SEVENTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. No. 06433-R.  May 31, 1977.]

PEDRO CANJA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MATEO BANGOY, defendant-appellee.

D E C I S I O N

ESCOLIN, J p:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff Pedro Canja from the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations of North Cotabato in CAR Case No. 9-'74.

Since 1967 the plaintiff has been a tenant of the defendant Mateo Bangoy in his 2-1/2 hectare land in Barrio Binay, Municipality of Magpet, Cotabato. On November 7, 1970, the defendant sent the following letter to the plaintiff, informing him that after harvest he would take over the cultivation of the landholding in question:   HEISca

"November 7, 1972

Mr. Pedro Canja
                Mr. Epifanio Taparano

Barrio Binay, Magpet, Cotabato

My Dear Pedro and Epifanio,

This is to inform you that after the harvest of this planting season, I am taking over of whatever area you are cultivating within my property. This is to inform you in advance so that you will have more time to look for another place to work. I have the intention to loan this property of mine at the Philippine National Bank for important project, so that if in case any amortization by the bank I will not have a hard time in paying it since I am the very one working in it.

I hope you can kindly cooperate with my wish and I am thanking you for everything, I am

Truly yours,

(Sgd) MATEO BANGOY
Landlord"

(Exhibit A).

However, the plaintiff ignored the above letter and refused to vacate his landholding. Sometime in March 1973, defendant filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff for qualified theft of coconuts, docketed as Criminal Case No. 440 of the Municipal Court of Magpet, Cotabato. As a consequence thereof, plaintiff was arrested on April 5, 1973, and thereafter detained until April 27, 1973 when he was able to post a bond for his provisional release. After trial, plaintiff was convicted of the crime charged; but upon appeal to the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, the charge was dismissed on motion of the Provincial Fiscal on the ground that the case was "designed to harass or to remove the accused from the land because of disagreement with the landlord."

On July 3, 1973, plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant for reinstatement and for recovery of damages, attorney's fees and costs. The complaint alleges inter alia that after the plaintiff's release from jail, defendant not only barred him from working his farm, but also took back his carabao, thereby depriving him and his family of their only means of livelihood.

In his answer, defendant avers that plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land and that he has not ejected him therefrom; that "regarding the carabao, defendant has been waiting for the plaintiff to just get the same from him since he was provisionally released from "jail"; and that the plaintiff, as tenant, has failed to meet his legal obligations and to respect the rights of his landlord, because —   ADCSEa

". . . from the time he became a member of the FFF he practically disregard the rights of his landlord in several instances: In 1971 he delivered 1/2 hectare of his landholding to Epifanio Taparano without the consent of the owner. In that same year he abandoned cultivation of 1/3 hectare of his landholding up to the present. In 1972 he did not deliver the share of his landlord of the copra and coffee he was told to harvest. In the early part of 1973 when he had his palay harvested in the said landholding, he did not give the share of his landlord, and in that same period he gathered the fruits of the coconuts belonging to landlord without the consent of the latter, . . ." (par. 5, Defendant's answer).

A counterclaim was interposed by the defendant to recover from plaintiff the amount of P5,000.00 as actual damages; P5,000.00 as moral damages; P5,000.00 as exemplary damages; P1,500.00 for attorney's fees, and P1,000.00 for expenses of litigation. The counterclaim was later amended by including therein a prayer for the ejectment of the plaintiff from the litigated land.

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering:

"1.     The dismissal of the instant complaint;

"2.     Plaintiff to pay the defendant P1,000.00 for all the plants and fruit trees plaintiff destroyed in subject land;

"3.     Plaintiff to pay the defendant P3,750.00 equivalent to 125 cavans of palay defendant is entitled to as rentals or lease of his 2-1/2 hectares land occupied by the plaintiff from 1973 to date (August 1975);

"4.     Plaintiff to pay defendant of his attorney's fee of P1,000.00;

"5.     Plaintiff to pay costs; and

"6.     Although plaintiff-tenant is to be ejected from his landholding due to violations he committed which are enough grounds for his ejectment under RA 6389 yet this Court cannot issue the order of ejectment due to Presidential Decree Nos. 27, 316 and 583 and therefore such order is held in abeyance."

The above judgment is predicated on the following findings —

". . . the Court finds that really the plaintiff-tenant (Pedro Canja) was never ejected from his landholding. He remained in his landholding from 1967 he was instituted as tenant up to the present. Plaintiff's arrest and detention in jail for about 2 to 3 weeks during April, 1973 cannot be considered as ejectment for after his release from jail he immediately returned to subject land and harvested his palay even without giving share to the defendant.   CAaDSI

"As to damages alleged in the complaint, plaintiff failed to prove the same.

"On the other hand, defendant was able to prove in his counterclaim that plaintiff-tenant have committed violations which are enough grounds for his ejectment but the Court cannot act on the same due to Presidential Decrees Nos. 27, 316 and 583. The Court also found out that 2 mango trees, 6 coconut trees as well as many hills of bananas of the defendant were destroyed by the plaintiff which can be assessed at a nominal amount of P1,000.00 taking into consideration the proceeds of the fruits of the said fruit bearing trees over a period of years if not killed or destroyed. Further, it was found out as borne by evidence that the defendant was not given rentals of subject land from 1973 to date and considering that the 2-1/2 hectares are planted twice in one year of palay and at the rate of an average harvest of only 100 cavans of palay on the 2-1/2 hectares which is quite low, very low indeed then the defendant is entitled to a rental of 25 cavans of palay per harvest or 50 cavans for two harvests in one year or a total of 125 cavans of palay from 1973 to date (August 1975) and at the rate of only P30.00 per cavans of palay then plaintiff must pay the defendant the sum of P3,750.00 the cost of said 125 cavans of palay as lease or rental of subject .land" (pp. 39-40, Decision).

The case is now before Us on appeal by the plaintiff.

We share the trial court's view that the plaintiff was never evicted from his landholdings. At the trial, the defendant testified that he has not ejected the plaintiff, and the latter himself admitted that he has been, and still is, in possession. Thus, it would be unnecessary the dwell at length on the question of the plaintiff's reinstatement.

We agree with the plaintiff that the court a quo erred in sentencing him to pay the defendant the sum of P1,000.00 for the value of the plants and fruit trees allegedly destroyed by the plaintiff on the land. As borne out by the evidence, the said fruit trees were destroyed due to the presence of the waters in the irrigation canal which was constructed by the plaintiff in the land for the purpose of irrigating the palay planted near the trees. The plaintiff cannot be faulted for constructing said irrigation canal which was necessary for the proper cultivation of rice. It appears that in 1969 the parties agreed to devote the land to the production of palay; and that it was in pursuance of said agreement that the plaintiff constructed the said irrigation canal.

The lower court likewise ordered the plaintiff to pay defendant "the amount of P3,750.00 equivalent to 125 cavans of palay defendant is entitled to as rental or lease of his 2-1/2 hectare land occupied by the plaintiff from 1973 to date (August 1975)." This award is predicated upon its findings that since 1973, plaintiff has not paid the rentals due to the defendant. We disagree with such pronouncement insofar as it orders the plaintiff to pay the rentals corresponding to the agricultural years 1973 and 1974. Plaintiff testified that because of the defendant's refusal to receive his share in the harvests of 1973 and 1974, the same was deposited by him (plaintiff) with the Barrio Captain of Binay, Tranquilino Ynion. The latter, who testified for the defendant, confirmed the plaintiff's testimony in this wise:   TDAHCS

"Q        You said you remembered this receipt which was dated March 6, 1973 where there was sharing. Now, after the sharing was actually done where did the share of Bangoy go?

A         It was only in my possession.

Q         Why?

A         Because Bangoy would not receive it.

Q         Now what happened to that share that you received that was in your possession?

A         Deposited it in the barrio.

COURT:

Q         Up to now?

A         Yes, Sir.

Q         Now, this sharing also which took place in April 28, 1974 now marked Exh. 'G' you said you know this, now where did the share of Bangoy go?

A         It was also in my possession.

Q         Now, what did you do with that share?

A         I deposited it.

Q         Up to now?

A         Yes, sir.

Q         The crop or the money?

A         The money.

Q         So you saw the share converted to money?

A         Yes, sir, the share was converted to money and deposited it to the barrio hall.

Q         Up to now it is there?

A         Yes, sir, still there.

Q         Now this sharing that took place on April 27, 1974, where did Bangoy's share go?

A         It was also in my possession.

Q         What did you do with the share?

A         It went to my possession and it was sold.

Q         And where was the proceeds of the sale?

A         It was also deposited in the barrio.

Q         Up to now it is still there?

A         Yes, sir" (pp. 69-71, t.s.n., Jan. 8, 1975).

It is needless to state that the defendant may rightfully claim his share in the 1973 and 1974 crops from the barrio captain. However, the plaintiff, who has been in possession and cultivation of the litigated land must be held liable for the rentals which he failed to pay beginning the year 1975 up to the present, since this is a legal obligation which an agricultural lessee or tenant cannot be evade (Section 26, Rep. Act 3844, as amended by Rep. Act 6389). Should he fail to pay the same, he shall suffer the consequence decreed by P.D. No. 816, Section 3 whereof provides:

"SEC. 3.       That any agricultural lessee whose landholding is not yet covered by a Certificate of Land Transfer and who shall continue not to pay his lease rentals or amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the landowner/agricultural lessor shall, upon proper hearing and judgment, lose his right to be issued a Certificate of Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and his farmholding."

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified as follows:

(1)    The defendant shall maintain the plaintiff in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land in question;

(2)    The plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant the rentals due from 1975 until the present time in the amount fixed by the trial court in its decision, without prejudice to the provisions of P.D. 816, in case of non-payment. No costs.   SITCEA

SO ORDERED.

Gancayco and Alampay, JJ., concur.