NINTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. No. 03982-SP.  March 15, 1976.]

ANTONIO MANUEL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ARTEMIO VALENTON, defendant-appellee.

[CA-G.R. No. 03983-SP.  March 15, 1976.]

ARTEMIO E. VALENTON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCIANO PASCUAL and ANTONIO MANUEL, defendants, ANTONIO MANUEL, defendant-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

BAUTISTA, J p:

Before the Court of Agrarian Relations (Fourth Regional District, Br. I, Cabanatuan City) Antonio Manuel instituted on May 22, 1972, a complaint against Artemio Valenton (CAR Case No. 6392-N.E. '72) alleging inter alia that he is the agricultural tenant-lessee of Valenton's land with an area of 4 hectares, 5 ares and 74 centares since 1965-1966 harvest, but defendant upon demand refused to agree to the leasehold rental. Plaintiff Manuel, therefore, prays that the Court fix the legal rental for the land in question and to require defendant to pay actual damages to the plaintiff.   SCHIac

In his answer dated July 18, 1972, the landowner Artemio Valenton alleged that his tenant de jure for more than 30 years is one Marciano Pascual and that the plaintiff Antonio Manuel had never talked to him nor was he ever admitted by Valenton to work the land in question.

On June 21, 1972, Artemio Valenton filed a separate complaint against the defendants Marciano Pascual and Antonio Manuel (CAR Case No. 6424) alleging that Marciano Pascual has been his tenant since before World War II; that lately, he discovered that the defendant Marciano Pascual, without his knowledge and consent had sub-let the land in question to his co-defendant Antonio Manuel in violation of their contract and the applicable provision of the law. Plaintiff Artemio Valenton therefore prays that the defendants be ejected from the land in question.   ADTEaI

In this second case, defendant Marciano Pascual answers that he is the legitimate tenant, the one dealing with the owner on all matters pertaining to the land; that Antonio Manuel worked the land in question without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff-landowner Valenton; and that Manuel was never permitted by Pascual to work the land in the concept of lessee.

On his part, defendant Antonio Manuel claims in his separate answer that it was plaintiff Valenton who took him as tenant from the agricultural year 1967 up to the present when he is still the agricultural lessee.

After a joint trial, the Court rendered judgment dispositive portion of which reads:

"PREMISES ABOVE DULY CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing these cases and directing the Clerk of Court to deliver to Artemio Valenton, under proper receipt, Warehouse Receipt No. 187 dated January 29, 1973 of the E. dela Cruz Warehouse, Talavera, Nueva Ecija.

"The claim of Antonio Manuel, plaintiff in CAR Case No. 6392 and defendant in CAR Case No. 6424, for actual damages, as well as those of Marciano Pascual, co-defendant of Antonio Manuel in the second case, for litigation expenses and damages, are likewise dismissed for lack of evidence.

"No pronouncement as to costs."

From the above judgment, Antonio Manuel appealed in both cases — CAR Case No. 6392 and CAR Case No. 6424. However, the brief for the appellant Antonio Manuel pertains only to CAR Case No. 6392 (CA-G.R. No. SP-03982) wherein appellant Manuel contends that:

"I

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE AGAINST THE LANDOWNER AND IN NOT DECLARING THE PLAINTIFF THE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE OF THE LANDHOLDING IN QUESTION.

"II

"CONSEQUENTLY, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FIXING THE RENTALS IN THE LANDHOLDING IN QUESTION."

It is not controverted that Artemio Valenton is the owner of the lot in question (Lot No. 305) of the Talavera Cadastral Survey located at Talavera, Nueva Ecija with an area of 4 hectares, 5 ares and 74 centares devoted to the planting of palay. Since 1936, Marciano Pascual has been his tenant over the land in question. When Talavera was declared a land reform area in 1968, the tenancy relationship between Valenton and his tenant Pascual was converted to that of leasehold and Pascual continued to be the agricultural lessee, who always delivers to the owner the rental to the land in question. However, in 1967, Marciano suffered a temporary infirmity in his right eye and he engaged his nephew-in-law, Antonio Manuel, to help him do some of the farm work. In that way, Pascual could also help Manuel who was the husband of his niece. It was Marciano Pascual, however, who supervised the work and dealt directly with the landowner Artemio Valenton.

Sometime in 1972, the landowner Artemio Valenton learned that Antonio Manuel was working on the land; consequently, he wrote Marciano Pascual requiring the latter to stop Manuel from tilling Valenton's land. Instead of vacating the land, however, Antonio Manuel filed CAR Case No. 6392 against Artemio Valenton praying for the fixing of rentals. As above stated, the landowner Artemio Valenton countered with a separate complaint (CAR Case No. 6424) against both Marciano Pascual and Antonio Manuel to eject them from the land in question — Pascual for unlawfully subletting the leasehold to his co-defendant Antonio Manuel and the latter for cultivating the land without authority from the landowner.   EaISTD

The sole question to decide in this appeal is: who is the lessee de jure of the landholder Artemio Valenton? We fully agree with the trial court in its findings that Marciano Pascual is the legal lessee and not Antonio Manuel. The findings of the Agrarian Court is well supported by substantial evidence and is entitled to respect (Chavez vs. CAR, 9 SCRA 412, 415; Bermudez vs. Fernando, 7 SCRA 682, 684 citing Atayde vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-10578, March 25, 1958).

From the evidence, it is substantially clear that since long before the war, Marciano Pascual has been the duly constituted tenant of Artemio Valenton. When the whole province of Nueva Ecija was declared a land reform area, Artemio Valenton converted the tenancy to leasehold agreeing verbally with Marciano Pascual. There is no contract, whatsoever, verbal or written, between Artemio Valenton and Antonio Manuel. Unfortunately, sometime in 1967, Marciano Pascual suffered ailment of his right eye and he needed someone to help him. He chose his nephew-in-law Antonio Manuel with a view to mutually help each other, the latter being his near relative. But Pascual had to supervise the work. He was also the one who delivered the rental of 60 cavans per agricultural year to the landholder Artemio Valenton as evidenced by receipts (Exhs. B, B-1, B-2, C, C-1, D, D-1 and E). Pascual did not know then that his nephew-in-law had intentions to oust his own uncle (Marciano) and to claim the sole right as lessee. We cannot sanction this usurpation. In the words of the trial court:

"We find no reason to disbelieve the assertion of Valenton and Pascual for it is an admitted fact that the latter had been actively cultivating the landholding since 1936 up to the year 1967 when his eye infirmity began. In the same year 1967 Antonio Manuel entered the landholding and began cultivating the same."

Appellant Manuel's contention that he became the lessee in the landholding in question with the acquiescence of both the landowner and Marciano is not correct. If Manuel had worked the land at all, it was because he was hired by his uncle to help him due to his temporary infirmity. In fact, all these several years Manuel never dealt with the owner. It was Pascual all the time who was religiously paying the owner the agreed rental. We certainly cannot give approval to Manuel's possession as legal lessee when he was working only in the concept of helper or sub-tenant. In view of the temporary incapacity of Marciano Pascual, he is entitled under the law to employ hired help whose services on the landholding shall be on his own account (Sec. 27 (2) Code of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines).   TCDHIc

To bolster his theory, appellant Antonio Manuel capitalizes on the testimony of supposed reputable members of the community, allegedly that Manuel is the agricultural tenant on the landholding. But barrio captain Geronimo Ferrer frankly admitted on questions of court:

"Q        You testified a while ago that Antonio Manuel is cultivating the landholding in question, do you know who instituted him to cultivate the same?

A         I don't know, sir.

Q         And for sure you don't know in what category or capacity he is working the landholding in question?

A         Yes, sir. All I know is that he is working on the land." (pp. 16-17, tsn., May 30, 1974)

Appellant's other witness, Daniel Ramos, a neighbor and former barrio captain, is similarly incompetent to testify on the real status of Antonio Manuel on the landholding. Ramos, in fact, admitted:

"Q        But you don't have any idea as to what capacity is this Antonio Manuel is working the landholding in question?

A         I don't know, sir.

Q         How long have you been staying in the locality where the landholding in question is situated?

A         About 12 years now, sir.

Q         And for that length of time you don't have any idea as to who is the actual tenant on the landholding in question?

A         I think, now Antonio Manuel is the tenant because he bought the possession of the landholding in question, sir." (p. 26, tsn., May 30, 1974)

and contradicted himself, saying:

Q         You said that you personally know Antonio Manuel is working the landholding in question and that Atty. Artemio Valenton is the owner of the land, the question is this, how come that Antonio Manuel worked over this landholding in question?

A         What I know was that Antonio Manuel was taken in by Marciano Pascual because M. Pascual has other landholding which he caused to be cultivated after which the possession of the landholding in question will be transferred to Antonio Manuel." (pp. 35-36, tsn., May 30, 1974)

As regards the complaint filed by the landowner Artemio Valenton to eject both Marciano Pascual and Antonio Manuel, the trial Court correctly ruled that under Presidential Decree 316, strengthened by Presidential Decree 583, which prescribes penalties for the unlawful ejectment of tenants-tillers from their landholding, the landowner's complaint was properly dismissed. It will be noted besides that from the decision of the Agrarian Court in CAR Case No. 6424 which recognizes Marciano Pascual as the legal lessee, the landowner did not appeal. Finally, it appears from the clear preponderance of the evidence that Marciano Pascual engaged Antonio Manuel only as a helper during the period of his temporary infirmity.   TcICEA

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from in the above two cases is hereby affirmed in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Pascual and Santiago, Jr., JJ ., concur.