FRANCISCO EVANADO AND REBECCA ARBIAS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. RAMON BLANCO, ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS AND SIMEON EVANADO AND CATALINA SALES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision of respondent Court of Agrarian Relations in case CAR. No. 890-Iloilo.

Petitioners here, the spouses Francisco Evanado and Rebecca Arbias
were the owners of a parcel of land in San Miguel, Iloilo, containing
an area of about seven (7) hectares, five (5) of which were planted to
palay and the remainder to corn and other crops. On August 15, 1953 the
said owners entered into a written agreement with herein respondents,
the spouses Simeon Evanado and Calalina Sales, granting to the latter
the leasehold tenancy of the land for a yearly rental of P200.00 and 7
cavans of palay with respect to the riceland, P30.00 for the buri palms
and one half of the mongo crop. Simeon Evanado is Francisco’s father
and Catalina Sales his stepmother.

On July 25, 1959 Simeon Evanado and his wife filed a petition with
the court a quo for liquidation of the annual crops for the years
1955-1956, 1956-1957 and 1957-1968, alleging that the respondents
(petitioners here) took all the produce during the entire period, of
which their share amounted to 249 cavans. They therefore prayed that
said respondents be ordered to deliver to them the said quantity of
palay or its equivalent value. The respondents below challenged the
jurisdiction of the trial court on the ground that the contract between
the parties was not one of leasehold tenancy but of simple lease under
the Civil Code and that the cause of action was for simple recovery of
the rents agreed upon. They contended that Simeon Evanado was already
an old man of 71 years and therefore could not by himself cultivate the
land under lease; that he had a land of his own with an area of 4
hectares; and that as a matter of fact he left the cultivation of the
leased property to another person, one by the name of Exequiel Sencil,
who was in no way related to him. The court, however, assumed
jurisdiction, holding that the contract between the parties was one of
leasehold tenancy and that Exequiel Sencil was a member of the tenants’
immediate farm household, employed as domestic help (harga) therein.
This is a finding of fact which, upon the evidence, we have no reason
to reverse. On the question of jurisdiction, therefore, no error has
been committed.

The court found that Simeon Evanado and his wife received the crops
for the years 1955-1956 and 1956-1957 and paid the corresponding rents
of P200.00 in cash and 7 cavans of palay for each of those two years,
but did not payment for 1957-1958 because the entire crop for that year
was taken by the landowners. In computing the amount Hie leasehold
tenants were entitled to recover, the court declared that the rents
agreed upon were excessive and illegal, since the land was of the
second class, the average yearly produce thereof being 45 bultos or 90
cavans of palay, for which the law authorizes a rental of only 25% (R.
A. No. 1199 Section 46[a]). On the basis of P7.00 a cavan, the value
which the court placed on the palay, such rent amounted to only
P157.50, resulting in an overpayment of P183.00 for the years 1956 and
1957. Inasmuch as, according to the trial court, the respondents
(petitioners here) received the entire crop for 1957-1958, valued at
P630.00, and were in turn entitled to the rent for that year in the sum
of P157.50, plus P30.00 for the buri palms, they were ordered to pay
the petitioners the total sum of P625.00.

In the instant petition for review it is pointed out that the trial
court erred in its computation. We believe the point is well taken. The
finding that the produce of the land was 45 bultos or 90 cavans of
palay is evidently based on the testimony of Francisco Evanado himself.
But his testimony referred to the net produce of the land not to the
gross produce, and even then he said that the crop for the year
1957-1958 was 55 bultos or 110 cavans. Section 46 (a) of R. A. 1199
fixes the rental in case of leasehold tenancy of riceland not on the
basis of the net but of the gross produce, first class land being that
which yields more than 40 cavans per hectare, and second class, that
which yields 40 cavans or less. Indeed in the very petition itself
filed by the leasehold tenants below it is alleged that the yearly net
produce of the land in question was 130 cavans for the first year, and
90 cavans for the second and 110 cavans for the third. Since both the
petition and the evidence of the petitioners themselves (respondents
here), refer to the net produce of the land and since there is no
showing at all as to the gross produce, we find no justification for
the trial court’s conclusion that the rentals agreed upon by the
parties are excessive and illegal. The presumption of legality should
stand under the circumstances, and petitioners before us should not be
held liable for the supposed overpayment for the years 1955-56 and
1956-57.

On the other hand, said petitioners appropriated the entire net
produce of 90 cavans for 1957-58 valued, according to the trial court,
at P630.00. From this amount should be deducted the corresponding rent
of P200.00 and 7 cavans of palay, or P249.00, plus P30.00 for the buri
palms, leaving a balance of P351.00 due to the leasehold tenants,
Simeon Evanado and Catalina Sales. The judgment sought to be reviewed
should be modified in this sense.

Concerning the award of P200.00 by way of attorney’s fees, we find
it to be reasonable, considering that said respondents were compelled
to litigate to be able to assert their rights.

With the modification above indicated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, without pronouncements as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, and Regala, JJ., concur.