JUAN DELFIN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS AND PATRICIO MERCED, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

Dispossessed of the 3-hectare landholding he has been cultivating
in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya, petitioner, on August 25, 1958, went to the Court of Agrarian Relations
(CAR) for reinstatement and for damages.^[1]
CAR, in a decision dated April 16,
1964, directed principal respondent to reinstate petitioner as
share tenant on the landholding and to pay P500.00 by way of attorneys’ fees,
but declined to award damages by reason of pe­titioner’s “failure to
present sufficient evidence”.

Thwarted in his motion for reconsideration and for reopening of
the case “to prove the amount of the indemnification”, petitioner
appealed direct to this Court.

The refusal to award damages and to reopen the case is thrust
upon us as errors committed below.

1. The measure of damages for dispossession is, inter alia, “the extent of the landholder’s participation
in the harvest”.^[2]
To arrive at the landholder’s participation, the net produce must be
ascertained.  To get the net produce,
expenses are to be deducted from the gross produce.  The threshing fee and reaping fee are such
deductible items.^[3]
Admittedly, “petitioner did not present his evidence on the amount of the
threshing fee and reaping fee”.^[4]
Therefore, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, evidence on damages is
insufficient.  Damages, jurisprudence
teaches, may not be awarded on the basis of speculation, conjecture or guess
work. ^[5]
We perceive no error on this score.

2. Reopening of a case before decision thereon acquires finality,
is matter addressed to the court’s sound discretion.  This tenancy case was pending in the court
below for over 5 years.  The failure to
present evidence on the threshing fee and reaping fee is not ascribed to fraud,
accident, mis­take or excusable neglect. 
Said evidence is not newly discovered. 
It is old forgotten
evidence.  In this factual backdrop,
forgotten evidence is not a ground for reopening or new trial.^[6]
Really, if a case may be reopened from time to time as a party or his lawyer
remembers evidence which was overlooked, then litigation will suffer undue
delay.  Instead of giving relief, court
suit may become intolerable.  Here,
neither equity nor law sanctions reopening.^[7]
With the lower court, we reject it.

Judgment affirmed.  Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, and
Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
CAR Case No. 75-NV-58, Court of Agrarian Relations.

^[2]
Section 27(1), Republic Act 1199.

^[3]
Section 32, Republic Act 1199.

^[4]
Annex E of petition for review before this Court, entitled “Urgent Motion
for Reconsideration and for Reopening of the Case to Prove the Amount of the Indemnification”.

^[5]
Choa Tek Hee vs. Philippine Publishing Company, 34 Phil. 447,
456-460, and cases and authorities cited.

^[6]
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. De Coster,
49 Phil. 574, 583-584; Manila Railroad Company vs. Mitchel, 49 Phil. 801, 808; National Shipyards and
Steel Corporation vs. Asuncion, 54 O.G. No. 24 pp. 6246, 6247; Sy Ha vs.
Galang, G.R. No. L-18513, April 27, 1963.

^[7]
Cf.: David vs. de la Cruz, 54 O.G. No. 35, pp. 8073, 8074.