VICENTE SALAZAR, PETITIONER VS. THE HON. JOSE M. SANTOS, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, LEONARDO STA. ROMANA, GAUDENCIO VALDEZ, TEOFILO TINIO AND PEDRO GRANETA, RESPO…

In this appeal taken under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, petitioner seeks
the annulment of the decision rendered in CAR Case No. 1379 NE’ 58, which
decision denied his claim, as tenant, against Leonardo Sta. Romana.

The record bears out the following statement of facts: On January 29, 1951,
one of the above respondents, Gaudencio Valdez filed against Vicente Salazar and
other persons, in the Court of Industrial Relations ^[1], TC No. 1647-R-1652-R, a complaint
alleging inter alia that he, Gaudencio Valdez, was the landlord of the realty in
question and that Vicente Salazar (above petitioner) was one of his tenants. The
decision afterwards rendered thereon, in so far as pertinent to the instant case
reads:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the complaints are hereby dismissed and
petitioner Gaudencio Valdez and/or his authorized representative is ordered to
maintain the respondents as tenants on their respective landholdings located at
Kitakita and Caanaoan, San Jose, Nueva Ecija. Said respondents are declared and
deemed to be the lawful tenants on said landholdings with all the rights and
obligations imposed by law.”

Afterwards on March 18, 1954, the same Vicente Salazar filed against Leonardo
Sta. Romana, in the Court of Industrial Relations branch in Nueva Ecija (Case
No. 1965 NE), a complaint for liquidation, stating that he was the tenant of
Sta. Romana in the same holding; and that a dispute had arisen as to the proper
liquidation of the 1953-1954 crop. After a hearing, said court dismissed the
action, without prejudice, holding:

“The tenancy relationship, not having been established, the claim of
petitioner for the liquidation of the crop from 1953-1954 cannot be considered.
* * *

“It is evident, however, from the records of this case that petitioner-tenant
was laboring under a handicap in his efforts to prove his allegations, because
he was not assisted by counsel during the proceedings. While this circumstance
is one for which he and he alone is responsible, this Court * * * is of the
opinion that this present case should be dismissed without prejudice to the
filing of another action against respondent or whomsoever is his real and true
landholder or employer for proper relief. * * *”

Again on July 21, 1958, Vicente Salazar brought against Leonardo Sta. Romana,
Gaudencio Valdez, Teofilo Tinio and Pedro Graneta, in the Court of Agrarian
Relations, Case No. 1379-NE, a petition alleging that he was a tenant of
respondent Leonardo Sta. Romana over the same parcel of land; that he had been a
tenant from 1941 to 1958 when he was forced by the said respondents to leave
the place; that after his ejectment, respondent Valdez took over the possession
of the land; that from 1941 to 1953 and from 1955 to 1958 with him shouldering
1/3 of the transplanting expenses and other items for contribution, his gross
harvest was divided 50-50 between him and the landholder respondents; etc.,
etc.

Above named respondents – except the judge – denied the existence of tenancy
relationship between Salazar and Sta. Romana, as well as the other material
allegations of the petition. And on June 22, 1959, the Hon. Jose M. Santos,
judge, entered judgment dismissing Salazar’s petition. A motion for
reconsideration was overruled. Hence this appeal.

Decision of C.A.R. – In denying Salazar’s status as a tenant of Sta.
Romana, the CA.R. Court said:

“This Court, after a careful analysis of the evidence on record, is more
inclined to give credence to the evidence adduced by the respondent. Several
inconsistencies, were noted from the evidence of the petitioner which could
serve as a basis for discrediting petitioner’s claim. * * *.”

The Court explained its opinion thus:

“Petitioner declared that lie had been dealing with overseer Gaudencio
Valdez, one of the respondents herein, from 1941 up to 1957. This declaration
could not be true because the evidence clearly show that Valdez was appointed by
respondent as overseer only in 1952. Furthermore, while the petitioner had been
trying to portray the fact that he had been dealing often with the
Landholder-respondent, he admitted, by his own testimony, that he had met the
landholder-respondent, only three times, first time in 1941, second time in
1954, when he filed a complaint and the third time was during the hearing of
this instant case.

On the other hand, patrolman Pedro Graneta of the Police Force of San Jose,
Nueva Ecija, one of the respondents, testified among other things, that the
petitioner admitted before the mayor of San Jose, Nueva Ecija in his presence
that the land he was cultivating was given to him by his father-in-law (Emiliano
Feliciano). From this testimony of an apparently disinterested party, we can
safely deduce the fact that respondent-landholder did not contract the services’
of the petitioner as tenant on the landholding in question, but it was only his
father-in-law who appointed him as tenant thereon. Certainly, the father-in-law,
not being the landholder, was not vested with the right to appoint any tenant
thereon. There is no showing that the testimony of this patrolman was motivated
by bias and interest in favor of the respondent-landholder.

Anent the decision previously rendered in CIR CASES No. 1647-R-1652-R, the
same C.A.R. Court held that:

“* * * the decision does not make a definite ruling as to whether or not
tenancy relationship had existed between petitioner and respondent Sta. Romana.
It should be noted that in the case that gave rise to the decision, respondent
Sta. Romana was not a party therein. Although the Court in, that decision had
impliedly recognized the tenancy relationship between Vicente Salazar and the
lessee of the land, Gaudencio Valdez, the effect of that decision would not bind
respondent Sta. Romana because he had not occasion to either deny or admit the
existence of tenancy relationship between him and petitioner Salazar. * * *.

The records of said case show that respondent Sta. Romana had previously
leased the property to lessee Gaudencio Valdez, and while the land was under
lease by him, he (Valdez) filed a petition against the alleged tenants one of
whom was Vicente Salazar. There was no showing that respond ant Sta. Romana had
prior knowledge of the petition filed by Valdez acknowledging petitioner Salazar
as his tenant. The possibility of mistake or error of judgment on the part to
the lessee in acknowledging petitioner Salazar as his tenant or as tenant on the
landholding is not remote considering that when said Valdez took the land under
lease, lie must have only presumed that the petitioner was one of the
tenants.

Another decision which respondent court took into account in arriving at its
conclusion now under review is that rendered in CIR CASE No. 1965-NE (supra).
Said court reasoned out.

“The Court cannot brush aside the significance of the decision rendered by
this Court on June 23, 1956 (Exh. “B”). This decision was the result of the
petition filed by same petitioner, Vicente Salazar against same respondent Sta.
Romana, praying for liquidation of the harvests. The question of tenancy in that
case was squarely placed in issue before the Court, and on the basis of the
evidence presented by the respondent coupled with his denial of the existence of
tenancy relationship, this Court dismissed the petition for failure on the part
of petitioner Salazar to present sufficient proof of the existence of tenancy
relationship. Substantially, the evidence presented by the petitioner then, and
the evidence presented by the petitioner now are the same, except a few minor
additional evidence. This Court cannot find any tenable ground to disturb the
findings and conclusion, contained in said decision rendered in 1956,

In his brief, appellant alleges that the court a quo erred in holding:

1. That the decision in CIR CASE NOS. 1647-R-1652-R did not bind respondent
   Sta. Romana;

2. That respondent Leonardo Sta. Romana should not be made answerable for the
   representations and actuations of his lessees;

3. That there is no tenancy relationship between respondent Sta. Romana and
   petitioner Salazar because this issue had already been affirmatively decided by
   the Court of Industrial Relations in CIR CASE No. 1965-NE;

4. That it cannot brush aside the significance of the decision rendered on
   June 23, 1956 in CIR CASE No. 1965-NE.

Briefly, petitioner argues:

CIR cases Nos. 1647-R-1652-R were filed by Gaudencio Valdez as landholder
seeking authority to eject his tenants, one of whom was Vicente Salazar (who was
named in the said complaints as a tenant). The decision in the said cases
clearly declared petitioner as among the tenants of said landholding”. The said
decision is binding on Sta. Romana although he was not included as party
litigant in the proceedings thereof; because Valdez who brought the action was
his lessee and overseer. Sta. Romana was virtually a privy to the said CIR
CASES. And, judgments are binding on privies because they are identified in
interest by their mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of
property which were involved in the original litigations. (See Am. Jur. 30, sec.
225, pp. 957-958)

As regards the ruling in CIR Cases Nos. 1965-NE, the peculiar circumstance
attendant in the hearings thereof (that petitioner was not duly represented by
counsel), rendered the said decision null and void-so petitioner argues. Even
the Court of Industrial Relations, he said, was cognizant of such defect; and
thus, it dismissed the action without prejudice to the institution of another
complaint against the proper party or parties.

Thus far the contentions of petitioner.

This Court observes at the outset, that the Agrarian Court carefully studied
the evidence presented before it. And as it was in a better position to evaluate
and appreciate it, we do not feel justified to disturb its findings. They do not
appear to be based on unsubstantial evidence.

It is the matter of the bearing of the decision in CIR CASES Nos.
1647-R-1652-R and 1965-NE, to the instant case that we shall presently consider.
It appears to be the main issue.

We see that in the proceedings in CIR CASES Nos. 1647-R-1652-R, Salazar’s
status as a tenant of the landholding in question was not brought up squarely.
As a matter of fact, as may be gleaned from the decision thereof (See Exh.
“G”), only the alleged tenant, one Balingcongan appeared at its hearings and
filed a verbal answer to the complaint; Vicente Salazar neither appeared nor
answered and thus, he was declared in default.

The status of Salazar as tenant was actually set up only in CIR CASE No.
1965-NE. Consequently, the question of tenancy had to be determined, to enable
the said court to uphold his rights against the alleged landholder. Evidence to
prove such allegation was necessary; but the Court found it insufficient. In the
present case, the issue was again debated and additional evidence introduced.
Unfortunately, the resultant overall picture was only this up to the time of his
father-in-law’s death in 1957 (Emiliano Feliciano) Salazar was merely the
latter’s sub-tenant or helper in the farm in question.

The decision in CIR Case No. 1965-NE is not null and void, it having been
rendered by a competent court, after a hearing. The court even tempered justice
with mercy by reserving to the alleged tenant (Salazar) another chance to
enforce a supposed right, which he failed to show. It may even be surmised that
the said court was too kind not to have just dismissed the case for lack of
evidence to establish the tenancy relationship.

Finally, there is no legal principle to prevent the lower court from
regarding the CIR Case No. 1964-NE decision as material and relevant to the
instant litigation. Although concededly it is not res adjudicata, if at
least furnished additional material to enlighten the court in correctly
assessing the factual situation.

In view of the preceding considerations, finding no prejudicial error in
the decision under review, we must, and hereby affirm it with costs against
petitioner. So ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes,
Dizon, Regala and Makalintal JJ., concur.

---

^[1] At that time tenancy cases were handled by CIR.