ALFREDO DIAZ, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. LUIS MOLINA, NARCISO MADERIA AND THE HONORABLE JOSE M. SANTOS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, SECOND REGIONAL DISTRI…

This is a petition for certiorari
to review the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Second Regional
District, Cabanatuan
City, in four cases involving
tenancy relationship.  The parties in
these cases being the same and the issues involved therein being interrelated,
by agreement of the parties, these cases were consolidated and were decided in
a single decision.

Respondents-appellees, Luis Molina and Narciso Maderia, hereinafter
referred to as tenants, are the te­nants of petitioner-appellant,
Alfredo Diaz, hereinafter referred to as landholder, on separate parcels
of ricelands situated in the Barrio of Bucot, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija, with an area of two
and one-half hectares each, more or less. 
Respondent Judge Jose M. Santos of the Court of Agrarian Relations is
herein referred to as CAR.

The record shows that prior to the agricultural year 1961-1962,
the landholder contributed to the production of the lands by defraying the
expenses for transplanting, while the tenants contributed their labor, work
animals, farm implements and expenses for final harrowing; and they divided the
net produce under the sharing ratio of fifty-fifty.  The tenancy contract between the parties was
not in writing.

Sometime before March
20, 1961, the tenants notified the landholder of their desire to
change their tenancy relationship from one of crop sharing to that of
leasehold, effective the agricultural year 1961-1962 which admittedly started
in the last week of May, 1961.  In
consonance with their desire to change their tenancy system beginning with the
agricultural year 1961-1962, the tenants undertook to contribute all the items
of expenses for production, with the landholder contributing only the
lands.  The landholder refused to accede
to the desire of the tenants.  So in that
month of March, 1961, the tenants each filed a petition before the Court of
Agrarian Relations praying approval of the change of their tenancy relationship
from that of crop sharing system to that of leasehold system and to fix the
annual lease rental.  These two petitions
were docketed as CAR Cases Nos. 2453-NE-61 and 2456-NE-61.

On August 7, 1961,
the landholder, being insistent in the continuation of the share tenancy
contract, depo­sited in court the sum of P100.00 representing the ex­penses for
transplanting for the agricultural year 1961-­1962, at P50.00 for each of the
two tenants, and prayed the court to order the tenants to withdraw that amount
as expenses for transplanting.  The landholder
also offered to deposit the sum of P43.00 for the cost of the seedlings –
P28.00 for tenant Luis Molina, and P15.00 for tenant Nar­ciso
Maderia.  This
petition was docketed as CAR Case No. 2764-NE-61.

On December 27, 1961, the landholder filed with the same court a
petition for ejectment against tenant Luis Molina,
alleging that on November 20, 1961 said tenant pre-threshed a portion of the palay planted on the land tenanted by him in violation of
Section 39 of Republic Act 1199, and
that said tenant had been grossly negligent in the performance of his duties
and had failed to fol­low proven farm practices thereby rendering unproductive
the land tenanted by him.  This petition
was docketed as CAR Case No. 2834-NE-61.

The respondent, or respondents, as the case may be, in each of
the four cases mentioned in the foregoing para­graphs, filed his/their
respective answer.

After hearing the four cases jointly the CAR, on March 18, 1963,
rendered a decision (1) declaring the tenancy relationship between the landholder
and the tenants to be under the leasehold tenancy system effective as of the
agricultural year 1961-1962; (2) fixing the rentals for the landholdings, such
that for the agricultural years 1961-1963 tenant Molina should pay 18 cavans and 42 kilos of palay for
every agricultural year, and tenant Maderia should
pay 19 cavans and 36 kilos; and beginning with the
agricultural year 1963-1964 tenant Molina should pay 26 cavans
and 22 kilos annually while tenant Maderia should pay
37 cavans and 21 kilos; (3) ordering the landholder
to refund to tenant Molina 20 cavans and 39¼ kilos of
palay or the value thereof in the sum of P240.37, and
also to refund tenant Maderia 39 cavans
and 37¼ kilos of palay or the value thereof in the sum of P457.81;
(4) ordering the Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Ecija to re­lease to the tenants the proceeds of the sale
of the dis­puted portions of the harvest for the agricultural year 1962-1963; and (5) dismissing CAR Case No.
2764-NE-61 (for consignation) and CAR Case No. 2834-NE-61 (for ejectment).

His motion for reconsideration of the decision of the CAR, dated March 18, 1963, having been denied,
the landholder filed his notice of intention to appeal, and on July 13, 1963, he filed the petition
for certiorari in this case.

In his petition for certiorari
to review the decision of the CAR, the landholder simply raised the question of
the constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act 1199, which provision of
law the tenants had invoked in their petition before the CAR for a change of
their tenancy relationship from share tenancy to leasehold tenancy and upon
which the CAR had based its decision declaring the tenancy relationship between
the landholder and the tenants to be under the leasehold system.  The landholder,
in this appeal, does not question the pro­priety of the rentals fixed by the
CAR and the action of the CAR in dismissing the petitions for consignation and ejectment.

In the case of Primero v. Court of
Agrarian Rela­tions, G. R. No. L-10594, May
29, 1957,^[1]
this Court upheld the constitutionality and validity of Republic Act 1199 in
its entirety because it is “a remedial legisla­tion promulgated pursuant
to the social justice precepts of the Constitution and in the exercise of the
police power of the State to promote the common weal.” Then in the case of De Ramas
v. The Court of Agrarian Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-19555, May 29, 1964, this Court spe­cifically
declared that Section 14 of Republic Act 1199 is constitutional.  This Court held that the enactment of that
particular provision of Republic Act 1199 is in virtue of the exercise of the
police power of the State, and neither does said provision impair the
obligation of contract.  Finally, this
Court held that –

“The right granted to the tenant to change the contract from
share tenancy to that of leasehold tenancy can not be considered unreasonable
or oppressive, because by the landlord’s giving up of 5% of the harvest (the
change from share to leasehold tenancy reduces the landlord’s share from 30% to
25%), the tenant becomes more responsible, more competent, and financially
prepared to comply with his obligations under the lease, to the ultimate
benefit of the landlord, with the consequent improvement of a lot of a big segment
of the population and thereby giving full meaning to the social justice directive
contained in the Constitution.”

The ruling in the De Ramas case, supra,
has been reaffirmed by this Court in a number of subsequent decisions.^[2]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with
costs against the petitioner-appellant.

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

^[1]
101 Phil., 675.

^[2]
Claridad Vda. de Macasaet v. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al.,
L-19750, July 17, 1964; Uichanco, et al. v. Gutierrez, et al., L-20275-79, May 31, 1965; Gamboa
v. Pallarca, et al., L-20407, March 31, 1966; Marta A. Vda. de Cuizon v. Ortiz,
et al., L-20905, April 30, 1966;
Ilusorio, et al. v. The Court of Industrial
Relations, et al., L-20344, May 16,
1966.