant under this subsection, file notice with the court and
shall inform the tenant in writing in a language or dialect known to the latter
of his intention to cultivate the land himself, either personally or through
the employment of mechanical implements: 
Provided, That x x x.”

Petitioners’ contention is that the Court of Agrarian Relations
erred in holding that they failed to establish good faith in seeking the ejectment of their tenant so that they may personally
cultivate their landholding, claiming that the evidence presented below shows that they, together with their two sons, Aldrico
and Rogelio, are qualified to till the land. 
They also contend that the right to personal cultivation is not limited
to male-owners, but extends to female owners (Feliciano vs. CAR, et
al., G. R. No. L-14573,
May 18, 1962; Salcedo & Pascual vs. CAR
& Madlangsakay, G. R. No. L-13274, Jan. 30, 1960; Llanillo
vs. Soriente, CAR case No. 145-Bulacan 1957, April 28,
1958, CAR Journal,
June 1958).

As answer to the foregoing contentions of petitioners We quote the following portions of the appealed decision, which dispose of them clearly and
reasonably:

“The principal question to be determined in this case is, therefore, whether or not
petitioners have established
their bona fide intention, i.e., their good faith, in wanting to
cultivate the land personally, by themselves or thru their children.

“Petitioner Gregorio Resuena is an
employee of the Bohol Land Transportation Company,
with offices at Tagbilaran, Bohol. 
It is not even intimated that he
will participate in any capacity in the proposed cultivation of the
landholding.

“Petitioner Epifania Resuena, Gregorio’s
wife, is a housewife, with residence at Talisay,
Cebu.  Her role in the proposed cultivation will
merely be supervisory in character.

“Petitioner Epifania Resuena told the Court that her son Aldrico
will be the one who will principally cultivate the land personally, with the help of her other son Rogelio and
under her supervision.  Son Aldrico of petitioners is 27 years of age, single, jobless,
and resides in their house in Talisay, Cebu. 
He is out of school and is dependent upon his parents for support.

“Petitioners’ other son, Rogelio, is at present an assistant
property clerk of the Bohol Land Transportation
Company at Tagbilaran, Bohol,
with which firm he has been
connected for about a year.  Before that,
he worked as purchasing agent of the Mindanao Bus Company.  In his present employment, Rogelio is laid off
5 days a month as forced leave, under a rotation system of the transportation
firm where he works.  Rogelio’s wife and
children live with his mother in the latter’s house in Talisay,
Cebu and he commutes -to that
place whenever he is off-duty.  Rogelio proposes to help his brother Aldrico during his off-days.  He admits, however, that during his entire
lifetime of 34 years he has not yet performed any of the phases of labor, such
as plowing and harrowing the riceland and cleaning
and preparing it for planting (Tsn. p. 11, Hearing of
October 9, 1961).

“There is no evidence in the record showing that son Aldrico of petitioners, whom they propose to do the
personal cultivation of the land principally, has any past experience in farm
work or knows how to perform any of the phases of labor, such as plowing,
harrowing, etc., that an average farmer of a riceland normally does.  Neither is there any evidence presented
showing that petitioners or their son Aldrico now own
or possess, or have under their control and disposition, any work animal and
farm implements, which are the indispensable equipments of a farmer.

“The landholding involved in this case is a
riceland, with a seedling capacity of 8 gantas of palay.  Palay is planted therein 2 times a year, the first agricultural
season being from February to June, and the second, from August to
December.  The average produce is from 10 to 11 cavans during the first season
and 12 cavans during the second season.

“It further appears that sometime in 1958, respondent demanded
from petitioners that the 50-50 sharing of crops theretofore prevailing between
them, be changed to 70-30 in his favor, to which petitioners agreed, and from
that time up to the present the sharing of crops has been 70-30 in the tenant’s
favor.

“In the same year 1958, it also appears that petitioner Epifania Resuena went to the
office of the Agricultural Tenancy Commission in Cebu City
to seek the intervention of said office in ejecting respondent from the
aforementioned landholding on the ground of personal cultivation.  When the ATC intervention proved ineffectual,
said petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment
against respondent in this Court, but the case was dismissed for lack of notice
requirements.

“Aside from the parcel of land involved in this case,
petitioners are the owners of 4 other parcels of land located in Talisay, Cebu,
which are all worked under tenancy by other persons whose names do not appear
in the record.  Two of said parcels of
land are situated near the landholding in question, about 1 kilometer away from
petitioners’ house, and the other 2 are situated a little bit farther, or more
than 2 kilometers from said house.

“Petitioners have not advanced any explanation, during the trial, why they have chosen to
cultivate respondent’s landholding, in preference to the 4 other landholdings
of their other tenants.

“Upon the facts and circumstances above set forth, the good
faith of petitioners in wanting their son Aldrico to
cultivate the landholding in question does not appear to have been
established.  Petitioners’ evidence is
devoid of any showing that Aldrico has
ever done any farm work in his life or attempted to learn by actual practice
any of its rudiments.  One does not
become a farmer by merely watching other farmers perform their work, any more
than one can become a pianist or violinist by merely attending a concert where
artists perform on said instruments.  On
top of this, it is not even shown
that Aldrico now possesses or has under his
disposition any work animal and farm implements.  In other words, Aldrico’s
knowledge of farming is nil, and his equipment for farming has yet to be
acquired.  We think no landholder in his
right mind would accept Aldrico to be his tenant now,
under the latter’s present handicaps.

“Moreover, if petitioners were actuated by laudable motives in wanting to have
their son Aldrico work in the land, they would have
prepared him for the job as far back as
1958, when they first tried to oust respondent from his landholding on
the ground of personal cultivation by themselves and their children.  And not only this.  What justifiable reason do petitioners have
in selecting respondent’s landholding in preference to that of their other 4
tenants for their experiment in their son Aldrico’s
personal cultivation? They have advanced none, and probably there isn’t
any.  There is, therefore, some substance to respondent’s claim in his
testimony that the reason why petitioners want to eject him from his landholding, is that petitioners
resented his having demanded and
secured a change of their former
sharing arrangement of 50-50 to 70-30 in his favor in 1958.

“For failure of petitioners to establish their good faith in seeking
the cultivation of the landholding in question through their son Aldrico, their petition for ejectment
should be dismissed.”

In the
case of de Santos vs. Acosta, et al., G. R. No.
L-17564, Jan. 3, 1962, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Jose B.L. Reyes, said in part:

“Whether or not there was such a bona fide intention of the
landowner is largely a question of fact into which this Court cannot inquire unless the Agrarian Court’s
finding in that respect should
lack substantial basis in the evidence on record.”

The present case does not
fall within the exception mentioned in the above-quoted decision.

IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

It is so ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.