ADRIANO AMANTE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 6TH REGIONAL DISTRICT, AND SERGIO PAMA, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review of an order
and a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations dated March 20 and 31, 1963,
respectively.

Petitioner Adriano Amante is the owner of a small tract of land in
San
Isidro, Buhi,
Camarines Sur, which was
under cultivation by respondent Sergio Pama, as
tenant. On June 6, 1962, Pama filed with the Sixth
Regional District of the Court of Agrarian Relations,stationed in Naga City,
a petition for reliquidation of the harvest from June,
1956 to April, 1960, and for reinstatement, as well as damages, upon the ground
that he had not received his rightful share as tenant for the aforementioned
period of time and that, on May 28, 1962, petitioner and his wife, with the
assistance of Senador Amante, had forcibly ousted him from said land, which,
thereafter, was cultivated by the aforementioned Senador Amante and one Dionisio Anapola.

In his answer, dated
June 20,
1962,
petitioner alleged that, pursuant to a compromise agreement, entered into
between them, on December 14,
1960, he
would be entitled to take possession of the property after the lapse of one (1)
year from June, 1961, unless he could not personally cultivate it. By an order
dated July 3,
1962, the
case was set for hearing in Buhi, Camarines Sur, on September 18,
1962.

The day immediately preceding the
latter, petitioner’s counsel filed with the lower court, in Naga City, a motion for postponement of the hearing, upon
the ground that his services had been contracted on that very date (September
17, 1962), and that he could not attend the hearing in Buhi, the next day, because he would then appear, at the
hearing of a land registration case, before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, in Naga City. When the present case was called for hearing in Buhi, on September
18, neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared. Upon the other hand,
Pama and his counsel objected to the aforementioned
postponement, which was denied. Thereupon, Pama
introduced his evidence and submitted the case for decision on the merits.

On October 12, petitioner moved
for a reconsideration of the order of September 18,
denying his motion for postponement, but said reconsideration was denied on
October 24. A second motion for reconsideration, filed on November 18, had the
same fate, on December 10. Three (3) days later, petitioner moved for the
approval of the compromise agreement relied upon in his answer, but the motion
was denied on March 20, 1963 . Soon later, or on March 31, the
lower court rendered a decision directing the reinstatement of respondent Pama, but denying his petition for a reliquidation of the harvest and damages, upon the ground of
insufficiency of the evidence thereon. A motion to set aside said order of March
20 and this decision, dated March 31, having been denied, petitioner filed the
present petition for review by certiorari of said order and decision of the
lower court.

We find said petition to be
devoid of merit for:

1. Notice of the order setting
this case for hearing in Buhi, Camarines Sur, on September 18,
1962, was
served upon petitioner herein on July 17,
1962.
Yet, he did not engage the services of counsel until (2) months later, or on the
eve of the scheduled hearing in Buhi. Moreover,
motions for postponement are addressed to the sound discretion of the lower
court, the exercise of which will not be interfered with by appellate courts in
the absence of abuse of authority.^[1] In the case at bar there is
no such abuse, because the reason why counsel for the petitioner could not
appear at the hearing was the latter’ s unjustified inaction and negligence
during the aforementioned period of time.

2. Petitioner’s defense, on the
merits, is anchored on the compromise agreement dated December 14,
1960. It
should be noted, however, that the same was not submitted to the Court of
Agrarian Relations for approval until December 13,
1962, or
over six (6) months after the forcible ejectment of
respondent Pama and the filing of this case, and that
said approval was denied by the lower court. In fact, even if judicially
approved, a writ of execution is necessary for its enforcement.^[2] Then, too, “the expiration
of the period of contract of tenancy as fixed by the parties xxx does not of
itself extinguish the relationship” between landlord and tenant.^[3] Again, a landlord cannot
take the law into his hands, by forcibly ejecting the tenants upon the alleged
expiration of their contract. The landlord is required by law, if the tenant
does not voluntarily abandon the land or turn it over to him, to ask the court
for an order of dispossession of the tenant. The law^[4] explicitly ordains that:

“x x
x Notwithstanding any agreement or provision of law as
to the period or future surrender of the land, in all cases where land devoted
to any agricultural purpose is held under any system of tenancy, the tenant
shall not be dispossessed of his holdings by the landholder except for any of
the causes hereinafter enumerated and only after the same has been proved before
and the dispossession is authorized by the court.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from
should be, as it is hereby affirmed, and, considering that this appeal by
certiorari is manifestly frivolous, petitioner and his counsel are hereby
sentenced to pay, jointly and severally, treble costs.^[5]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Barrera, J., on
leave.

^[1] Veloso
vs. Ang Seng Teng (1903) 2 Phil. 622; Miranda vs. Municipality of Navotas (1903), 2 Phil. 667; Fabillo vs. Tiongko, 43 Phil. 317;
Sunico vs. Villapando, 14
Phil. 352; Linis vs. Rovira,
61 Phil. 138; Dimayuga vs. Dimayuga, 96 Phil. 859; Salva vs.
Palacio, (1952) 90 Phil. 731; Bautista vs. Municipal
Council of Mandaluyong, (1956), 98 Phil, 409; Salvador
vs. Malabayabas, G.R. No. L-11344,
May 15,
1959; Adan
vs. Pantalla, G.R. No. L-12399,
May 29,
1959; Quimson vs. Suarez (1924) 45 Phil. 901; National Lumber
& Hardware Co. vs. Velasco, G.R. No. L-14109,
Jan. 30,
1960; Ortega vs. Pacho (1956), 98 Phil. 618; Villar
vs. de Javier Paderanga (1955), 97 Phil. 604; Siojo vs. Tecson (1951), 88 Phil.
531; De Leon vs. Cruz (1952), 92 Phil. 403; Prieto vs.
Cabrera, G.R. No. L-12862,
May 29,
1959; De Octube vs. Asuncion, G.R.
No. L-15813,
Dec. 29,
1960;
Martir vs. Jalandoni,G.R. No. L-12870,
March 25,
1960; Inocando vs. Inocando, G.R.
No. L-16030, November 29,
1960, 58 O. G. 6868; Montelibano vs. Benares, G.R.
No. L-18824,
February 28,
1958;
Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-11724; Vaswani vs. Tarachand Bros. G.R. No. L-15800,
December 29,
1960; Sarreal vs. Tan, February 19,
1953, G.R. no. L-5429, 49 O.
G. 499; Republic vs. Gumayan, G.R. No. L-16780,
May 31,
1961;
Panti vs. Provincial Board of Catanduanes, G.R. No. L-14047,
January 30,
1960; Torrifiel vs. Toriano, 91 Phil.
(1952) 209; Blue Bar Coconut Co. vs. Hilario, G.R.
No. L-12699, May 31,
1961; Sandejas vs. Robles (1948), 81 Phil. 421; Hap Hong Hardware
Co. vs. Phil. Milling Co. G. R. No. L-16778, May 23, 1961 .

^[2] Tria
v. Lirag, G.R. No. L-13994, April
29, 1961 .

^[3] Section 9 of Republic Act No.
1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263.

^[4] Section 49 of Republic Act No.
1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263.

^[5]Rule 142,
Section 3, Rules of Court.