JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, VICENTE JOVES, DALMACIO DABURAL, CATALINA DOYANEN AND JOSE RAGUDO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ARMANDO LIM AND PEDRO DE LA CRUZ, RESPONDE…

Ulpiendo versus Court of Agrarian Relations

The Case

This is a petition for review of a judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations, filed by six farm workers who claimed to be tenants of a hacienda in Tarlac owned by Armando Lim and overseen by Pedro de la Cruz. They asked to be recognized as tenants, to receive their shares of the harvest on a seventy-thirty basis, and to be protected from ejectment. The case matters because it fixes two enduring rules: how the fifteen-day period for a motion for reconsideration is counted, and when the death or incapacity of a tenant ends the tenancy relationship so that the heirs or helpers who continue to work the land do not become tenants in their own right.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed their petition in the Court of Agrarian Relations in August 1956. On 22 July 1957 the Court rendered judgment recognizing all six petitioners as tenants, ordering the landowner to maintain them peacefully, and directing the delivery of palay deposited in Armando Lim's bodega. The respondents moved for reconsideration. On 26 November 1957 the Court modified its judgment, holding that Dalmacio Dadural, Catalina Doyanen and Jose Ragudo had no tenancy relation with the respondents, while affirming the judgment as to Joaquin Ulpiendo and Vicente Joves. Both sides sought reconsideration. On 21 April 1958 the Court went further and held that Ulpiendo and Joves likewise had no tenancy relation and no right to stay, dismissed the complaint, and affirmed the earlier rulings. The petitioners, except Jose Layno, then filed this petition for review in the Supreme Court under the provisions of Republic Act Number 1267, as amended by Republic Act Number 1409.

Facts

Pedro Dadural and Fernando Gasmin were the true tenants of Armando Lim on portions of his hacienda in San Manuel and Moncada, Tarlac. When Dadural fell sick beginning in 1953, his son Dalmacio Dadural performed the farm work for him; when Gasmin fell sick in 1953, his wife Catalina Doyanen and their children worked the land as helpers, with the knowledge and consent of the landowner. The liquidation sheets and receipts for those years were thumbmarked or signed in the names of the sick tenants, not in the names of the children or the wife.

Pedro Dadural died in December 1955, before the end of the agricultural year 1955-1956, and Fernando Gasmin died in September 1955. In each case the landowner allowed the heir or helper to continue the farm work only until the close of that agricultural year. Before the next crop year began, the landowner advised Dalmacio Dadural to vacate, and when he refused, filed a forcible entry and detainer action against him in the justice of the peace court of San Manuel in May 1956; a similar action was filed against Catalina Doyanen. Meanwhile, Joaquin Ulpiendo and Vicente Joves were found by the trial court to have been tenants after the agricultural year 1954-1955, and Jose Ragudo since March 1956.

While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, Armando Lim moved to dismiss as to Jose Ragudo, alleging that Ragudo had voluntarily left his landholding in March 1958 to join his father in Palawan and had sold his work animal. Counsel did not deny the abandonment but asked that Ragudo's right to his share in the produce of the two preceding agricultural years be preserved.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondents' motion for reconsideration of the judgment of 22 July 1957 was filed within the fifteen-day extension granted by the Court of Agrarian Relations.
• Whether or not the Court of Agrarian Relations still had jurisdiction to entertain the respondents' second motion for reconsideration as far as Vicente Joves and Joaquin Ulpiendo were concerned.
• Whether or not Dalmacio Dadural and Catalina Doyanen became tenants in their own right upon the illness and subsequent death of Pedro Dadural and Fernando Gasmin.
• Whether or not the petition of Jose Ragudo should be dismissed on the ground of abandonment, and the case against Pedro de la Cruz dismissed because he is a mere overseer.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 17 of the rules of procedure of the Court of Agrarian Relations provides:

Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the order or decision of the Court, the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration of such order or decision, together with a proof of service of one (1) copy thereof upon the adverse party.

This fixes the period whose computation is the heart of the first issue.

Rule 28 of the Rules of Court provides:

In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included. The last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless it is a Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the time shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Sunday nor a holiday.

This supplies the exclude-the-first and include-the-last day method applied to the extension granted by the agrarian court.

Section 1 of Rule 17 of the same agrarian rules further provides:

Only one motion for reconsideration may be filed except that a second motion for reconsideration may be allowed if based on a ground not existing when the first motion was made and is filed within the time herein provided, excluding the time during which the first motion has been pending.

This governs whether the respondents' second motion could still be entertained.

Section 4 of Rule 17 of the same rules provides:

The filing of the motion for reconsideration shall stay the execution of the order or decision sought to be reconsidered and shall suspend the running of the period within which the appeal to the Supreme Court must be perfected, Provided, however, That a pro-forma motion for reconsideration or a second motion for reconsideration which is a reiteration of a first motion or is founded on a ground available at the time of the filing of such first motion will not interrupt the period of appeal.

This explains why the second motion did not hold back the finality of the judgment as to Joves and Ulpiendo.

Section 9 of Republic Act Number 1199, as discussed in the decision, provides for the severance of the tenancy relationship by the death or incapacity of the tenant, and its amendment by Republic Act Number 2263 provides for the continuance of the relationship in the event of the tenant's death or incapacity:

between the landholder and one member of the tenant's immediate farm household who is related to the tenant within the second degree of consanguinity and who shall cultivate the land himself personally.

This amendment, which took effect on 19 June 1959, is the provision the Court refused to apply retroactively.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the motion for reconsideration was timely. Excluding the day the order granting the extension was entered, 15 August, and including the day the motion was mailed, 30 August, only fifteen days had elapsed. Extensions sought before the expiration of the original period are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, if granted for valid reasons and without grave abuse, will not be reversed on appeal.

On the second issue, the Court held that the agrarian court had no jurisdiction over the second motion as far as Joves and Ulpiendo were concerned. The first motion had been filed on the last day of the extension; after denial, the remedy was a petition for review in the Supreme Court within fifteen days. The ground of the second motion, that the two were mere helpers of the tenant Mariano Illustrisimo, was available when the first motion was filed and was a mere reiteration. The judgment as to them had become final.

On the third issue, the Court held that Dadural and Doyanen were not tenants in their own right. Their father and husband were the true tenants; the two were merely allowed to work the land as helpers. The Court ruled that the landowner retains the right to choose his tenant, and that the 1959 amendment cannot be applied retroactively. The findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court.

On the fourth issue, the Court dismissed Ragudo's petition because he had voluntarily left his landholding, without prejudice to his share in the produce for the two agricultural years, and dismissed the case against Pedro de la Cruz because he was a mere overseer and not the real party in interest.

Doctrine

First, the fifteen-day period for a motion for reconsideration is counted by excluding the first day and including the last, following Rule 28 of the Rules of Court. Second, only one motion for reconsideration is allowed; a second motion based on a ground already available at the time of the first does not interrupt the period to appeal, and once that period lapses the judgment becomes final and the court loses jurisdiction. Third, tenancy is extinguished by the death or incapacity of the tenant, although the heirs or members of the immediate farm household may continue to work the land only until the close of the agricultural year. Fourth, the landowner has the right to choose his tenant, and the amendment allowing a qualified member of the farm household to continue the relationship cannot be given retroactive effect.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the judgment as to Dalmacio Dadural and Catalina Doyanen, set aside the resolution of 21 April 1958 as to Vicente Joves and Joaquin Ulpiendo so that the earlier resolution of 26 November 1957 stood as final, dismissed Jose Ragudo's petition without prejudice to his share in the produce, and dismissed the case against Pedro de la Cruz.

Remember This

Memorize this line: tenancy is extinguished by the death or incapacity of the tenant, and the heirs or helpers who continue to work the land until the close of the agricultural year do not become tenants in their own right. Examiners use this case for the computation of the fifteen-day period and for the rule that a second motion for reconsideration based on an old ground does not toll the period to appeal.