FERNANDO DATU, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Modesto Diaz brought this action before the Court of Agrarian Relations
seeking his reinstatement as tenant of a parcel of land with a seedling
capacity of three cavans of palay situated in Barrio Sta. Rosario,
Magalang, Pampanga. He claims that sometime in May, 1957, his landlord
Fernando Datu ejected him from the land without authority of court
placing in his place Policarpio Lagin and Vitoriano Tolentino, and that
in spite of the intervention of the mayor the landlord refused to
reinstate him for which reason he suffered damages in the amount of 60
cavans of palay per agricultural year.

Fernando Datu, in his
answer, claims that if Modesto Diaz worked on the land for the year
1956 it was only due to his insistent request on condition that after
the harvest of that year he would voluntarily relinquish the land in
favor of the true tenants and that it was not true that after he had
left the land he asked for reinstatement. He claims as special defense
that Modesto Diaz was before 1956 merely a driver of his truck to haul
sugar cane and that after the harvest of the crop year 1956 he was
employed as driver of the truck of one Diomedes Jocson; that in the
year 1956 Diaz insistently requested that he be allowed to work a
portion of the land not planted to sugar cane to which request he
agreed and after the harvest Diaz voluntarily returned the land to his
former tenants who worked thereon for the crop year 1957-1958.

After hearing, the court found for Modesto Diaz and rendered judgment the dispositive part of which reads:

“Wherefore,
Fernando Datu, is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner Modesto
Diaz, as agricultural tenant, to the landholding in question.
Respondent-landholder, Fernando Datu, is further required to pay the
petitioner, Modesto Diaz, the amount of 15.03 cavans of palay to
Modesto Diaz or its equivalent in terms of cash in Philippine Tender
based on the price fixed by the FaCoMa nearest the landholding, at the
time of payment, every agricultural year, beginning with agricultural
year 1957-1958 until Modesto Diaz is fully reinstated or restored to
the landholding in question by the respondent, Fernando Datu.

“The
other respondents, Policarpio Lagin and Victoriano Tolentino or their
privies who are Florentino Lagin and Marino Tolentino are hereby
directed to leave and vacate the landholding in question.”

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied, Fernando Datu and
his co-respondents brought the present appeal on a petition for
certiorari.

The facts as found by the agrarian court are:
The landholding in question with an area of 2½ hectares was formerly
planted to sugar cane by Alejandro Silva up to the Agricultural year
1954. In the next crop year, the land was retained to be ratooned but
the ratoon was destroyed by carabaos. In June, 1956, the land was
planted to palay by Modesto Diaz under the 70-30 sharing ratio pursuant
to a joint affidavit executed by Diaz, on one hand, and by
Ceferino Cunanan, Policarpio Lagin and Eladio Cunanan, in behalf of
Fernando Datu, on the other. By virtue of that affidavit, Diaz
cared for the palay crop until it matured and the same was liquidated
on the 70-30 sharing basis in his favor. After the harvest of 1956-1957
palay crop, Diaz worked as driver of Diomedes Jocson. For the crop year
1957-1958, the land was given to Policarpio Lagin and Victoriano
Tolentino by Fernando Datu because Modesto Diaz allegedly did not ask
for his retention as tenant, but in May, 1957, upon the request of
Diaz, the Mayor of Magalang, Pampanga, talked to Datu to reinstate Diaz
but Datu refused.

Petitioners contend that the land which
respondent Diaz worked in 1956 is part of the landholding of his two
tenants Policarpio Lagin and Victoriano Tolentino and such being the
case Fernando Datu could not validly dispossess them and create another
tenancy relationship with Diaz there being no valid reason for
dispossessing said true tenants. This contention is untenable for, as
found by the agrarian court, when the land was given to Diaz by Datu
the same was already free for it has already been relinquished by its
former tenant Alejandro Silva who severed his tenancy relationship with
Datu after the agricultural year 1954.

Petitioners also
argue that if the former tenant Alejandro Silva could be separated from
his landholding because of his abandonment thereof, Fernando Datu could
likewise terminate the tenancy relationship he created with Modesto
Diaz because the latter likewise gave up voluntarily his landholding
after the agricultural year of 1956. This contention is also untenable,
for the evidence shows that Diaz never abandoned his landholding but
was actually dispossessed thereof when Datu gave the land to his
co-petitioners Policarpio Lagin and Victoriano Tolentino upon the claim
that his agreement with Diaz was only for that agricultural year and,
as a matter of fact, Diaz even asked for the intervention of the Mayor
of Magalang for his reinstatement which intervention failed because of
the stubborn refusal of Datu, thus prompting Diaz to institute the
present proceeding.

It is true that Modesto Diaz became the tenant of the land in 1956 pursuant to a joint affidavit executed between him and three other persons, namely, Ceferino Cunanan, Policarpio Lagin and Eladio Cunanan, who signed said affidavit
in behalf of landlord Fernando Datu, and wherein it was agreed that
Diaz shall return the landholding to its true tenants after the harvest
of said crop year, but such agreement cannot justify the dispossession
of Diaz as tenant because by express provision of the law; that can
only be done for any of the reasons therein provided and not because of
any stipulation which puts a limit to the tenancy relationship. Thus,
Section 49 of Republic Act 1199 provides:

“Sec. 49. Ejectment of tenant.—Notwithstanding any agreement or provision of law as to the period,
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 except for any of the cause hereinafter enumerated and
only after the same has been proved before and the dispossession is
authorized by the court.” (Italics supplied)

Even if the affidavit
above referred to be considered as an agreement entered into between
Diaz and the representatives of Fernando Datu as regards the former’s
tenancy relationship wherein Diaz stipulated that he shall return the
landholding after the termination of the crop year 1956, the same
cannot be considered as a ground for dispossession, it being expressly
prohibited by law, the idea being to give to tenants some security of
tenure of their landholding in order that they may enjoy the same
peacefully for their benefit and that of their family. Tenure can only
be terminated for causes provided for by law after the same have been
duly proven (Section 49, Republic Act 1199). The expiration of the
period of the contract as fixed by the parties does not of itself
extinguish the tenancy relationship (Section 9, Id.). Of course, it is
different if the tenant voluntarily surrenders his landholding which
may be a ground of terminating the relationship, but here there was no
such surrender. On the contrary, Diaz asked for his reinstatement
through the intervention of the Mayor of Magalang but the intervention
was unheeded by Fernando Datu. It is evident that his dispossession was
unauthorized and as such he is entitled to reinstatement. The trial
court, therefore, did not err in so authorizing it.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioners.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Montemayor, J., did not take part.