FILOMENA SILVA, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON AND FRANCISCO SICAT, RESPONDENTS.

Sometime
in 1958, the herein respondent, Francisco Sicat, filed a petition in
the Court of Agrarian Relations, Third Regional District, Sala II,
Tarlac, Tarlac, for a reliquidation of the palay crops harvested from
the landholding of the herein petitioner, Filomena Silva from the
agricultural year 1937-1938 to the agricultural year 1956-1957.
Thereafter, or on April 21, 1959 , Filomena Silva filed her answer to
the petition, although before a hearing could be held on the merits,
she filed an amended answer on April 30, 1959 . In the amended answer,
Filomena Silva specifically “denied all the material allegations in the
petition except paragraph 8 * * * which refers to the quantity of 259
cavans as the net harvest during the second crop in the agricultural
year 1956-57.” Moreover, her amended answer contained a counterclaim
for the ejectment of Francisco Sicat from the landholding in question.
She charged the herein respondent Sicat with “incapacity to work due to
sickness, and without notice and permission given by her, Francisco
Sicat employed his son to work and in fact did all the farmrwork in the
landholding against her will.”

During the hearing of the
case, the parties stipulated on the facts to the end that, with respect
to the petition for reliquidation, “the only issue left for
determination is the amount of harvest in the first and second crop of
the agricultural year 1955-1956.” The counterclaim for ejectment was
treated as an independent and separate issue.

Upon these facts, the Court of Agrarian Relations rendered the following decision:

“Wherefore, a decision is hereby rendered:

(1)
That a reliquidation of the produce in the agricultural year 1955-1956
is undertaken such that in addition to what the petitioner has already
received, he is hereby entitled more to 34 cavans and 18 kilos of palay
representing the short share in his favor from respondent, with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum computed from the filing of the
petition, March 28, 1958;

(2) That the 20% of the produce
in the agricultural year 1956-1957 second crop deposited in the Luzon
Rice Mill, Tarlac, Tarlac, belongs to the herein petitioner who is
hereby allowed to withdraw the game and the Luzon Rice Mill Is hereby
ordered to release the said deposit to the petitioner upon payment by
the latter of the deposit fee, if any; and

(3) That the counterclaim of the respondent, against the petitioner is hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.”

On
receiving a copy of the above decision, herein petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration which, however, was denied on December 3,
1958 . Hence this appeal.

The herein petitioner raised two
issues, to wit: (1) the conclusion of the trial court regarding the
order of reliquidation; and (2) the court’s dismissal of the
counter-claim for ejectment.

We are not at liberty to review
the conclusion of the lower court regarding the reliquidation which
resulted in the award to respondent Sicat of 34 cavans and 18 kilos of
palay. The same is a factual finding binding on us. Upon the records,
the conclusion of the lower court is adequately supported by the
evidence.

We shall limit this decision, therefore, to the
determination of whether the dismissal of the counterclaim for
ejectment was valid or not. In considering this, the pertinent facts
are as follows:

Francisco Sicat has been the tenant on the
landholding in question from 1937 up to the present. In 1951, he got
sick with pneumonia because of which his doctor adviced him not to work
strenuously for at least four (4) years. The attending physician warned
him that unless he heeded the advice, this ailment would recur.
Following his doctor, therefore, he worked the field “little by little”
only.

In December 1957, Francisco Sicat fell sick again.
Thereafter, in January 1958, he consulted his doctor once more who then
diagnosed him for stomach ulcer. For this latter illness, Francisco
Sicat admitted he was not able to plow the landholding in question for
the second crop of the agricultural year 1957-1958.

On
Account of Francisco Sicat’s poor health, his children have been
working the field for him from 1954 up to the present. Prominent of
them was Luisito Sicat, who, upon the testimony herein petitioner’s own
witness, worked under the supervision of his father, Francisco Sicat
(p. 13, t.s.n.)

It is likewise charged that, being then a
tenant of the herein petitioner, in 1950, Francisco Sicat also worked
on the field of a certain Mr. Costales under tenancy. Petitioner
Filomena Silva claimed at the trial that that fact was completely
unknown to her.

Upon these facts, Filomena Silva demands the
severance of her agricultural tenancy relationship with Francisco
Sicat. She invokes the following two provisions of Republic Act No.
1199:

“SEC. 9. SEVERANCE OF RELATIONSHIP.
The tenancy relationship is extinguished by the voluntary surrender of
the land by, or the death or incapacity of, the tenant, but his heirs
or the members of his immediate farm household may continue to work the
land until the close of the agricultural year. The expiration of the
period of the contract as fixed by the parties, and the sale or
alienation of the land do not of themselves extinguish the
relationship. In the latter case, the purchaser or transferee shall
assume the rights and obligations of the former landholder in relation
to the tenant. In case of death of the landholder, his heir or heirs
shall likewise assume his rights and obligations.”

SEC. 24. PROHIBITION TO TENANT.

“(1)
It shall be unlawful for the tenant, whenever the area of his holdings
is five hectares or more, or is of sufficient size to make him and the
members of his immediate farm household fully occupied in its
cultivation, to contact to work at the same time on two or more
separate holdings belonging to different landholders under any system
of tenancy, without the knowledge and consent of the landholder with
whom he first entered into tenancy relationship.”

On
the other hand, herein respondent, adopting the arguments discussed in
the reply-memorandum of the herein respondent Judge, contends that the
law applicable to the instant litigation is section 24, paragraph (b)
of Republic Act No. 1199, which provides.

“(1)
It shall be unlawful for a share-tenant to employ a sub-tenant to
furnish labor on any phase of the work required of him under this Act, except in cases of illness or any temporary incapacity on his part,
in which eventually the tenant or any member of his immediate farm
household is under obligation to report such illness or incapacity to
the landlord. Payment to the sub-tenant, in whatever form for services
rendered on the land under this circumstance, shall be for the account
of the tenant.” (Italics supplied)

We find for the respondents.

While
the records show that the herein respondent was indeed sick, there is
no evidence to support the charge that he is incapacitated. During the
period that he is here complained of, he could still perform farm labor
little by little. Furthermore, with the aid of his son, he was still
efficient and responsible with his tenancy obligations. Proofs of this
is the finding of the trial court that in the agricultural year
1956-1957, the yield was the highest for the farm.

It was
urged in this appeal that the admission by Francisco Sicat that he was
unable to plow the land in question for the second crop of agricultural
year 1957-1958 should convince the Court of Francisco Sicat’s
incapacity as contemplated by section 9 of the tenancy law. We do not
fully concur with the observation. We hold that, at the most, the above
admission established only the fact of incapacity for the period of the
second crop of the agricultural year 1957-1958. The admission did not
establish the fact of permanent incapacity. Consequently, the
applicable law is not section 9 but section 24, paragraph (b) of the
agricultural Tenancy Act, considering that the incapacity as found by
the trial court was only temporary. In this regard, We likewise view
the finding of the trial Judge in his decision that Francisco Sicat was
“no longer coughing” and well already, as an observation which We
should neither ignore nor disturb. For it assumed the character of a
factual finding over which. We have always adopted respect for.

Petitioner
Silva finally proposes the ejectment of the respondent tenant upon the
authority of section 24, paragraph 1. She complains that Francisco
Sicat has been working under tenancy in another landholding without her
previous consent. We note, however, that although the alleged violation
of the above provision occurred as early as 1950 yet, herein petitioner
had not done anything to assert her right thereunder. We cannot,
therefore, hear her now on that charge. She has slept on her right and
cannot now invoke the protection of the law.

In view of all
the foregoing, We affirm in full the judgment of the lower court and
hereby declare the dismissal of the counterclaim for ejectment proper
and in accord with law. Costs against the petitioner.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.