G.R. No. 16963. April 26, 1961
ROXAS Y CIA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
agrarian court dismissing its counterclaim to eject its tenants from their
landholdings.
Petitioner is a mercantile partnership which owns a parcel of land known as
Hacienda Caylaway situated in Nasugbu, Batangas, while respondents are its
tenants. On the land which the tenants are working stand coconut trees which
were placed under their care and surveillance. Said tenants during the early
days of their employment reaped all the produce of the crops they planted
between the rows of coconut trees but did not share in the coconut produced
therefrom although they were enjoined to protect them from injury or harm that
may come from persons and animals. Later, however, petitioner became interested
in sharing in the auxiliary crops produced by the tenants with the result that a
contract was entered into between them in 1953 whereby it was agreed that
petitioner be given one-sixth of the crops to be harvested subject to the
condition, that the tenants will not share in the coconuts because their only
obligation was to prevent the destruction of the trees and had nothing to do
with their cultivation, planting of seedlings, gathering, and husking of coconut
fruits.
Acting on the belief that the contract they have entered into is contrary to
morals and public policy as provided for in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1199,
in that they were deprived of their share in the coconut produce, the tenants
filed a petition before, the agrarian court praying that said contract be
declared null and void and that an order be issued directing the execution of a
new contract for a new sharing of the produce in accordance with law. In its
answer, petitioner averred that the contract it entered into with its tenants is
valid and that the same is limited to the palay and other crops that the latter
may plant to the exclusion of the coconut produce. And alleging that the tenants
did not deliver its share in the auxiliary crops for three years (1955-1957), by
way of counterclaim it prayed that the court issue an interlocutory order
requiring the tenants to render a full accounting of their produce for said
years and deliver to it its share. Petitioner likewise prayed that the tenants
and their privies be ejected from the land.
On September 23, 1958, the agrarian court issued an order directing the
tenants to make a full accounting of their harvests for the years
above-mentioned, and having complied with said directive, they were ordered to
deliver to petitioner its due share. However, on April 27, 1959, the tenants
prayed that the payment of petitioner’s share in arrears be deferred because
they were not in a position to do so, but the request was denied.
After hearing, the court rendered decision holding that the tenants are not
entitled to share in the produce of the coconuts growing in their respective
landholdings while ordering the tenants to deliver to petitioner its share in
arrears in line with its previous order. And because the decision failed to pass
on the question relative to the ejectment of the tenants as prayed for in its
counterclaim, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration the denial of which
led to the filing of the present petition for review.
The main issue to be determined is whether the agrarian court erred in not
ejecting the tenants from their landholdings as prayed for by petitioner
considering their admission that they failed to deliver the share corresponding
to petitioner during the agricultural years 1955-1957.
We are inclined to hold the negative. It should be noted that under our law
and jurisprudence mere failure of a tenant to pay the landholder’s share does
not necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former when there is lack
of deliberate intent on the part of the tenant to pay, or there is failure of
crop due to fortuitous event.[1] In the
instant case we believe that if respondents did not deliver to petitioner its
share they did so in good faith. and not with the deliberate intent to deprive
petitioner thereof for, having entertained serious doubt as to the legality of
their contract relative to their non-sharing in the coconut produce, they
decided to withhold the share of petitioner so that in the event that it will
file an action against them the controversy may be settled in court. This act of
good faith or non-deliberate failure to deliver petitioner’s share they
manifested when, because of the indifferent and adamant attitude of petitioner
to institute an action against them during the period of three years,
respondents initiated the present action to settle once and for all the
controversy existing between them. And when the agrarian court ordered said
tenants to make a full accounting of their harvests for the years in question,
they not only voluntarily acceded thereto but even assured the court that they
will pay petitioner’s share if it wins this case.
Moreover, there is evidence on record showing that the harvests during the
agricultural years in question were so meager that the share of the
hacienda was very negligible; that in previous years (1950-1952)
petitioner waived its share when the harvests were poor; and that In spite of
the fact that the tenants withheld the share of petitioner for three consecutive
years, the latter did not institute an action for ita recovery or for the
ejectment of its tenants. These circumstances, we believe, cannot but affect
adversely the cause of petitioner, or its sincerity to eject them from the land,
for it is indeed unnatural that in spite of their failure to pay petitioner its
share for three years it took no action one way or the other until the tenants
initiated the present action.
Wherefore, the decision and resolution appealed from are affirmed, without
pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.
[1] Section 50 (c), Republic Act
1199; Paz, et al. vs. Santos, et al., L-12047, September 30, 1959.