PASTOR GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. DIONISIO PALLARCA, AND THE HONORABLE JOSE M. SANTOS, PRESIDING JUDGE, CAR, 2ND REGIONAL DISTRICT, CABANATUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review and set aside
the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Second Regional
District, Cabanatuan City, in its Case No. 2828-NE-61, approving the
petition of the respondent Dionisio Pallarca, tenant, against the
petitioner Pastor Gamboa, his landlord, for the change of their tenancy
contract from share tenancy to leasehold tenancy.

Respondent Dionisio Pallarca is the share tenant of the petitioner
Pastor Gamboa on a riceland with an area of 2-1/2 hectares situated at
Sto. Tomas, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, since the agricultural year 1957-1958.
The sharing ratio agreed upon and adopted by tenant Dionisio Pallarca
and landholder Pastor Gamboa in dividing the net produce from the
landholding in question from the agricultural year 1960-1961 was
fifty-fifty, with the tenant contributing his labor, work animals, farm
implements,and expenses for final harrowing; and the landholder
contributing his land and expenses for transplanting. The share tenancy
relationship between the tenant and the landholder is not governed by a
registered written tenancy contract. On April 11, 1961 tenant Dionisio
Pallarca sent a written notice to landholder Pastor Gamboa by
registered mail, informing the latter of his (tenant’s) desire to
change their tenancy system from share to leasehold tenancy, effective
the agricultural year 1961-1962, which notice was received by the
landholder on April 14, 1961. Agricultural year 1961-1962 started
sometime in June 1961, so that the notice sent by the tenant to the
landholder for a change in the tenancy system was received by the
landholder more than one month before the start of the agricultural
year 1961-1962. The tenant, therefore, had timely availed of his right
as provided for in the pertinent provisions of Section 14, of Rep. Act
1199, as amended by Rep. Act 2263, which reads:

“The tenant shall have the right to change the
tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to leasehold tenancy and
vice versa *  * * In the absence of any registered written tenancy
contract the right may be exercised at least one month before the
agricultural year when the change shall be effected.”

The landholder not having agreed to the change in the tenancy
contract, tenant Dionisio Pallarca filed a petition for the change of
the tenancy contract in the respondent Court of Agrarian Relations on
December 19, 1961. Because at the time when the petition was filed the
crop for the agricultural year 1961-62 had already been harvested,
tenant Pallarca at the same time prayed for the immediate threshing and
temporary liquidation of said harvest.

In his answer, filed on January 2, 1962, to the petition of the
tenant in the court below landholder Pastor Gamboa set up the defense
that (1) the tenancy relationship between him and Dionisio Pallarca no
longer existed during the agricultural year 1961-1962, because Pallarca
voluntarily surrendered the landholding in question immediately after
the agricultural year 1960-1961, abandoned said land and later on
forcibly entered the same by ejecting Ambrosio de Jesus who was
appointed tenant to succeed him; and (2) that Section 14 of Republic
Act 1199, as amended by Rep. Act 2263, which is the basis of the
petition of tenant Pallarca to change the tenancy contract was
unconstitutional. Landholder Gamboa prayed the lower court to at least
suspend the decision in the case, to await the decision of cases then
pending in the Supreme Court where the constitutionality of Section 14
of Republic Act 1199, as amended, was in question.

Acting on the prayer of tenant Dionisio Pallarca, in his petition,
for the immediate threshing and temporary liquidation of the harvest
for the agricultural year 1961-1962, the respondent Court of Agrarian
Relations, on January 17, 1962, ordered that 50% of the net produce be
released to tenant Pallarca, 20% to landholder Gamboa, and 30% be
deposited in the Jaen Rice Mill and Bonded warehouse. The disputed
portion of 30% consisted of 30 cavans of palay.

After hearing, the respondent Court of Agrarian Relations rendered a
decision finding that a tenancy relationship had existed between
landholder Paster Gamboa and tenant Dionisio Pallarca during the
agricultural year 1961-1962, and declared that the tenancy contract
between tenant Dionisio Pallarca and the landholder Pastor Gamboa be
changed from share to leasehold tenancy effective as of the
agricultural year 1961-1962. On the basis of the gross harvests of the
tenant from the landholding in question for the agricultural years
1958-59 to 1960-61, inclusive, the court fixed the annual rental of the
leasehold tenancy at 17.332 cavans of palay effective the agricultural
year 1962-63 and for every agricultural year thereafter. The rentals
for the period beginning the agricultural year 1962-63 have since been
deposited in the bonded warehouse, to await the final decision of this
case by this Court.

The court a quo declared as without merit the plea of landholder
Gamboa that the decision of the case be suspended until the Supreme
Court had decided the cases pending before it involving the
constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act 1199, as amended. The
court below held that Section 14 of Rep. Act 1199, as amended, remains
a valid law and should be enforced as long as it is not declared
unconstitutional.

In its decision the respondent Court of Agrarian Relations ordered
that of the 30 cavans deposited with the Jaen Rice Mill and Bonded
warehouse, 25 cavans be released to tenant Pallarca and 5 cavans to
landholder Gamboa.

His motion for reconsideration of the decision rendered by the court
below having been denied, landholder Pastor Gamboa appealed to this
Court by way of a petition for certiorari.

The only question to be resolved by this Court in the present appeal
is the constitutionality of Section 14 of Rep. Act 1199 as amended by
Rep. Act 2263.

The landholder, now petitioner, Pastor Gamboa, contends that said
Section 14 of Rep. Act 1199, as amended, is unconstitutional because
(1) it is not a proper and valid exercise of the police power of the
State, (2) it is violative of the equal protection and due process
clauses of the Constitution, and (3) it is violative of the
constitutional provision prohibiting the impairment of the obligation
of contract.

Suffice it to say, that since this case was submitted for decision
on July 3, 1963, this Court has decided at least three cases where the
constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act 1199, as amended by
Rep. Act 2263, was upheld (Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et
al., G.R.No. L-19555, May 29, 1964; Macasaet vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, et al., G.R.No.L-19750, July 17, 1964; Uichangco, et al.
vs. Gutierrez, et al., G.R.Nos. L-20275-20279, May 31, 1965). In the
decisions in these three cases, the grounds adduced by petitioner
Pastor Gamboa in assailing the constitutionality of Section 14 of Rep.
Act 1199, as amended by Rep. Act 2263, had been passed upon by this
Court, and We do not consider it necessary to elaborate further on the
matter.

In view of the foregoing, the petition for
certiorari should be, as it is hereby, denied, and the decision
appealed from is affirmed. The palay that had been ordered deposited
during the pendency of this case should immediately be released to the
parties entitled thereto in accordance with the decision of the court
below. With costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., and Sanchez, JJ., concur.