FIRST DIVISION
[CA-G.R. Nos. SP-05669-05672-CAR. February 4, 1977.]
JUAN ALCALA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PONSITO AMARANTE, defendant-appellee.
D E C I S I O N
VASQUEZ, J p:
The above-entitled cases are four of the five cases filed by alleged tenants of the defendant on a parcel of land situated in Sitio Abang-abang, Busay, Bago City, Negros Occidental. The said land which has an area of 27 hectares is an irrigated riceland. It was originally owned by Simplicio Amarante who died in 1968. The land was inherited by his children, namely, Ponsito, Jovito, Victor, Paciencia and Felixberto, all surnamed Amarante, but was administered and possessed by Ponsito Amarante who paid annual rentals for the shares corresponding to his brothers and sisters.
The plaintiffs who filed separate complaints before the Court of Agrarian Relations in Bacolod City were Juan Alcala, Vicente Valero, Rogelio Pagarita, Teresita Duran and Rodolfo Pagarita, their cases having been docketed as CAR Cases Nos. 5274, 5275, 5282, 5283 and 5284, respectively. The five cases involve a common cause of action against the same defendant for a change of agricultural relationship from share tenancy to leasehold, delivery of shares, fixing of rentals, damages and attorney's fees. The five cases were jointly tried and, in the decision rendered by the trial court dated February 18, 1976, all of the complaints were dismissed upon a finding that the plaintiffs were not agricultural tenants but merely hired laborers of the defendant in the landholding in question.
Rogelio Pagarita, plaintiff in CAR Case No. 5282, who was represented by a different counsel, filed a separate appeal which was docketed in the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. No. SP-05551-R. In the decision of the Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on December 7, 1976, the judgment of the trial court in CAR Case No. 5282 was affirmed in toto.
A copy of the decision rendered by the trial court was served by registered mail on Atty. Serafin Diego, counsel for the other four plaintiffs, on March 6, 1976. For the alleged reason that Atty. Diego forgot about the envelope containing the decision which remained unopened due to pressure of his professional engagements, it was only on May 28, 1976 that he learned about the said decision. By that time, the period of appeal had already lapsed. On May 3, 1976, Atty. Constancio S. Legaspi, who represented the plaintiff Rogelio Pagarita in CAR Case No. 5282, filed in behalf of the four other plaintiffs a petition for relief from judgment, praying that he be given fifteen (15) days to perfect the appeal in CAR Cases Nos. 5274, 5275, 5283 and 5284. Declaring the petition for relief to be without merit, the same was denied by the trial court in its order of June 3, 1976. The four plaintiffs in CAR Cases Nos. 5274, 5275, 5283 and 5284 took this appeal from the order denying their petition for relief.
In the verified petition for relief and the affidavit of Atty. Diego accompanying the same, it is alleged that, although the registered letter containing a copy of the decision was received by Atty. Diego on March 6, 1976, Atty. Diego came to know about its contents only on March 28, 1976, he having been pressed with his duties as a public defender, in connection with which he had to make various trips in different municipalities of the province. The trial court found the said excuse to be flimsy because, assuming the same to be true, it was not explained why no action was taken by the appellants until May 3, 1976 when the petition for relief was filed. It further ruled that the petition filed by the appellants was in reality a motion for extension of period to appeal which could not be granted, inasmuch as the said period had long since expired; and, moreover, if a petition for relief is desired to be filed, the same may only be entertained in the Court of Appeals.
In deciding whether or not to sustain the denial of the appellants' petition for relief, We prefer not to be guided by procedural precepts as those expressed by the trial court and the defendant-appellee. Rather, We give due deference to the policy enunciated in Presidential Decree No. 946 that agrarian cases should not be resolved in the manner provided by the Rules of Court, it being the spirit and intention of said Decree that means should be employed to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure (Sec. 16, P.D. No. 946). Without in the least implying that the appellants have no basis to seek relief from the judgment rendered against them, We are convinced that, considering the merits of their common cause of action, to entertain their appeal to enable that the merits of their case be properly ventilated and to accord to them their due share of the law, is more in consonance with the dictates of substantial justice.
It is the claim of the appellants that they have been tenants on the land in question, their tenure having begun on various dates, to wit, Juan Alcala since 1971; Vicente Valero since 1968; Teresita Duran since 1972; and Rodolfo Pagarita since 1974 when he succeeded his father who was a tenant on the land, after the latter's death. Their relationship with the defendant was on the share tenancy basis, the produce of the land being divided on a 50-50 sharing agreement. They filed these actions for a change of their relationship from share tenancy to leasehold.
Defendant denies that the appellants ever became tenants on his land. He claims that when his father died in 1968, he cultivated the land all by himself until he found need to hire laborers to help him. On March 13, 1972, the laborers hired by him executed a document entitled "SINUMPAAN" in the Visayan dialect which was subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Hitler Lagradilla, a special counsel in the Office of the City Fiscal of Bago City (Exhibit 1). Its English translation reads as follows:
"AFFIDAVIT
"We, GUALBERTO PAGARITA, ARCADIO PAGARITA, PROCESO MALUNES, HERNANI MATUTINA, MATEO PAGARITA, VICENTE VALERO, JUAN ALCALA, all of legal ages, married and TERESITA DURAN, of legal age, single, and all residents of Bo. Busay, City of Bago, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. That all of us are about to work daily as farm laborers and will be paid in accordance with law for everyday of work in the lot 2767 situated in Sitio Abang-abang, Bo. Busay, Bago City, and owned by the heirs of Simplicio Amarante;
2. That all of us swear that we will be paid daily in accordance with our ability to work as laborers of the said land which is owned by the heirs of Simplicio Amarante;
3. That all of us will sign payrolls or papers wherein we will receive our pay in accordance with the extent of our work and in accordance with law;
4. That all of us are not tenants or lessees of said lot 2767 situated at Bo. Busay, City of Bago and that we are not tenants or lessees of the heirs of Simplicio Amarante and we proclaim to all that we have no right to claim the rights of a tenant or lessee because we are not tenants or lessees but laborers who will be paid in accordance with law and in accordance with our work;
5. That all the statements stated above are true and we swear to the truth of all the statements above-stated;
6. That we understood all the statements stated about because the same was explained to us by an officer of the government who signs below this affidavit and that nobody influenced us, intimidated us or forced us to sign this affidavit because the execution of this affidavit is our own liking and that all these statements are voluntary.
IN WITNESS OF ALL THE STATEMENTS ABOVE, we signed this affidavit in front of the officer of the government who signs below this affidavit this ___ day of March, 1972, in the City of Bago, Philippines.
(TH) GUALBERTO PAGARITA (TH) ARCADIO PAGARITA
(SGD.) PROCESO MALUNES (SGD.) HERNANI MATUTINA
(TH) MATEO PAGARITA (SGD.) VICENTE VALERO
(SGD.) JUAN ALCALA (SGD.) TERESITA DURAN
WITNESSES:
————————— —————————
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to, this 13th day of March, 1972, at the City of Bago, Philippines.
(SGD.) HITLER LAGRADILLA
Special Counsel"
(Exhibit I-A.)
As further proof that the appellants, as well as all those working on his land, were paid merely as hired laborers, or on the pakiao system, the defendant presented several receipts executed by the appellants purporting to show that the appellants are merely hired laborers paid on a daily basis (Exhibits 2 up to 36). Additionally, the defendant presented a certification to show that the defendant, and not the appellants, was the one paying the annual irrigation fees of the land in question (Exhibit 48); and a certification issued by Servando Labilles, President of the Samahan Nayon of Barrio Busay, Bago City to the effect that appellant Juan Alcala and Vicente Valero have not applied for membership in the Samahan Nayon.
On the basis of the documents presented by the defendant-appellee, the genuineness of all of which had not been impugned, the trial court deduced the conclusion that, as expressly acknowledged by them in the "SINUMPAAN" executed on March 13, 1972 (Exhibit 1), the appellants worked on the landholding in question as mere hired laborers, and not as share tenants as alleged by them.
The decision of the trial court is notable for its almost complete disregard of the evidence presented by plaintiffs-appellants. Virtually no mention of such evidence was made. Much less was there a discussion of why appellants' evidence may not be accorded probative value. Appellants have shown that they have presented their grievances against the defendant with the proper authorities of the Department of Agrarian Reform. A certification of Carlito R. Mamon, team leader of Agrarian Reform Team No. 107 in Bago City showed that the appellants had been identified as cultivating certain portions of the farmholding of the defendant situated at Sitio Abang-abang, Barrio Busay, Bago City (Exhibit B). A complaint of the tenants on the land had been lodged with the Department of Agrarian Reform which directed an immediate investigation thereof. The investigation was conducted by Atty. Corona Villavicencio, Legal Officer II of Region VI, Iloilo City. The result of the investigation conducted by Atty. Villavicencio is contained in an exhaustive 16-page report dated January 30, 1975 submitted to the Regional Director, Region VI of the Department of Agrarian Reform in Iloilo City (Exhibit A). The said report contains the conclusion that "plaintiffs are in truth and in fact share tenants in the land partly owned and fully administered by Ponsito Amarante". Attached to the said report is an affidavit of Francisco Nagum, Officer-in-Charge of the Pulupandan Rural Bank, certifying that the appellants had been granted loans under the Masagana 99 Financing Project as tenants in the landholding of the defendant (Exhibit C).
We find the evidence of the appellants to be more convincing as against that of the defendant insofar as the appellants being tenants on the land in question is concerned. The defendant's denial that the plaintiffs worked as tenants on his land not only suffers from the infirmity of being self-serving and unreliable due to its negative nature, but is inconsistent with probabilities and other established facts in the case. It is significant to note that the defendant has not mentioned, nor would like to admit, that the land was ever worked by tenants, both at the time he assumed its administration in 1968 or even before that time. He claims that it was only in 1972 that he found the need of hiring laborers to help him cultivate the land. We find this assertion to be difficult to believe. The landholding in question is an irrigated ricefield with an area of 27 hectares. That such a parcel of land may not be worked by one man would be easily inferred from the fact that the defendant hired laborers to help him cultivate the same, eight of whom were signatories to the "SINUMPAAN" executed on March 31, 1972 (Exhibit 1). The tenancy status of the appellants could also be inferred from some of the documentary exhibits presented by the defendant, particularly Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. These documents purport to show that the appellants received loans from the defendant, either in palay or in money, the same to be "paid out of their salary as hired laborers". The giving of said loans by the defendant to the appellants is highly indicative that the appellants were to receive some money in the future, out of which, the said loans would be repaid, and such expectancy could only be in the form of their shares of the harvest of the land. We share this observation of Atty. Villavicencio in her report (Exhibit A):
"No landowner in his right senses would be daring enough to give out 10 cavans, 14 cavans of the precious grain or money in such equivalent amount unless there is security, and security there was in the instant case in the form of standing crops of palay in the field which are harvested and measured in accordance with the money lender's orders.
Can one ever imagine a landlord giving advance wages which will cover a month or two months' daily wages. Surely if they were only laborers the most that they could borrow would be P50 to P100 or only one week's labor, and this is sometimes given in extreme cases of emergency as sickness or death in the family." (p. 15, Folder of Exhibits of CAR Case No. 5282.)
Much stress was laid on the document entitled "SINUMPAAN", wherein the appellants, together with others, acknowledged their status as daily farm laborers in the land in question (Exhibit 1). It is true that the appellants admit having affixed their signatures to the same (in the case of appellant Rodolfo Pagarita, the signatory of his father Mateo Pagarita who was still alive at that time). They aver, however, that they were made to sign the said document on the assurance of the defendant that it was a mere formality and would not affect their status as tenants which shall be continued on the 50-50 sharing basis; and that the defendant made them understand that if they would refuse to sign the document, they would not be allowed to continue working on the land.
The circumstances under which Exhibit 1 was executed give Us a dim view of its real purpose, if not of its legality. In a sense, it even betrays the fact, contrary to the claim of the defendant, that the appellants were already working on the land as tenants even before the execution of the said document. The date of the said document reveals that it was executed soon after the effectivity of the law making mandatory the automatic conversion of agricultural share tenancy to agricultural leasehold system, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6389 which was amended by Republic Act No. 3844 and which was approved on September 10, 1971. Pursuant to the said law, the automatic conversion shall be effective after the end of the agricultural year when the President of the Philippines shall have organized by Executive Order the Department of Agrarian Reform, which was effectively done by Executive Order No. 347 issued on November 10, 1971. It is abundantly clear that in causing the execution of Exhibit 1, the defendant intended to ward off the conversion of his land from the share tenancy system to the agricultural leasehold system. The agreement contained in Exhibit 1 being a waiver by the appellants of rights granted to them by law, the same may only be upheld if it is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs (Art. 6, Civil Code).
Quite obviously, Exhibit 1 was designed to circumvent the law and to defeat the underlying philosophy of land reform. If such an agreement were to be countenanced, land reform would be a myth and an empty shibolleth. Adherence to this declared national policy is made more emphatic in current enactments and decrees. Among others, the Department of Agrarian Reform has taken cognizance of certain methods employed by landowners to defeat said policy, such as "forcing their tenants to sign as farm laborers to evade Presidential Decree No. 27", which act was pronounced to be illegal (Memorandum Circular DAR, January 9, 1973). In P.D. No. 583, it is made a criminal offense for any landowner "who by any other act, scheme, or strategy shall eject, exclude, remove or oust and/or cause the ouster, exclusion, removal or ejectment of a tenant-farmer from his landholdings in contravention of decrees, laws, and other orders on land reform" (Sec. 4, second paragraph).
The receipts presented by the defendant (Exhibits 2 to 49) were evidently prepared in consonance with the same conscious and studied effort on the part of the defendant to make it appear that the appellants are not his tenants, but merely hired laborers on the land. Quite curiously, it is noteworthy that the earliest of said receipts is dated in 1974 despite the fact that the appellants allegedly became hired laborers of the defendant since March of 1972. All of the 5 cases in question were filed against the defendant in 1974.
Defendant seeks to bind the appellants to their plighted word as contained in the document entitled "SINUMPAAN" (Exhibit 1) which they admit having signed. He cites the case of Dequito vs. Llamas, 66 SCRA 504, wherein the Supreme Court did not permit a tenant to spurn an affidavit that he executed, pursuant to which, he relinquished or surrendered his landholding in consideration of the sum of P700.00 received from his landlord. We see no parallel between the Dequito case and the one at bar. In Dequito, the execution of the affidavit of the tenant surrendering his landholding was found to be totally voluntary and done in good faith. As aforestated, the appellants were made to affix their signatures to Exhibit 1 under an economic compulsion to do so, the alternative of their refusing to sign being to lose their landholding. Moreover, the surrender of a tenant's landholding is lawful, it being expressly recognized by law as one of the means by which a tenant may lose his status as such (Sec. 8, paragraph 2, Code of Agrarian Reform). In the case of Exhibit 1, the agreement is contrary to a declared public policy, it being clearly intended to defeat the automatic conversion of the status of the appellants from share tenants to agricultural lessees.
It is realized that the question of the validity of the document entitled "SINUMPAAN" (Exhibit 1) has not been raised by either party in the trial court, nor in this appeal. We derive our authority to pass on said issue from the provision of P.D. No. 946 that "the Court of Appeals shall not be precluded from taking into consideration any issue, question or incident, even if not raised, if the resolution thereof is necessary for a complete and just disposition of the case" (Sec. 18).
WHEREFORE, the decision rendered in the four above-entitled cases by the Court of Agrarian Relations in Bacolod City is hereby reversed and set aside. In lieu thereof, another one is rendered, declaring that the relationship between the plaintiffs-appellants and the defendant-appellee starting from the year 1974 shall be that of agricultural leasehold. Let the records of these cases be remanded to the court of origin for the fixing of the rentals payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant as agricultural lessees of the portions of the land respectively cultivated by each of them. Defendant-appellee shall pay the costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Batacan and Jimenez, JJ ., concur.