MARTIN CAÑADA AND ISMAEL CAÑADA, PETITIONERS VS. CANDIDO RUBI, ET AL., AND COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, SEVENTH REGIONAL DISTRICT, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENTS.

In a twice amended petition filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations,
Martin Cañada and his son Ismael prayed for reliquidation of crops and
reinstatement in their landholdings, plus damages alleged to have been suffered
by them as a consequence of their dispossession. Named respondents in the
petition were Candido Rubi, Rosario Juarez, Mercedes Rodriguez, Pablo Rubi,
Rubin Rubi, Antonio Rubi, Alfonso Torres, Basilio Maranga, Emiliano Maranga,
Quirico Tampos and Juan Navarez, the six first named being alleged to be the
landholders, while the others (except Antonio Torres, the overseer) are the
incumbent tenants working on the landholdings from which petitioners claim to
have been ejected. The petition in substance alleged that petitioners were the
tenants working on five parcels of land located at Sibonga, Cebu, belonging to
the respondent landholders; that one parcel is planted to rice with a seedling
capacity of 4-1/2 gantas of palay, while the other four are planted to corn with
the aggregate seedling capacity of 6 to 7 gantas ; that petitioners have been
tenants in the landholdings for over 30 years, the sharing agreement in the
harvest being 50-50 between them and the respondent landholders; that respondent
Candido Rubi, in conspiracy with the other respondents and without justifiable
cause, prevented petitioners from entering and working on the landholdings on
April 11, 1958, as a consequence of which petitioners suffered both actual and
moral damages.

Answering the petition, the respondents Candido Rubi, Alfonso Torres, Basilio
Maranga, Emiliano Maranga, Quirico Tampos, Juan Navarez and Manuel Alcomendras,
thru counsel, claimed that respondent Candido Rubi is the sole and exclusive
owner of the parcels of land in question;, that Martin Cañada, father of the
other petitioner, Ismael Cañada, was merely an “encargado” or overseer and for
this reason had no tenancy relationship with respondent Candido Rubi; that said
Martin Cañada was dismissed for dishonesty, negligence, high-handed and
oppressive treatment of the tenants working on respondent Candido Rubi’s
properties; that if petitioners worked as tenants of the landholdings in
question, they did so surreptitiously or through the connivance of one of the
respondents, Antonio Rubi; that as such tenants they should be ejected for
negligence, incapacity, dishonesty and willful violation of their duties under
the Tenancy Law; that the Agrarian Court has no jurisdiction to hear and
determine the case; and that there is collusion between the petitioners and some
of the respondents. As counterclaim, they allege that they suffered damages as a
result of the filing of the malicious and unfounded petition.

Respondent Antonio Rubi in a separate answer alleged that he appointed
petitioner Martin Cañada as “overseer” of all the common properties of the
respondents when he was acting administrator thereof from 1953 to 1955; that he
has always regarded the petitioners with trust and confidence and has no
objection to their being retained as tenants of the properties in question. For
relief, he prayed that the petition be dismissed insofar as he is concerned.

The other respondents failed to file their answers as a consequence of which
they were declared in default by order of the Agrarian Court.

At the trial, petitioners presented five witnesses, including the respondents
Rosario Juarez and Alfonso Torres. For the respondents, Candido Rubi, Manuel
Alcomendras, Erniliano Maranga and Juan Navarez testified. Respondent Antonio
Rubi also testified.

From the evidence presented, the lower court found that petitioners failed to
establish their alleged tenancy of the landholdings claimed by them—petitioner
Ismael Cañada even admitting that he was not a tenant but was only helping his
father—and that even assuming that petitioner Martin Cañada was really a tenant,
he has nevertheless been guilty of acts which constitute valid grounds for his
dispossession. In view of said findings, the court below on April 2, 1959
rendered a decision, dismissing the petition. Hence, the present petition for
review.

Petitioners insist that their tenancy of the landholdings in question has
been sufficiently established by the evidence presented by them, the respondents
Antonio Rubi and Rosario Juarez even admitting said tenancy. The court below,
however, observed in the decision complained of that there exists a serious
controversy among the Rubi brothers and sisters concerning the ownership of the
parcels of land in question, Antonio Rubi and his sister Rosario Juarez claiming
co-ownership, while Candido Rubi asserts that they are his own exclusive
property. Sustaining the charge of collusion between the petitioners and the
respondent Antonio Rubi in an apparent attempt of the latter to wrangle a court
settlement of his dispute with respondent Candido Rubi, the Agrarian Court also
found that the interest of said respondent Antonio Rubi in the case was inspired
by personal feelings of animosity. Considering further that he and respondent
Rosario Juarez were not in possession of the property, the lower court did not
take their admission that petitioners were their tenants at its face value.

Upon the other hand, petitioner Ismael Cañada himself admitted that he was
not a tenant but that he used to help his father, the other petitioner, who, on
his part, admitted that the landholdings he claims to have been dispossessed of
were worked by hired laborers and his children and that he worked on them when
his children were not feeling- well. This admission of the petitioner Martin
Cañada, said the lower court, “corroborates the version of respondent Candido
Rubi, Manuel Alcomendras, Basilio Maranga and others to the effect that during
the time that Antonio Rubi was administrator of the properties, Martin Cañada
grabbed the landholdings of other tenants and had the same worked by hired
laborers and some of his children.” The court, therefore, concluded— and we
think correctly—that the dispossession by petitioner Martin Cañada of old
tenants on the landholdings in question and his subsequent cultivation thereof
by means of hired laborers or the labor of his children did not confer upon him
any legal right to work the land as tenant and enjoy the protection of security
of tenure under the Tenancy Law.

Petitioners assail the findings of the court below on the ground that the
evidence as testified to by their witnesses is more credible than the evidence
presented by the respondents. It is well-settled, however, that in the absence
of compelling reasons, the determination of the question of credibility is best
left to the trial judge who had the advantage of hearing the parties testify and
of observing their demeanor on the witness stand. In this case, we are not
satisfied that sufficient and valid reasons have been shown to justify a
reversal of the findings of the court below.

Petitioners make capital of the letter Exh. “G”, written by respondent
Candido Rubi and addressed to Antonio Rubi as administrator of the estate, with
the instruction that the lands cultivated by Martin Cañada must be taken and
given to “the deserving persons.” It is argued that Martin Cañada was a tenant
because respondent Candido Rubi admitted that there were lands cultivated by the
former. It is, however, precisely the theory of the respondent Candido Rubi that
Martin Cañada, without his knowledge and consent, grabbed the landhoidings of
the former tenants thereof and gave them to his son and other persons to
cultivate. Said respondent Candido Rubi testified that by the term “deserving
persons” he meant the former tenants ejected by Martin Cañada. Needless to add,
petitioners cannot be considered tenants simply because they actually worked as
tenants on the landhoidings in question. Tenancy relationship can only be
created with consent of the landholder through lawful means and not by
imposition or usurpation.

Petitioners also contend that even if Martin Cañada grabbed the parcels of
land in question from other tenants, he still could not be ejected from them
because the act occurred in 1953, or before the passage of Republic Act No.
1199. The contention is untenable. The unauthorized act of Martin Cañada of
grabbing and taking over the landhoidings of other tenants in 1953 was already
an illegal act under the laws then in force. Thus, section 1 of Com. Act No.
461, as amended, provided that any agreement or provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, a tenant shall not be dispossessed of his holdings except for
any of the causes mentioned in Sec. 19 of Act No. 4054, as amended, or for any
just cause, and without the approval of a representative of the Department of
Justice duly authorized for the purpose.

It should here be also stated that the Agrarian Court likewise found that
even assuming that petitioner Martin Cañada was a tenant, he cannot now be
ordered reinstated because as established by the evidence he had been guilty of
acts which constitute valid grounds for his dispossession; for while the law
enjoins him to personally work the land himself or with the aid of the members
of his family, he merely hired laborers to work for him. This finding is factual
and there being no showing that it is not supported by substantial evidence, the
same is binding and conclusive upon this Court.

In view of the foregoing, the decision complained of is hereby affirmed, but
without special pronouncement as to costs, petitioners having been allowed to
litigate as paupers in this Court.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Decision affirmed.