HERMINIGILDO GUEVARA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUDGE JOSE M. SANTOS OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS AND GUILLERMO PONCE, RESPONDENTS.

Normal
0

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

In 1958 Guillermo Ponce filed
24 cases of ejectment against 24 defendants in the Court of Agrarian Relations
for the Fifth Regional District, Sta. Cruz, Laguna. After hearing all the cases
were dismissed except two, namely, Case No. 207 against Herminigildo Guevara
and Case No. 221 against Apolonio Javinia, both of whom were ordered to vacate
their respective landholdings and surrender possession thereof to the
plaintiff. From that joint decision they interposed the present appeal.

The findings of the lower court are
as follows:

“There is ample evidence
showing that Herminigildo Guevarra and Apolonio Javinia caused the death of
twenty-eight (28) and six (6) coconut trees, respectively, in their holdings.
In the case of Guevarra, twenty-eight (28) trees were destroyed when hay was
heaped at the base of the coconut trees and burned, and in the case of Apolonio
Javinia, he failed to exercise caution in plowing his holding to prevent
serious damage to the coconut trees. As lessee-tenants defendants Herminigildo
Guevarra and Apolonio Javinia are obliged to exercise the diligence of a good
father of a family to preserve the improvements existing in their holdings.
Herminigildo Guevarra while denying that he actually burned the hay heaped at
the base of twenty-eight (28) trees, admitted that at the time the hay was
burned he was away from his holding. He may not have had any hand in the
burning of the hay but certainly he should be made accountable for depositing
hay at the base of the trees, an act which would not be done by a reasonably careful
father of a family. It does not require great intelligence to perceive that hay
is highly and unpredictably inflammable and if heaped at the base of young
coconut trees could cause total destruction of the trees.

On the part of Apolonio Javinia, knowing
that young coconut trees were growing in his holding, he plowed too closely to
the six (6) trees causing their death. As a farmer of long standing he should
have known that by plowing too close to the base of the trees his plow would
inevitably cut the trees’ roots. He, therefore, failed to exercise sufficient
caution in his plowing.”

Appellants were tenants-lessees of
certain portions of appellee’s land, and therefore their rights and obligations
are governed by section 43, in relation to Section 50(b) of the Agricultural
Tenancy Act (R.A. No. 1199), which provide:

“SEC. 43. – Rights and Obligations of Tenant-Lessee.
With the creation of the tenancy relationship arising out of the contract
between the landholder-lessor and tenant-lessee, the latter shall have the
right to enter the premises of the land, and to the adequate and peaceful
enjoyment thereof. He shall have the right to work the land according to his
best judgment, provided the manner and method of cultivation and harvest are in
accordance with proven farm practices. Upon termination of the relationship, he
shall be entitled to one-half of the value of the improvements made by him,
provided they are reasonable and adequate to the purposes of the lease.

The tenant-lessee shall pay the
consideration stipulated in the lease contract provided it shall not exceed the
limit fixed In Section forty-six. In the absence of stipulation, the
consideration shall be that established in said Section forty-six. He shall
make proper use of the land and the improvements
thereon and shall be under obligation to cultivate it as a good
father of a family, by doing all the work considered reasonable and necessary
in accordance with proven farm practices. He is likewise obliged to take
reasonable care of the work animals and farm implements that may be delivered
to him by the landholder, in case it is agreed between the parties that the
landholder-lessor shall furnish any or all of them.”

“SEC. 50. 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:

x x x x

(b) When the tenant violates or
fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of
the provisions of this Act: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not
apply when the tenant has substantially complied with the contract or with the
provisions of this Act.”

Appellants take exception to the
application of Section 43 aforequoted, and maintain that from the language of
the complaint as well as of the decision the ground for ejectment relied upon
is section 50(f) of the same Act, which speaks of a case where “the tenant
through negligence permits serious injury to the land which will Impair its
productive capacity.” From this premise appellants argue that the
destruction of coconut trees caused by their negligence did not constitute
serious injury to the land itself, and did not impair its productive capacity,
although the productive capacity of the trees was adversely affected. We find
the reasoning here more sophistic than practical, besides which there is
nothing in the decision appealed from to indicate that the lower court based
its conclusion on the specific section of the law referred to by appellants.
What is clear is that they failed “to exercise the diligence of a good
father of the family to preserve the improvements existing in their
holdings,” and therefore were guilty of a violation of section 43, which
is a statutory ground for dispossession under section 50(b).

Appellants also stress that the
coconut trees that were destroyed were not the subject of the tenancy contract
between the parties, and therefore the lessees were not under any obligation to
take care of them as a good father of the family. Section 43, however, enjoins
the tenant-lessee to make proper use of the land and the improvements thereon,
and to observe proven farm practices in his work of cultivation. Moreover, in
their testimony at the trial both appellants admitted that from the time the
coconut trees were planted on their respective land-holdings they were the ones
who had been taking care of them. They also admitted that after the coconut
trees were destroyed they made no attempt whatsoever to replace them. Such
utter indifference on their part was certainly contrary to standard farm
practices on the part of tenants.

There being no error in the
decision appealed from the case is affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J. B. L.,
Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.