THIRD DIVISION
[CA-G.R. No. 04605-R. September 22, 1976.]
JORGE NIPOLO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RODOLFO JAUCIAN, CATALINA VDA. DE LOCSIN and TEOTIMO LOTIVIO, JR., defendants-appellees.
D E C I S I O N
ESCOLIN, J p:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations of Legazpi City in CAR Case No. 1108, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.
The plaintiff Jorge Nipolo instituted against defendants Rodolfo Jaucian, Catalina Vda. de Locsin and Teotimo Lotivio, Jr., this action for reinstatement and recovery of damages, alleging that in December 1970, defendant Lotivio installed the defendant as tenant in a one-hectare riceland owned by the defendant Catalina Vda. de Locsin in Barrio Binitayan, Daraga, Albay; that Lotivio is Locsin's grandson and her overseer in the land; that the agreement between the plaintiff and Lotivio was that the latter would contribute the seedlings and transplanting expenses, and the net produce shared on a 45-55 basis in favor of the plaintiff; that Lotivio later informed the plaintiff that after the harvest of May 1972, defendant Jaucian, also a grandson of the defendant Locsin, would provide the seedlings and transplanting expenses; that sometime in May 1973, defendant Jaucian, although employed as City Agriculturist of Legazpi City, gave the plaintiff notice to vacate the landholding as he (Jaucian) would personally cultivate the same; and that immediately after the harvest of September 1973, or on September 2, 7, 28 and 29 and October 11, 1973, the landholding in question was plowed by two laborers hired by Jaucian.
In their answer, the defendants deny the material averements of the complaint, and allege that Jaucian is the agricultural lessee of the defendant Locsin in the land in question; and that the plaintiff was merely one of the several farm workers employed by Jaucian who were paid at the rate of P5.00 a day.
After trial, the lower court found that "at most, he (plaintiff) was only a hired laborer of Lotivio and later a sub-tenant of defendant Jaucian," and, accordingly, rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff took this appeal on the following assignments of error:
"1. In failing to appreciate the preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff-appellant's claim that in reality he is the bona fide tenant-farmer of the landholding in question;
"2. In holding that there is no express or implied contract of tenancy between the parties;
"3. In holding that silence on the part of the plaintiff-appellant regarding the execution of the leasehold contract (Exhibit L) in favor of defendant Rodolfo Jaucian belies plaintiff's claim."
The appeal is meritorious. The preponderance of evidence has established that the plaintiff performed the Major phases of farm work, including the plowing, harrowing, the transplanting of rice seedlings and the clearing and repair of the "pilapiles", (t.s.n., pp. 13, 24, 35, June 14, 1974; p. 4, Sept. 11, 1974; p. 9, Oct. 4, 1974; p. 35, June 14, 1974); that he delivered the owner's share of the produce to the overseer Lotivio (Exh. B; t.s.n., pp. 9-10, June 14, 1974); that as tenant in the land in question, the plaintiff obtained from the PNB a Masagana 99 loan, which he paid on October 23, 1973 (Exh. A); and that after he was evicted from his landholding he sought the aid of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
The foregoing facts more than amply sustain the plaintiff's claim that he was a tenant in the land in question. The fact the he sometimes hired laborers to help him in the plowing in order "to hurry the work" (p. 35, June 14, 1974) is of no moment. For what is prohibited by law is the hiring of farm laborers to solely perform the major phases of farm work (Abo vs. Santiago, CA-G.R. No. SP-01734, April 18, 1974.)
The lower court held that the plaintiff did not acquire the status of a tenant because —
". . . for tenancy to be established there must be the consent, express or implied, of the true owner or lawful landholder, who alone has the right to choose his tenant (Ulpiano et al, vs. CAR, et al., No. L-13891, Oct. 31, 1960). Herein, plaintiff himself declared that he was engaged by defendant Lotivio, who was the overseer in defendant Locsin's land, to work in the landholding in question and he never had option to talk to defendant-landowner." CIaHDc
We do not share the trial court's view that the plaintiff did not acquire the status of a tenant, simply because he was engaged by the owner's overseer and not by the owner herself. It is undisputed that the management and administration of the landholding in question was left entirely in the hands of the overseer Lotivio and that the owner herself did not have any personal dealings with the tenants in the land. The act of the overseer in instituting the plaintiff as tenant is therefor binding upon the owner, since the overseer is an extension of the personality and authority of the owner. It is noteworthy that the authority of Lotivio to engage tenants in the owner's property has not been denied.
Considerable stress is laid by the lower court on the agricultural leasehold contract, dated October 30, 1972, Exh. 1, executed by the defendant Locsin in favor of her grandson, the defendant Jaucian. We take a dim view of this leasehold contract, considering that Jaucian has been employed as City Agriculturist of Legazpi City since 1968 (t.s.n., p. 11, Nov. 18, 1974). Clearly, the said leasehold contract cannot be invoked to impair, much less extinguish, the plaintiff's security of tenure which commenced in December 1970.
For having been illegally ejected from his landholding, the plaintiff is entitled to damages. However, We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and there is not an iota of proof upon which to base the evaluation of damages. Absent such evidence, We refrain from giving any such award to the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and, accordingly, We hereby order the immediate reinstatement of the plaintiff Jorge Nipolo to the landholding in question, with costs against the defendants-appellees. TaSEHC
SO ORDERED.
Ramos and Vasquez, JJ., concur.