EIGHTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. No. 05658.  February 28, 1977.]

LUIS COSCOS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ESTATE OF MARCELO SIBUGON, represented by ANTONIO SIBUGON, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

D E C I S I O N

AGCAOILI, J p:

This is a pauper's appeal of plaintiff Luis Coscos from the Decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations of Davao City, which dismissed his action for reinstatement and damages, against the estate of Marcelo Sibugon, represented by administrator-heir Antonio Sibugon and his co-heir Cecilia vda. de Sibugon.

Plaintiff contended that he was a tenant of the late Marcelo Sibugon in 1967 on a two-hectare riceland situated at Calinan, Davao City; that he planted palay twice a year with an average normal harvest of 150 cavans, dividing the produce with the defendants on a 30-70 sharing arrangement in his favor; that in August, 1972 defendant Antonio Sibugon grabbed his landholding; that despite the mediation efforts of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, defendants refused to reinstate him; hence, the filing of his complaint for reinstatement.

Plaintiff's brother, Tomas Coscos had testified that he used to help herein plaintiff in the cultivation, planting and harvesting on the land in litigation until he got married in 1971; that when petitioner got sick in April, 1972, he took over the cultivation of the landholding, however, in August, 1972 the Sibugons took the same from him.

On the other hand, defendants claimed that in 1967 plaintiff was their tenant on an unirrigated one-hectare land with a share of only 18 sacks of palay; that in April, 1971, plaintiff had voluntarily abandoned his landholding to work on the irrigated three-hectare land at Wangan, Davao City, owned by Dr. Tongson; sublet the same to Ismael Comboc, father-in-law of his brother Tomas Coscos, and caused the latter to work on the said landholding, without the consent and knowledge of the defendants; that Tomas Coscos requested the defendants that he be allowed to harvest twice thereon to recover the P450.00 paid to the plaintiff in consideration of the aforesaid lease of the landholding; that in March, 1972 plaintiff dismantled his nut from the landholding in dispute and even asked permission from defendants to bring the materials to his new landholding; that in August, 1972 defendants began working on his new landholding; and that plaintiff never got sick but only had a cyst on his left shoulder.

This Court finds no justification to disturb the findings of fact and law of the court below, considering that preponderance of evidence discloses that plaintiff-appellant had voluntarily abandoned his landholding in litigation after he had sublet it without consent and knowledge of the defendants-appellees.

We have noted that appellant failed to rebut the contentions of the appellees that he had sublet his landholding to Esmael Comboc, father-in-law of his brother, Tomas Coscos, for a consideration of P450.00 without the knowledge and consent of the appellees-landowners; that he had left his unirrigated one-hectare landholding, whose produce had not given him sufficient income to support his family, in favor of an irrigated three-hectare landholding at Wangan, Davao City; and that he himself transferred his hut from the landholding in litigation to his new landholding.

The act of a tenant subleasing his landholding to another without the consent of the landowner is, indeed, unlawful. Section 24, par. 3 of R.A. 1199 states that ". . . land entrusted for cultivation to a leasehold tenant shall not be sublet nor shall the lease be assigned by the tenant to another person except with the written consent of the lessor."

Likewise, to constitute an "abandonment", which is one of the Legal means to extinguish tenancy relationship, there must be an absolute relinquishment of the premises by the tenant. This "overt act" must be complied with his intention to do so "which is carried into effect" (Martin, Philippine Labor and Social Legislation, 1970 ed., 405-406). In the case at bar, the intention of the appellant to voluntarily abandon his landholding in litigation in favor of his new irrigated three-hectare landholding is graphically manifested by his overt act of transferring his hut to his new landholding. It is a natural human behaviour for a sane person to transfer to a greener pasture and for the appellant, his new landholding would surely give him a better income than his former landholding. In fact, when he was supposedly ejected, he had already transferred to his new landholding. Before the trial court, he had admitted that he was already working at his new landholding.

Moreover, it is further observed that he was allegedly ejected in August, 1972, nonetheless, he only filed his complaint for reinstatement on March, 1973. Was the delay in filing his complaint a mere afterthought for speculation purpose with regards to Presidential Decree 27 that took effect on October 21, 1972? Says the court a quo "Having claimed back as tenant after Martial Law is an act of opportunism or to take advantage of Presidential Decree 27. His demand from the defendants the sum of P2,500.00 obviously reveals that his intention was to utilize this Court as an agency for money making, which of course the Court frowns with disfavor."

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, We hereby affirm in toto the appealed Decision. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Pascual and Climaco, JJ ., concur.