G.R. No. L-17649. July 31, 1963
ESTEBAN TAWATAO AND LOURDES DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONERS, VS. EUGENIO GARCIA, VIRGINIA DE VERA AND HON. LEON P. DACAYO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS (FIRST REGIONAL DIST…
PADILLA, J.:
judgment rendered by the Court of Agrarian Relations,
Lingayen, Pangasinan, in CAR case No. 539-P-58, and for
a writ of preliminary injunction, under section 7 of Rule
67, Rules of Court, to preserve the status quo of the parties
in relation to the litigated matter pending these proceedings.
On 14 February 1958 Eugenio Garcia and Virginia de
Vera filed a petition (Annex A) in the Court of Agrarian
Relations, First Regional District, Lingayen, Pangasinan,
alleging that since 1935 they have been the tenants of a
parcel of nipa land containing an area of one-half hectare
situate in the barrio of Camaley, municipality of Binmaley, province of Pangasinan, owned by the spouses
Juliana Claudio and Pablo Tawatao, residents of Muñoz,
Nueva Ecija; that in 1950 they agreed to convert the nipa
land into a fishpond, the expenses for such conversion to
be shared equally by both parties, as well as the products
of the fishpond; that for the construction of the fishpond
the then petitioners, now respondents, spent the sum of
P830, P330 of which was their own money and P500, a
loan from one Lucio Ramirez; that after the construction
of the fishpond Juliana Claudio and Pablo Tawatao failed
and refused to pay their share of P400 despite demands
for payment; that up to February 1955 they had divided
share and share alike bangus and other kind of fishes
caught in the fishpond; that in February 1955, for and in
consideration of the sum of P700, Juliana Claudio and
Pablo Tawatao leased for two years the fishpond to Salvador Bautista of Camaley, Binmaley, Pangasinan, in
spite of the objection by the then petitioners, now respondents, who claimed that the lease would deprive them of
their annual share amounting to P350; that sometime in
1956 the owners of the fishpond donated it propter nuptias to their children Esteban Tawatao and Lourdes del Rosario,
the herein petitioners, who immediately took possession
thereof, introduced improvements and refused to restore
possession thereof to then petitioners, respondents herein,
despite demands; and that as a result of their dispossession
from the fishpond they suffered losses and damages. The
then petitioners prayed that they be reinstated as tenants
of the fishpond, be paid the amount of P400, the share of
the former owners of the parcel of nipa land in the expenses incurred in converting it into fishpond, P750 as
their share in the products of the fishpond for the years
from 1955 to 1957, P300 as attorney’s fees and incidental
expenses and P1,300 as moral, nominal and exemplary
damages.
In their answer the herein petitioners, then respondents, and their
co-respondents, predecessors-in-interest, denied each and every
material allegation of the petition (CAR case No. 539-P-58) and claimed
that in 1955 the then petitioners, now respondents, Garcia and de Vera
left the fishpond; that Juliana Claudio and Pablo Tawatao leased it to
Salvador Bautista and after the termination of the lease in 1956
donated it to their son Esteban Tawatao, herein petitioner, in
consideration of his marriage to Lourdes del Rosario. By way of
counterclaim the then respondents claimed that the then petitioners
Garcia and de Vera failed and refused to render an accounting for the
harvests in the agricultural years 1953-1955 amounting to P450; that to
defend themselves against the complaint of the then petitioners they
paid P250 for attorney’s fees; and that they suffered moral and
exemplary damages in the sum of P1,500.
Notwithstanding the notice of the date and time of
hearing duly served upon and received by counsel of the
then respondents, their counsel failed to appear. Thereupon, the then petitioners moved to be allowed to present
their evidence and the motion was granted.
The evidence presented by the then petitioners substantially supports the allegations of their petition.
After trial, the Court of Agrarian Relations rendered
judgment, as follows:
Wherefore,
the respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate the petitioners as
tenants in the landholding-fishpond located (situate) at Bo. Camaley,
Binmaley, Pangasinan, having an area of one-half (1/2) hectare, more or
less, and to maintain them in the peaceful possession and cultivation
of the same. The respondents are likewise ordered to pay to the
petitioners the amount of P1,200.00 as damages for unlawful
dispossession and P300.00 yearly from 1959 until the petitioners are
actually reinstated. (Annex B)
In their petition the herein petitioners contend that
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No.
2263, that governs the relations between landholders and
tenants under both the share and leasehold tenancies of agricultural lands for cultivation does not apply to fishponds,
for in the latter there is no cultivation of the land to
speak of, insist that section 42 of Republic Act No. 1199
and section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267 do not apply to
fishponds and residential lots but to agricultural lands
only subject to cultivation. Corollary to the issue of
lack of jurisdiction, the herein petitioners also maintain
that the basis of the complaint or petition is not a contract of share or leasehold tenancy but at most is one of
partnership under article 1767 of the Civil Code.
In their answer to the petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, the herein respondents Garcia and
de Vera aver that their complaint is not predicated merely
upon a contract of conversion of the nipa land into fishpond and recovery of half of the amount spent for such
conversion as agreed upon, but one for reinstatement under
section 21, Republic Act No. 1199, as tenants of the herein
petitioners, and damages arising from their unlawful dispossession from and of the fishpond; that it is correct that
they never entered into a contract of tenancy with the
petitioners herein, but the fact is that there was an implied
tenancy relation between them from 1935 to 1955 which
was disturbed when in 1955 the fishpond was leased and
in 1956 donated to the herein petitioners, a donation or
transfer that cannot deprive the respondent tenants of
their right to continue as such. Only for causes enumerated by law and only after the same shall have been
proved before and the dispossession shall have been
authorized by the court may a tenant be dispossessed of
his holding.[1]
The answer of the judge who presided over the respondent Court is to the same effect on the issue of jurisdiction.
The point to determine in this case is, are the herein
respondents Eugenio Garcia and Virginia de Vera entitled
to reinstatement in the fishpond under section 27 of
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No.
2263, and damages?
The petitioners’ argument that Republic Act No. 1199,
as amended, applies only to agricultural lands fit for cultivation and not to fishponds, because by nature the latter
are not susceptible of cultivation, is without merit, for
section 46 of said Act, as amended, which partly provides
that—
(c) The consideration for the use of sugar lands, fishponds, saltbeds
and of lands devoted to the raising of livestock shall be governed by
stipulation between the parties.
is clear and needs no interpretation. The law does not
require actual cultivation of the land so that disputes
affecting tenancy relation involving a landholding fall
under it. While the above section provides that the consideration for the use of fishpond shall be governed by
stipulation between the parties yet the same does not strip
the Court of Agrarian Relations of its jurisdiction over
tenancy disputes involving such kind of landholding.
Furthermore, this Court already has held that land in
which fish is produced is classified as agricultural land
and that the words “real estate” include fisheries as used
in article 55 of the Hague Conventions of 1907.[2] In this
case involving, as it does, unlawful dispossession of the
respondent tenants from their fishpond holding upon no
legal cause, as provided for in sections 27, 49 and 50 of
Republic Act No. 1199 as amended by Republic Act No.
2263, the Court of Agrarian Relations has exclusive jurisdiction to order the reinstatement and payment of damages
for losses suffered by them, and for that reason the proceedings and the judgment rendered in this case being in
accordance with law are valid and binding.
The
claim that because “they (herein petitioners) have been in actual
possession of the land for a period of two years prior to the filing of
the complaint by the respondent spouses,” “the respondent court has no
jurisdiction over the case,” is without merit, because such
jurisdiction over the subject matter does not depend on whether or not
at the time of the filing of the proper action there was a tenancy
relation between the parties. Neither does the bringing of the action
three years after the respondent tenants had been unlawfully
dispossessed of the fishpond negate the existence of tenancy relation
nor does it constitute or amount to a waiver of the right to
reinstatement, for Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, does not provide
for a prescriptive period within which to file a complaint for unlawful
dispossession.
The writ prayed for is denied, with costs against the
petitioners.
Bengzon, C. J., Bautista, Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal,
JJ. concur.
[1] Sections 27, 49 and 50 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263.
[2] Molina vs. Rafferty, 38 Phil. 167 and Banaag vs. Singson Encarnacion, 83 Phil., 325; 46 Off. Gaz. 4895.