824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Manuel Cordero for other respondents.
Villaviza vs. Panganiban
No. L-19760. April 30, 1964. REYES, J.B.L., J.: MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET Review of the decision of the Court of Agrarian AL., respondents. Relations, Cabanatuan City, in its Case No. 2088-NE- Agricultural tenancy; Prescription of action for 60, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent violation of security of tenure of tenant.—A tenant's right to Quirino Capalad to pay the petitioners as follows: be respected in his tenure under Republic Act 1199, as 1. Jose Aguilar P297.00 amended, is an obligation of the landholder created by law, 2. Agapito Neuda 264.75 and an action for violation thereof prescribes in tan years 3. Sixto Malarulat 264.25 under No. 2 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code. 4. Rafael Alamon 164.00 Same; Ejected tenant's earnings elsewhere not deducted 5. Petronilo Aguilar 335.25 from damages.—Under section 27 (1) of Republic Act 1199, 6. Eulogio Samaniego 219.00 as amend- 7. Castor Rufino 234.00 825 The following respondents are hereby ordered to vacate their VOL. 10, APRIL 30, 1964 825 respective landholdings in favor of the petitioners, subject to the Villaviza vs. Panganiban provisions of pars. 3 and 4, Sec. 22, R.A. No. 1199, as amended, the ed, an illegally ejected tenant' earnings elsewhere may indemnity in the aforestated paragraphs, supra, shall be paid by not be deducted from but is to be added to the damages respondent Quirino Capalad: granted him upon reinstatement. Respondents Petitioners 1. Alejo Pramel 1. Jose Aguilar REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Agrarian 2. Severino Padilla 2. Agapito Neuda Relations (Cabanatuan City). 3. Domingo Villaviza 3. Rafael Alamon 4. Marcelo Villaviza 4. Petronilo Aguilar The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. 5. Cirilo Ramos 5. Eulogio Samaniego Alejandro C. Villaviza for petitioners. 6. Ciriaco Pizaro 6. Castor Rufino Ipac & Fajardo for respondent Judge Tomas 7. Cesario Villaviza ) 7. Sixto Malarulat Panganiban. Ben Morelos ) The above claim is wild and reckless and definitely Juan Morelos ) without merit, since the decision itself contains the SO ORDERED." recitals of the testimonies of the witnesses upon which The lower court found that the above-named the court based its findings, and the petitioners do not respondents (petitioners below) were tenants since question the existence and adequacy of these 1944 in a riceand situated in Aliaga, Nueva Ecija, and testimonies. That the courtbelieved the owned by Do- evidence for the respondents rather than those for the 826 petitioners is fee tenancy court's prerogative, and, as a 826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED reviewing court, the Supreme Court will not weigh Villaviza, vs. Panganiban anew the evidence ; all that this Court is called upon to mingo Fajardo. Fajardo gave out the land for lease do, insofar as the evidence is concerned, is to find out if (civil lease) to the petitioner, -Quirino Capalad, the conclusion of the lower court is supported by starting with the crop year 1955-56. The said lessee, in substantive evidence; and the present case is, as June, 1955, plowed the land by machinery, and hereinbefore explained installed, as his tenants, his above-named co- A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under petitioners in this Court, so that when the respondents Republic Act 1199, :as amended, is an obligation of the went back to their respective landholdings to prepare landholder created by law,, and an action for violation them for planting they found the land already thereof prescribes in ten .years under No. !2 of Article cultivated. The respondents-tenants demanded their 1144 of the Civil Code The respondents were ousted reinstatement, but everytime they did, which they did from their landholdings in June, 1955, they filed the yearly until the present suit was filed, Quirino present action on 31 March 1960; therefore, the period Capalad promised, but never fulfilled, to reinstate of limitation had notex-pired. them for the agricultural year following said demands. The tenancy court found that the ejected tenants- As grounds for the petition for review, the respondents have engaged in gainful -occupations petitioners claim grave abuse of discretion by the since their illegal ejectment ;and had delayed the filing Agrarian Court and a lack of substantive evidence to of the case, and for these reasons the court made an support its findings. award for damages against Quirino Capalad equivalent to only two har- 827 Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista VOL, 10, APRIL 30, 1964 827 Angelo, Labrador,Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon Villaviza vs. Panganiban and Makalintal, JJ.,concur. vests based on the landholder's share for the crop year Decision affirmed. 1954-1955, Notes.—Findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian The premises for the award are erroneous. Under Relations based on substantial evidence will not be section 27(1) of Republic Act 1199, as amended, a disturbed by the Supreme Court on appeal "unless it is tenant's earnings may not be deducted from the shown that they;are unfounded or were arbitrarily damages because the said section positively provides arrived at, or that said court had failed to consider that the tenant's freedom to earn elsewhere is to be important evidence to the contrary." (Carillo v. Allied added ("in addition") to his right to damages in case of Workers' Asso. of the Philippines, L-23889, July 31, Illegal ejectment (Lustre, et al, vs, CAR, et al., L- 1968, 24 SCRA 566-570, quoting Lapina v. Court of 19654, March 21, 1964). Nor am it be said that the Agrarian Relations, L-20706, Sept. 25, 1967). respondents-tenants are guilty of laches for having Back wages.—As to payment of back wages under unnecessarily delayed the filing of the case, because the Industrial Peace Act, see Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. the delay was attributable to Capalad's promises to v. Sangilo-Itogon Workers' Union, L-24189, Aug. 30, reinstate them. 1968, 24 SCRA 873, 887-888 for a restatement of the The amount of the award to each respondent should guidelines to be observed in the ascertainment of !)he not, however, fee disturbed because ?the respondents' total back wages non-appeal from the decision Indicates their 828 satisfaction there-with and a waiver of any 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED amounts other than those indicated in the decision Vda. de Ampil vs. Alvendia (David v. de la Cruz, et al., L-11656, 18 April 1958; Dy, payable to an employee whose reinstatement is et al. vs. Kuizon, L-16654, 30 Nov. 19.61), ordered by the Industrial Court. FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision 'under review is hereby affirmed, with costs _____________ against the petitioners.