NINTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. No. SP-01746-CAR.  August 2, 1976.]

MATEO BALANAY, GENARO BALANAY & FRANCISCO SAGUN, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SERGIO RAFAEL, defendant-appellee.

D E C I S I O N

BAUTISTA, J p:

Plaintiff Genaro Balanay, his brother Mateo Balanay and brother-in-law Francisco Sagun brought this suit before the Court of Agrarian Relations, Fourth Regional District, Br. IV, Paniqui, Tarlac against defendant Sergio Rafael, landowner. Though not cultivating the land nor in possession thereof when complaint was filed on March 8, 1971, plaintiffs pray for "1. Fixing the legal rentals for the land; 2. Ordering the Defendant to deliver to the Plaintiffs their short shares from the harvest from the Agricultural year 1966-67 up to 1970-71."

After due trial, the lower court rendered the following judgment:

"WHEREFORE, the rental for the use and occupation of the landholding in question is thereby fixed at 30.25 cavans of palay per agricultural year to become effective for crop year 1970-71. This part of the decision however, becomes moot and academic because in the first place, there is no produce for crop year 1971-72 as well as 1972-73, for the plaintiff Genaro Balanay and his co-plaintiffs as his co-workers abandoned the landholding in question. In this connection, defendant Sergio Rafael is entitled to retain possession of the same as against the claim of Genaro Balanay to be retained thereon, as he abandoned the landholding already (Section 11, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, quoted as follows:

'SEC. 11.      Character of Order of Decision. — In issuing an order or decision, the Court shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the dispute, but may include in the order or decision any matter for determination which may be deemed necessary and expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or preventing further disputes, provided that said matter for determination has been established by competent evidence during the hearing.')

"Sergio Rafael is hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiff Genaro Balanay the sum of 33.1 cavans of palay as Genaro Balanay's short share for the two (2) crop years 1968-69 and 1969-70, or in lieu thereof, at the price of per cavan of palay at the time of payment.

"Without pronouncement as to costs."

(pp. 30-31, Decision)

Dissatisfied with the decision, plaintiffs-appellants have appealed to us and now contend that:

"I

"THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF-TENANT GENARO BALANAY ABANDONED HIS LANDHOLDING.

"II

"THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FIXING A LEGAL RENTAL FOR THE USE OF THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FIXING THEREOF.

"III

"THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT AUTHORIZING THE RELIQUIDATION OF THE HARVEST STARTING WITH THE AGRICULTURAL YEAR 1966-67.

"IV

"THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS PRONOUNCEMENT THAT AS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS MATEO BALANAY AND FRANCISCO SAGUN AND DEFENDANT SERGIO RAFAEL NO TENANCY RELATIONS EXIST." (pp. 1-2. Br. for Plaintiffs-Appellants)

On June 2, 1971, the trial court issued the following pre-trial order:

"ORDER:

"When this case is called for pre-trial conference, the parties were present and duly assisted by their respective counsel. With the assistance of the Court, the following were agreed upon:

"ISSUES:

"(1)      Fixing of the rentals. This issue is met by the defendant alleging that they have no objection because the area is within the proclaimed area in the province of Tarlac, but only the parties could not agree as to how much will be the fixed rentals for the use and occupation of the land.

"(2)      Reliquidation of the harvests from crop years 1966-67 to 1970-71. This issue is traversed by the defendant alleging that it is the plaintiff-tenant Genaro Balanay who did the liquidation alone and just delivered any amount to the defendant for these said crop years. In this second issue, the defendant denies the tenancy relationship of Mateo Balanay and Francisco Sagun and defendant but the latter admits that Genaro Balanay is the sole tenant over the landholding in question.

"(3)      The issue raised in the counterclaim is the failure for the plaintiff Genaro Balanay to account the corn crops, camotes and vegetables over the land in question since 1968 up to the present and the amount of 30 cavanes of palay for crop year 1969-70 should be liquidated; thus to require the plaintiff Genaro Balanay to deliver to the defendant the latter's share of the harvest for crop year 1969-70.

"(4)      Damages on either side.

FACTS:

"(1)      The parties agreed that the landholding in question is situated at Sta. Ines West, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac, and is bounded on the north by the property of the defendant himself and the adjacent property on the north is tenanted by Rodolfo Cainglet.

"(2)      The parties agreed that the landholding in question is bounded on the east by a land owned by the plaintiffs and tenanted by themselves; on the south — by a landholding tenanted by Jose Porlucas and also owned by Jose Porlucas; and the boundary-owner on the west is Fausto Tejada. This land on the west is also tenanted by Tejada himself.

"(3)      The defendant admits that Genaro Balanay is the agricultural tenant of the land in question on the share system of 70-30% in favor of Genaro Balanay. In this connection, the plaintiffs claim that the three (3) of them are the agricultural tenants on the same landholding under the share system of 60-40% in favor of the tenants.

"(4)      The parties agreed that for the crop year 1970-71, there has been a pump established by the defendant to irrigate the land in question.

"(5)      The parties agreed that the plaintiffs are not indebted with the defendant neither the defendant owes the plaintiffs.

"(6)      The parties agreed that the work animals and farm implements used in the cultivation of the landholding for crop year 1966-67 up to agricultural year 1970-71 belonged to the plaintiffs' father in the person of Narciso Balabay and not to the plaintiffs. The defendant, however, admits that Genaro Balanay is the only recognized tenant.

"(7)      The parties agreed that fertilizers have been used for crop year 1966-67 to 1970-71 which were shouldered in equal share by the plaintiffs and defendant.

"After the parties have agreed on the issues and facts as specified above, the pre-trial conference is hereby deemed closed and terminated without prejudice of settling the case as the parties are relatives; and for this purpose, the counsel of records are advised to cooperate in trying their best to have their clients come together for possible settlement of the controversies of the parties. As agreed upon, the initial hearing of this case shall take place on July 7, 1971 at 9:00 a.m. at Paniqui, Tarlac.

"In the order of this Court of May 13, 1971, Atty. Panfilo V. Valdez, counsel for the defendant, was directed to answer the motion dated May 6, 1971 filed by the plaintiffs. The record shows that up to this writing, Atty. Panfilo Valdez has not as yet filed said pleading.

"The Motion dated May 6, 1971 filed by Atty. Hilario N. Rosario, Jr. asks for the withdrawal of the plaintiffs' share as tenants from the deposits with the Sta. Ignacia Facoma the amount of 28 cavanes of palay and 4 kilos which is the harvest obtained from the land in question for the second cropping for crop year 1970-71. The answer of the defendant does not recognize Mateo Balanay and Francisco Sagun as his tenants. In the pre-trial conference this morning, the defendant is consistent in not recognizing Mateo Balanay and Francisco Sagun as his tenants but recognizes only Genaro Balanay and Francisco Sagun as his sole tenant. For this reason, there being no evidence as yet that these two (2) Mateo Balanay and Francisco Sagun are tenants of the land, there is no reason for the Court to order the withdrawal of the alleged share.

"The land in question is deemed included within the proclamation for compulsory leasehold tenancy of lands within the province of Tarlac. Proclamation No. 9 of the area by the National Land Reform Council was issued on May 21, 1969. The landholding in question is under the compulsory leasehold system. The division of the 28 cavanes and 4 kilos of palay should be on the basis of 75%-25% of the net harvest in favor of the tenant. The motion, however, does not allege whether the 28 cavanes and 4 kilos of palay is the net produce of the gross produce. The Court withholds action on the said motion until after the plaintiff-movant shall have furnished this Court with facts as to whether the 28 cavanes and 4 kilos of palay is the net harvest or if it were the gross it must specify the amount to be deducted therefrom in accordance with law.

"Should the plaintiffs fail to file the corresponding pleading from notice of this order, they are deemed to have abandoned their desire to withdraw their respective shares."

(pp. 31-34, Record)

We find the lower court's findings supported by substantial evidence:

"After studying the evidence of both parties with scrutiny, the Court is convinced that the landholder for that crop year shouldered the expenses in the care of the plants except the labor and the transplanting. The produce should have been divided on the basis of 75-25% in favor of Genaro Balanay under ordinary circumstances and normal condition. Since Genaro Balanay left the place after transplanting, the Court is not in a position to reliquidate the palay for that crop year since the Land Reform Project Team had intervened in the liquidation thereof for that crop year 1970-71. The opinion of the Executive Department under special circumstances, should be given certain amount of weight, who was Mr. Garma of the Land Reform Project Team.

"For crop year 1971-72, it seems that the landholding was no longer farmed or worked by the tenant-plaintiff, Genaro Balanay and his co-plaintiffs. Two (2) persons were instituted as tenants by Sergio Rafael to work on the farm, because the plaintiff Genaro Balanay and/or both of his co-plaintiffs were not in the place, as Genaro Balanay could not work the land because he became a regular conductor of the Pantranco, as the co-plaintiffs were not in the place, but were employed somewhere. The tenant, Genaro Balanay, abandoned the land. His helpers, the alleged co-workers of Genaro Balanay abandoned the land, too. Hence, the Court has no reason, neither is it justified to grant the plaintiffs any remedy to retain them to work on the landholding in question."

We cannot agree with plaintiffs-appellants that even as Genaro Balanay has been already a conductor of Pantranco, he may still continue as tenant of defendant. The work of a conductor in a bus company like the Pantranco where Balanay is presently employed is a full-time job. Appellant cannot justly consider his being a bus conductor as incidental work without jeopardizing his farm work and vice versa, his employer, the bus company, On cross-examination, Genaro Balanay admitted that since his employment as Pantranco conductor, he temporarily resided at Mapalacsiao, San Miguel, Tarlac, and never did any farm work:

"Q        And you also stated that you are temporarily residing at Mapalacsiao, San Miguel, Tarlac, since when have you been temporarily residing at that place?

A          Since I was employed as Conductor of the PANTRANCO, because our house is very far; it is in the barrio.

Q         You mean to say that since April, 1971, you have been residing at the place of Mapalacsiao, San Miguel, Tarlac?

A          Yes, sir.

"xxx                    xxx                    xxx

"Q        You also stated that your house is very far, that is why you are already residing at Mapalacsiao, San Miguel, Tarlac, Are we made to understand that because of the nature of your work, you can hardly go to your former residence of Sta. Ignacia, that is why you are now residing in Mapalacsiao, San Miguel, Tarlac?

A          Yes, sir and sometimes, I used to let my sister wash my clothes so I do not commute to our house in Sta. Ignacia. It is too far.

"xxx                    xxx                    xxx

"Q        You are not answering my question. My question is this, since when have you been employed . . . since you were employed, you never do farm works?

A          Yes, sir."

(pp. 34, 35-36, 41, tsn., Oct. 21, 1971)

Appellant Genaro Balanay further admitted that since he took the job of bus conductor, he had visited the landholding only once and his leave was not even official (p, 37, tsn., id.). We cannot certainly reconcile how Genaro Balanay can hold on to this present job as conductor, a full-time job, and compel defendant to reinstate him as tenant. His acceptance of the new employment is inevitably the abandonment of the other.

As to the right of Genaro's brother, Mateo and their brother-in-law, Francisco Sagun, the lower court's finding is sustained by the evidence that those 2 close relatives were invited by Genaro Balanay just to help in the farm work. It must be noted that when Genaro Balanay was instituted as tenant, Francisco Sagun was still in Mindanao while Mateo Balanay was then studying, though later, he worked in the Tarlac Sugar Central.

We cannot subscribe to appellants' view that because the defendant landowner knows that his brother and brother-in-law used to help his tenant in the farm work, that an implied tenancy was created between defendant and all 3 close relatives. Defendant's instituted tenant is Genaro Balanay and implied admission of tenancy would be presumed only had there been no assigned tenant. Besides, defendant has no control over the tenant's helper. His legal dealing is with his tenant, whom he could call to account. It is quite obvious to us that appellant Genaro Balanay would establish himself as a middleman — an absentee tenant participating in the harvest and at the same time holding on to his full-time job as bus conductor.

It is almost trite to repeat the settled rule that when the findings of the Court of Agrarian Relations are supported by substantial evidence, the same are conclusive and should not be disturbed on appeal (Agaton Mateo vs. Gregorio Duran, et al., SC-L-14314, Feb. 23, 1961; Paz vs. G. Santos, et al., G.R. No. L-12047, Sept. 30, 1959; Cabilo vs. de Guzman, G.R. No. L-13431, Nov. 24, 1959; Yusay vs. Alojado, G.R. Nos. L-14881 & 15001-7, April 30, 1969).

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

SO ORDERED.

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