CRISPULO D. BELMI AND MARIO ALAB, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations,
Fifth Regional District, San Pablo City, dismissing a petition for
reinstatement and damages instituted there at by the herein
petitioners, Crispulo D. Belmi and Mario Alab, against the respondents,
Enrique Zobel, Jose Caisip, Alfredo Vecinal, Apolinario Sanchez,
Numeriano Torres, and Felipe de la Sala. The said decision, likewise,
dismissed the latter’s counterclaim with respect to Mario Alab, but
ordered the ejectment of Crispulo D. Belmi.

The facts, as found by the trial court, are hereunder quoted:

“It was duly established by the evidence that Enrique
Zobel is the owner of Hacienda Bigaa, situated at Calatagan, Batangas;
that the petitioners are the share tenants of said respondent on their
respective landholdings with an area of two hectares, each, more or
less, within the aforementioned Hacienda; that petitioner Crispulo D.
Belmi has been the tenant of respondent Zobel for the past ten (10)
years, while petitioner Mario Alab has been the tenant for more than
twenty (20) years; that the landholding in question are lowland
irrigated rice-fields; that petitioners Crispulo Belmi and Mario Alab
have executed separate contracts of tenancy with respondent Enrique
Zobel on July 16, 1955, which was duly registered on the same date with
the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Calatagan, Batangas (Exhibits
‘1’ and ‘2’); that it is expressly provided in paragraph 7 of said
contracts of tenancy the following ‘Matapos maani ang palay, ang
magsasaka ay ihahanda agad ang linang upang matamnan ng palay uli
(palagad) o maiz sang-ayon sa ipinag-uutos ng maypasaka o ng kanyang
mga kinatawan’; that sometime in March, 1958, all of the tenants of
respondent Enrique Zobel in Sitio Bitin, of Hacienda Bigaa, including
the petitioners herein, were called to a conference by respondent
Enrique Zobel and they were informed by the latter that in accordance
with the recommendation of the Bureau of Soil Conservation, he would
contour-plow sitio Bitin in the month of April, 1958; and that
following the recommendation of the Bureau of Soil Conservation and
under the direct supervision of the experts of said bureau, sitio Bitin
of Hacienda Bigaa was contour-plowed from the latter part of April to
the middle of May of 1958; that as a result of the contcur-plowing, the
original dikes on the landholdimr of petitioners Crispulo D. Belmi and
Mario Alab were destroyed and new ones were reconstructed by the
respondents along the contour lines; that petitioners Crispulo D. Belmi
and Mario Alab were present and witnessed the contour-plowing of their
respective land-holdings, but did not make any protest to such
contour-plowing; that after the contour-plowing of the landholdings of
petitioners Crispulo D. Belmi and Mario Alab and the construction of
the new dikes along the contour lines were completed, said petitioners
were able to plant their rice crops during the regular sessions in
1958, 1969 and 1960; and that Mario Alab was, likewise, able to plant
his second crop of palay called ‘palagad’ in the years 1959 and 1960.

* * * * * * *

“It was clearly
proven by the evidence that from July 16, 1955, the date Crispulo Belmi
executed his contract of tenancy (Exhibit ‘1’), he has not planted the
second palay crop ‘palagad’ in the years 1950, 1956, 1959 and 1960. It
was only in the year 1957 when he was able to plant the second palay
crop ‘palagad’. His excuse for his failure to plant the second palay
crop in 1956 was that his carabao died before the commencement of teh
season for the secong palay crop, but in the yaer 1957, he was able to
plant his second rice crop ‘palagad’ despite the fact that during the
time , he had not acquired a new carabao in replacement of his dead
carabao. He explained that he was able to plant the second palay cerop
in 1957 because he used a rented carabao. * * *He explained that in
1958, he was not able to plant his second crop because of the
countour-plowing of his landholding . ***As to his failure to plant the
second palay crops ‘palagad’ in 1959 ang 1960, no explanation
whatsoever was given by him.

* * * * * * *

“With respect to Mario Alab, the evidence shows that lie has not
violated ‘the provisions of paragraph 7 of his contract of tenancy
(Exhibit ‘2’) for it was clearly proven that he has planted the second
palay crop (palagad) after the harvest of his crop for the regular
season In the years 1956, 1957, 1959 and 1960. * * *.”

Appellant Belmi assigns as error that the Court of
Agrarian Relations failed to consider that under his contract,
paragraph 7, the obligation to plant “palagad” palay or corn after each
harvest was qualified by the phrase “sang-ayon sa pinag-utos ng
maypasaka o ng kanyang kinatawan” (according to the instructions of the
land-holder or his representatives), and that there is no evidence that
any such instructions wers given. Belmi’s conduct, however, contradicts
his allegation, for his own evidence, accepted by the trial court, is
that he did plant “palagad” palay in 1957; and if he did not plant in
1956 and 1958 it was because his carabao died in 1956, and in 1958, the
dikes ,were destroyed by the contour-plowing ordered by respondent
Zobel. It thus appears that this excuse of lack of instructions to
plant a second crop was not advanced in the Agrarian court, and the
fact is confirmed by the Court’s finding that Belmi offered no excuse
for his failure to plant “palagad” in 1959 and 1960. Since the issue of
lack of instructions from respondent is primarily an issue of fact, it
would be unjust to consider it for the first time on appeal, when the
respondents were not given opportunity to meet this defense at the
trial.

It is next contended that Belmi substantially complied with his
obligations. The court below, however, found that there was total
failure to plant “palagad” in 1959 and 1960, in breach of his contract,
apparently because Belmi preferred to make “kaingin” elsewhere, so that
the “substantial performance” plea is without basis.

The next issue is whether or not the tenants are entitled to damages
for the destruction of the old dikes by reason of the contour-plowing
of their landholdings. There is no merit to the claim. The petitioners
show no actual damage or prejudice to them; their claim rather refers
to an amount that would be expended in reconstructing the old dikes,
and which has no bearing at all in the issue because the
contour-plowing, which they did not protest, redounded to the mutual
benefit of themselves and their landlord, and after it was done, the
respondents also constructed new dikes along the contour lines at their
own expense. In fact, petitioners made use of these added improvements
in the subsequent farming years. At any rate, the amount of harvest
after the contour-plowing showed no diminution when compared to those
before the contour-plowing.

The respondents, in turn, aver that the petitioners employed
“sub-tenants”, but the lower court found, and it is not disputed, that
these workers were hired for transplanting of seedlings and reaping of
harvests, which do not form part of a tenant’s labor.^[1]
These additional help, therefore, engaged by the tenants may not
rightly be called “sub-tenants”, as contemplated in Section 24 of
Republic Act No. 1119.

The respondent have, likewise,
failed to show that the lower, court did not base on substantial
evidence its finding that the petitioners were not remiss in following
proven farm practices, and the same should not, therefore, be
disturbed. The mere fact that the expected quantity of harvest, as
visualized and calculated by agricultural experts, is not actually
realized, or that the harvest did not increase, is not a sufficient
basis for concluding that the tenants failed to follow proven farm
practices.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Sec. 38, R.A. No. 1199, enunciates the phases of work constituting labor under Section 32.