G.R. No.

L-19343 April 27, 1963

CRISPULO D. BELMI and MARIO ALAB, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioners Crispulo D. Belmi and Mario Alab are share tenants of lowland irrigated rice
fields located within Hacienda Bigaa at Calatagan, Batangas and owned by respondent Enrique
Zobel. Belmi has been a tenant of Zobel for the past 10 years while Alab has been a tenant for
more than 20 years. The landholdings of Belmi and Alab covers an area of two hectares each.
On July 16, 1955, Belmi and Alab executed separate contracts of tenancy which was duly
registered with the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Calatagan, Batangas. A provision in the
contract provides that after the harvest of palay, the tenants must prepare the lands again to be
planted with second rice crop “palagad” and corn, in accordance with the instructions of the
landholder or his representatives.
Sometime in March 1958, Zobel the owner of the hacienda informed the tenants that he
would contour-plow Sitio Bitin in the month of April in accordance with the recommendation of
the Bureau of Soil Conservation. As a result of the contour-plowing, the original dikes on the
landholdings of tenants Belmi and Alab were destroyed and new ones were reconstructed by
respondents Zobel along the contour-lines. Petitioners Belmi and Alab witnessed the counter-
plowing without protest and after contour-plowing activities within their landholdings were
completed, they continued and were able to plant their rice during the regular seasons in 1958,
1959 and 1960; and that Mario Alab was, likewise, able to plant his second crop of palay called
'palagad' in the years 1959 and 1960."
Belmi however failed to plant second palay crop 'palagad' in the years 1956, 1958, 1959
and 1960. It was only in the year 1957 when he was able to plant the second palay crop 'palagad'.
According to him, his carabao died before the start of the planting season in 1956 hence he was
only able to plant his second crop after he used a rented carabao. He also explained that his
failure to plant in 1958 was due to the contour-plowing of his landholding. For the years 1959
and 1960, he did not give any explanation.
Because of this, respondent Zobel ejected Belmi and Alab from their respective
landholdings. Belmi and Alab instituted a petition for reinstatement and damages in the Court of
Agrarian Relations but the court dismissed such petition and ordered the ejectment of Belmi.
In a petition for review appealed to the Supreme Court, appellant Belmi alleged that the
lower court failed to consider that under his contract, the obligation to plant the second crop must
be done in accordance with the instructions of the landowner and that no instructions were
actually given. He also contends that he substantially complied with his obligations.
Furthermore, the tenants claims that they are entitled to damages for the destruction of the old
dikes due to the contour-plowing of their landholdings.
Respondents on the other hand aver that the tenants employed “sub-tenants.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the allegations of the petitioners and respondents are true.

RULING:
1. With respect to the issue of lack of instructions, the excuse of lack of instructions to plant a
second crop was not advanced in the Agrarian court and such fact is confirmed by the lower
court’s finding that Belmi offered no excuse for his failure to plant "palagad" in 1959 and 1960.
The issue of lack of instructions from the landlord for the tenant to plant a second crop is
primarily one of the fact, and may not, therefore, be considered for the first time on appeal.

2. With respect to Belmi’s contention that he substantially complied with this obligations, it is
does not have any basis. The court below found that there was total failure to plant "palagad" in
1959 and 1960, in breach of his contract, apparently because Belmi preferred to make "kaingin"
elsewhere.

3. With respect to the issue on demolition of dikes by landlord and contour-plowing of

landholdings, the tenants are not entitled to damages, the petitioners show no actual damage or
prejudice to them; their claim rather refers to an amount that would be expended in
reconstructing the old dikes, and which has no bearing at all on the issue because the contour-
plowing, which they did not protest, redounded to the mutual benefit of themselves and their
landlord, and after it was done, the respondents also constructed new dikes along the contour
lines at their own expense. In fact, petitioners made use of these added improvements in the
subsequent farming years. At any rate, the amount of harvest after the contour-plowing showed
no diminution when compared to those before the contour-plowing.

4. Furthermore, the petitioners did not employ “sub-tenants”. The workers were hired for
transplanting of seedlings and reaping of harvests. The transplanting of seedlings and the reaping
of harvests do not from part of a tenant’s labor; hence, workers engaged by the tenant to perform
such chores may not rightly be "called "sub-tenants", as contemplated in Section 24 of Republic
Act No. 1199.

Lastly, the mere fact that the expected quantity of harvest, as visualized and calculated by
agricultural experts, is not actually realized, or that the harvest did not increase, is not a sufficient
basis for concluding that the tenants failed to follow proven farm practices.

The appealed decision is affirmed.