EMILIA MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. CAMILO BULANADI, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition to review on certiorari a resolution of the Court
of Agrarian Relations denying herein petitioner’s motion for new trial.
We granted due course to the petition and to stay the execution of the
lower court’s decision, upon petitioner’s filing a bond of P500.00, the
writ of preliminary injunction prayed for was issued by this Court.

It appears that on June 10, 1957, Camilo Bulanadi, herein
respondent, filed with the court below a petition for reinstatement and
reliquidation, with damages, against Emilia Mendoza, herein petitioner,
and one Domingo Pelayo. The petition alleged, among other things, that
complainant Bulanadi had, since the crop year 1952-53, been a tenant of
landholder Emilia Mendoza on a parcel of land located at Barrio
Nabaong-Garlan, San Ildefonzo, Bulacan; that on June 4, 1957, he was
dispossessed without lawful cause or authority from the court and
Domingo Pelayo placed in possession of the landholding; and that during
his tenancy he provided, aside from his labor, the work animals and
farm implements and shouldered the final harrowing and one-half of the
transplanting expenses, but that the produce of the land was divided
only in the proportion of 55-45 in his favor.

Answering the petition, Emilia Mendoza denied all material averments
thereof, and as special defenses, alleged that she “is a leaseholder”;
that plaintiff Camilo Bulanadi is not the tenant in the landholding in
question but was merely substituted for the original tenant, her
co-defendant Domingo Pelayo, who was then physically incapacitated;
that she had no tenancy contract with said plaintiff; and that their
sharing basis in the division of the crops was in accordance with law.
By way of counterclaim, she prayed for damages in the amount of P200.00
as attorney’s fees.

Domingo Pelayo, who was duly served with summons, filed no answer. Nevertheless, notice of hearing was sent to him.

On August 14, 1957, when the case was called for hearing, only the
complainant Camilo Bulanadi and his counsel appeared. Ostensibly to
give the defendants Emilia Mendoza and Domingo Pelayo another
opportunity to be heard, the case was re-set for hearing, with notice
sent to both of them and to Emilia Mendoza’s counsel of record. On
September 13, 1957, the date set. for hearing, Emilia Mendoza and her
counsel as well as Domingo Pelayo again failed to appear, whereupon the
court allowed the plaintiff, who was assisted by counsel, to present
his evidence. On September 21, 1957, the lower court rendered its
decision, ordering Domingo Pelayo to vacate the landholding in
question, and Emilia Mendoza to reinstate plaintiff Camilo Bulanadi
therein. The court also ordered Emilia Mendoza to deliver to plaintiff
14 cavans and 11 ½ kilos of palay or its money equivalent in the sum of
P142.50, with interests, which she received in excess of her legal
share for the crop years 1953-1954 to 1956-1957; and to pay to said
plaintiff, jointly and severally with Domingo Pelayo, the sum of
P150.00 for damages the former sustained as a result of the illegal
ejectment, plus P100.00 nominal damages.

On October 9, 1957, counsel for Emilia Mendoza filed a motion
praying that the decision be set aside and new trial ordered, it being
alleged that his failure to appear at the hearing was due to his
clerk’s inadvertence or mistake, as explained by the latter in an
affidavit attached to the motion. Counsel, likewise, alleged that his
client Emilia Mendoza has good and valid defenses which she could prove
if given a chance. As stated in her affidavit of merits also attached
to the motion, these defenses are: (1) that Camilo Bulanadi was not her
tenant but was merely a substitute for the original tenant; (2) that at
the time of the alleged dispossession, she was no longer the owner or
possessor of the land in question; and (3) that before the land was
alienated sometime in May, 1957 and during the entire period that
plaintiff was working thereon, she complied with the provisions of the
Tenancy Law in the division of the produce of the land.

Acting upon the motion for new trial, the lower court, on October
22, 1957, handed down a resolution denying the same for lack of merit.
From that resolution, Emilia Mendoza brought the case to this Court
thru the present petition for review.

After going over the record, we are of the opinion that the motion for new trial was properly overruled.

The granting or denial of such motion is, as a general rule,
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Counsel for petitioner
alleges that his failure to appear at the trial was due to the
inadvertence or mistake of his clerk, who, after receiving on September
7, 1957 the notice of hearing, misfiled it in one of the envelopes
containing the records of other cases, and three days thereafter, went
on vacation to the province without calling his attention to said
notice of hearing. Counsel, however, before his said clerk went on
vacation, made no inquiries as to what court notices or papers had been
received by him. Had he done so, the notice of hearing allegedly
misfiled could have been discovered in time, considering that it was
received three days before his clerk Went on vacation. It will be
remembered that counsel, for reasons known only to himself, had already
failed to appear at the first hearing of the case on August 14, 1957
although he was duly notified thereof. Notwithstanding such unexplained
non-appearance, the lower court re-set the case for hearing. Petitioner
herself, as directed by the court, was duly notified thereof, but she
also failed to appear. In the circumstances, we do not think the court
below erred in not considering her failure and that of her counsel to
appear at the hearing as due to excusable negligence that would justify
the reopening of the case.

We are, moreover, not impressed by petitioner’s pretense that she
has valid and meritorious defenses which she can prove if granted new
trial. She claims that respondent Bulanadi was not her tenant but
merely a substitute for the original tenant, Domingo Pelayo, who was
then “temporarily incapacitated.” The alleged temporary incapacity,
however, appears to be too long in duration for the claim to be true,
the court below having found respondent, to have worked on the land in
question as a share tenant since 1953. In this connection, we also find
it rather strange why Domingo Pelayo, the alleged original tenant and
petitioner’s co-defendant in the proceedings below, did not even care
to answer and contest the suit filed in the lower court. Petitioner,
likewise, claims that she could prove she was no longer the owner or
the possessor of the land in question at the time the dispossession
complained of took place. This, we note, is a new and distinct defense,
for she actually interposed as one of her special defenses in her
answer below that she “is the leaseholder” of the land in dispute. Such
change of theory serves only to weaken her stand and renders her claim
of doubtful veracity. As to her other claim that she had in fact
complied with the laws in the division of the produce of the land,
suffice it to say that said claim is a mere conclusion or opinion, and
as such is not valid. (Philippine Engineering Co. vs. Argosino, 49 Phil. 983; Coombs vs. Santos, 24 Phil. 446; Cortes vs. Co Bun Kim, 90 Phil., 167.)

In view of the foregoing, the resolution complained of is affirmed
and the preliminary injunction heretofore issued dissolved, with costs
against petitioner.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Barrera, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., did not take part.