ELPIDIO MARCELO, PETITIONER, VS. REYNALDO MATIAS, PEDRO MANGAYAO, HONORIO GONZALES AND THE HON. JOSE M. SANTOS, PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, SECOND REGIONAL DIS…

In this appeal from a decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations, Second Regional District, Cabanatuan City,
petitioner-landowner assails the constitutionality of section 14 of Republic
Act No. 1199 which expressly grants a tenant the right “to change the
tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to the leasehold tenancy and vice
versa and from one crop-sharing arrangement to another of the share
tenancy.”

Respondents-tenants Pedro Mangayao,
Reynaldo Matias and Honorio
Gonzales, taking advantage of section 14, filed on May 22, 1962 a petition (CAR
Case No. 3012-NE’62) before respondent court praying, among others, that the
tenancy relationship between them and herein petitioner be changed from sharing
system to leasehold and that the corresponding rentals be fixed by that court
for the use of
their vegetable-bearing landholdings. 
Instead of immediately filing his answer, petitioner-landowner first
filed before the same court an action for ejectment
against Reynaldo Matias (CAR Case No. 2988-NE’62) on
the ground that the latter harvested three (3) bunches of bananas worth P5.00,
more or less, without the knowledge and consent of the landowner or his
overseer and that said tenant failed to deliver the landowner’s share of the harvest.

Meanwhile, in resisting respondents-tenants’ petition to adopt
the leasehold system, petitioner-landowner also sought the ejectment
of the two other tenants for their alleged failure to deliver to him
(landowner) his share of some past harvests. 
On October 30,1962 respondent court rendered a joint decision on the two
related petitions filed before it, dismissing the ejectment
case against Reynaldo Matias and – after upholding
the constitutionality of section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 – declaring the
relationship between respondents-tenants and petitioner-landowner to be one of
leasehold tenancy “effective with the first agricultural year for corn,
string beans and eggplants in 1964 and with the month of December 1963 as to
bananas.”  The respondent court
likewise fixed the correspond­ing rentals to be paid by respondents-tenants on
their landholding.  From the aforesaid
joint decision this petition for review was filed.  No other issue except the constitutionality
of section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 is raised here.

The issue is not new.  In
similar previous cases^[1]
we have consistently upheld the validity of the questioned section.  As observed lately by this court in Del
Rosario v. De los Santos,
L-20589-90, March 21, 1968:

“It thus
appears indisputable that reinforced by the protection to labor and social
justice provisions of the Constitution, the attribute of police power justifies
the enactment of statutory provisions of this character.  That public interest would be served
by governmental measures intended to aid the economically under-privileged is
apparent to all.  Nor is the means relied
upon to attain such a valid objective unreasonable or oppressive.  Considering that in the adjustment or
reconciliation of the conflicting claims to property and state authority, it
suffices that there be a rational basis for the legislative act, it is easily
understandable why, from the enactment of the Constitution with its avowed
concern for those who have less in life, the constitutionality of such legislation
has been repeatedly upheld.”

In the instant case no new argument has been advanced which would
give us reason to override our previous decisions.

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations
is affirmed.  No costs in this instance.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., on official leave.

^[1]
De Ramas v. CAR, L-19555, May 29, 1964; Macasaet
v. CAR, L-19750, July 17, 1964; Uichangco v.
Gutierrez, L-20275-79, May 31, 1965; Gamboa v.
Pallarca, L-20407, March 31, 1966; Quizon v. Ortiz,
L-20905, April 30, 1966; Ilusorio vs. CAR,
L-20344, May 16, 1966; Reyes v. Santos, L-19961,
September 14, 1966; Tinio v. Macapagal, L-21012, February 25, 1967; Diaz v.
Molina, L-21550, April 27, 1967; De la
Paz vs. CAR, L-21488, Oct. 14, 1968.