FOURTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. No. 07644-CAR. May 31, 1978.]
LUCIO BUENO, plaintiff , vs. ROBERTO BASCO, defendant.
D E C I S I O N
DE LA FUENTE, J p:
Appeal interposed by the defendant Roberto Basco, in CAR Case No. 1183-Albay'74, from the judgment of the agrarian court which reads as follows:
"1. Ordering the defendant Roberto Basco and his agents to return the possession and cultivation of the riceland in question described in paragraph 2 of the Complaint to the plaintiff, Lucio Bueno, and to maintain him in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the same;
"2. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff actual and compensatory damages in the amount of P500.00;
"3. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of P500.00 for attorney's fees;
"4. Recommending to the Department of Agrarian Reform the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer issued in favor of the defendant Basco, and the same be issued instead in favor of the plaintiff, who is the bona-fide tenant thereon;
"5. All other claims by the parties are hereby denied.
"No pronouncement as to cost.
"SO ORDERED."
We find it unnecessary to require the parties to file simultaneously their respective memoranda within a nonextendible period of 15 days, the appellant, as defendant, having presented to the court a quo a lengthy memorandum containing the statement of facts and the arguments relied upon to sustain his position in this agrarian case. Appellee, on the other hand, had also submitted his memorandum. And both were duly considered by the court a quo rendering its decision.
It appears that this is a case or reinstatement filed by plaintiff against defendant, each party claiming to be the tenant with respect to a certain landholding about 17,000 sq. meters in area, situated at Bayandong, Bacacay, Albay, and owned by Maura Barra. Plaintiff alleged that he has been cultivating said land since 1960, and that while he was plowing the land in 1974 the defendant stopped him from further cultivating the same. Thus, he went to the landowner for advice and he was told to institute judicial action against the said defendant.
On the other hand, defendant denied the plaintiff's material allegations. It was claimed that plaintiff had never been a tenant, alleging that in CAR Case No. 1028, for the fixing rental and for ejectment, between the landowner and the defendant a compromise agreement was entered into between them in January 1974, fixing the rental at 17 sacks of palay.
The findings of facts and the pronouncements of the agrarian court are as follows:
"The only issue to be resolved is who among the parties in this case is the lawful tenant of the riceland in question.
"Plaintiff claims that he had been the actual tenant tiller of the riceland in question since 1960 up to 1974. That he became the tenant of the herein landholding because it was entrusted to him by the original tenant, the defendant Roberto Basco, his brother-in-law, because the latter is cultivating a bigger riceland in Malinao, Albay. That their arrangement was that he performs all the acts of cultivation such as, plowing, harrowing, fixing of the canals and dikes, whereas, his brother-in-law contributes the transplanting expenses. That this arrangement was with the knowledge of the owner as he is the one personally delivering the share corresponding to them (t.s.n., p. 11, hearing of Feb. 14, 1975). To bolster his claim of tenancy, he has with him in his favor of certification from the Department of Agrarian Reform that he is the actual tenant-tiller of the land in question. However, sometime in May 1974, while he was again preparing the riceland for cultivation, he was forcibly ejected by the defendant Basco, thus he was compelled to file this case.
"On the other hand, defendant maintains that he is the legitimate and lawful tenant of the riceland in question, since he was 19 years old because, originally, it was his parents who were the tenants thereat. After he got married, the land was entrusted to him by his parents for cultivation. To show that he is really the recognized tenant, he presented CAR Case No. 1028, filed by the owner Maura Barra against the tenants for fixing of rental for ejectment, where he was one of the defendants and plaintiff was not made a party therein. Likewise, all the receipts of the delivery of the owner's share were issued in his name as the recognized tenant; that this case was filed merely to harass him because it is the owner who is behind the filing of this case, to avoid the enforcement of the compromise agreement in CAR Case No. 1028.
"After evaluating the evidence on record, we are convinced that the preponderance of evidence tends to prove that plaintiff is the lawful tenant of the land in question. Indeed the Court, because of the conflicting version of the parties, rely mainly its finding on the credibility of the evidences presented by the parties. There is no dispute that defendant Roberto Basco is the original tenant recognized by the owner. This fact is admitted to by all the parties and their respective witnesses. But as to whether the defendant continued to perform his duty as tenant of the riceland in question from 1958 up to the filing of this case, seems now to be the principal issue to be determined. Plaintiff, convincingly proved, through the different witnesses he presented, including the owner, that although defendant Basco is the recognized and registered tenant since 1940, but starting 1958 he was not the one personally cultivating the riceland in question. He gave the land for cultivation first to a certain Elias Bernarte in 1958 to 1959 (t.s.n., pp. 10-11, August 10-11, August 10, 1977), and later to his brother-in-law, the herein plaintiff from 1960 up to 1974. The reason why the defendant had to give the cultivation of the riceland to somebody was because he was cultivating another riceland situated at Malinao, Albay, which has a bigger area and is far from the land in question (t.s.n., p. 9, hearing on Feb. 14, 1975; t.s.n., pp. 20-21, hearing of August 10, 1977), which fact was never disputed by the defendant. Defendant Basco only shoulders the transplanting expenses, so he can receive certain percentage of the harvest. Witness Elias Bernarte even showed letters (marked Exhibits "C" and "D") of defendant Basco delegating the job of fixing the dam to the land was entrusted to the latter for cultivation. Even the barrio councilman, Julio Bellen, who resides in the same barrio where the land in question is located and who is cultivating an adjoining riceland, affirms the claim of plaintiff, that Bueno is the actual tiller and not the defendant. What clinches the claim of the plaintiff is the certification of the Department of Agrarian Reform (Exhibit "A"), when this case was referred to the said office that the plaintiff was unlawfully ejected by the defendant from the riceland in question. The Legal Officer, Atty. Demetrio Rojas, who made the investigation report, testified in court that plaintiff is the actual tiller of the land from 1960 to 1974, and the defendant was just shouldering the expenses for transplanting (t.s.n., pp. 5-6 & 9, August 10, 1977). Although, this Court is not bound by the certification or report of the DAR, but as against the bare assertions of defendant, the Court will naturally give more weight to the said report of the DAR who personally conducted an investigation. It has been consistently ruled that in the determination as to who is the actual tenant-tiller of the riceland, the principal factors to be considered is the person who actually performs the work of plowing, barrowing and fixing of the dikes preparatory to transplanting and not the person who just incur the transplanting expenses. In the case of Gabriel vs. Pangilinan, L-27797, August 26, 1974, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Saldiver said, that: 'A person in order to be considered a tenant, must himself and with the aid available from his immediate farm household, cultivate the land. Persons, therefore, who do not actually work the land, cannot be considered tenants and he, who uses others whom he pays for the cultivation of the land, ceases to hold, and is considered as having abandoned the land as tenants within the meaning of Sec. 5 & 8, Rep. Act No. 1199, and ceases to enjoy the status, rights and privileges of one'. If the law abhors absentee owners, more so with absentee tenants or a tenants who try to make business out of their tenancy rights by selling their right to others or trying to gain something at the expense of the exploited tiller. These kind of practices should be condemned and do not deserve the protection of the law. Otherwise, we will be encouraging laziness or scrupulous tenant, who are taking advantage of the decrees issued by the President for the protection of deserving tenants.
"Defendant Basco hinges mainly his defense that he is the tenant of the land because of the decision in CAR Case No. 1028. We hesitate to give importance to the documentary evidences presented by the defendant, because of the following reasons: In the said case, defendant Basco was one of the defendants, and the cause of action was for fixing of rentals and/or ejectment of defendants, if proven that the defendants were employing sub-tenants. Said original case alleged in paragraphs 2 & 5 of the complaint that defendant Basco is not the one personally cultivating the riceland in question, but the plaintiff herein Bueno. The owner, plaintiff in said case, sought for the ejectment of Basco. Plaintiff herein was not a party, but as the evidence shows, he was the actual tiller during the pendency of the said case (t.s.n., pp. 18-22, Feb. 14, 1975). However, CAR Case No. 1028 was not heard on the merits, but the parties entered into an amicable settlement as to the rental that each of the defendant will deliver to the owner. A decision was rendered based on the said compromise agreement by the Court, dated February 1, 1974. It is, therefore, very evident that in the said case, the issue as to whether defendant Basco is the one personally doing the cultivation was not resolved. Considering that the owner Barra employed Basco as their tenant, he is the most logical person to whom the case will be filed and not against the sub-tenant he employed. Hence, after CAR Case No. 1028 was filed in March 1973, by the owner, the defendant Basco in his attempt to cover up his illegal acts, insisted in personally delivering the share to the owner and demanded receipts from the latter to establish his claim of tenancy (t.s.n., p. 5, Sept. 15, 1977). But no receipts were presented by the defendant before 1973. It is not infrequent to see that someone else delivered the rental for the lessee. And this is not an uncommon practice among our tenantry (Exequiel Trinidad vs. Tomas Sevilla, CA-G.R. No. 03313-R, June 30, 1976). Defendant who is aware of the law was trying to shield the plaintiff from asserting his rights, because he knows that employment of sub-tenant is not sanctioned. Thus, there is some truth to the claim of plaintiff that he did not intervene in CAR Case No. 1028, because he was prevailed upon by Basco (t.s.n., p. 21, Feb. 14, 1975). But sad to say, the owner accepted and consented to the possession and cultivation of the sub-tenant he employed and therefore, whatever rights defendant may have in the riceland in question is deemed to have been abandoned and transferred to the plaintiff herein. Neither, can the certificate of Land Transfer issued in favor of the defendant bolster his claim of tenancy since certification issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform, are not conclusive evidence of the fact that the holder thereof is the bona-fide tenant. It can be assailed of and, therefore, can be cancelled at anytime should the holder thereof be not entitled thereto or did not comply with the necessary conditions imposed therein. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff has already requested the Department of Agrarian Reform for the cancellation of defendant's Land Transfer Certificate which was erroneously issued in his favor. The claim of the defendant that plaintiff filed this case because of the prodding of the owner to avoid giving effect to the compromise agreement in CAR Case No. 1028, cannot be given weight considering that there were several defendants in said case, but no case was filed against them, except against the defendant herein. Furthermore, defendant's only witness is his brother-in-law, Bonifacio Bidar, who is employed at the Legaspi Oil Company, Legaspi City, a distance of about 15 to 16 kilometers away from his residence (t.s.n., p. 7, hearing of July 8, 1977), as against the four witnesses of the plaintiff who are disinterested parties. Evidence to be believed must not only pass from the mouth of the credible witness but it must be credible in itself."
After careful consideration of the record, we find substantial evidence which sustains the factual findings of the Court a quo. Moreover, its pronouncements are not contrary to the law and applicable jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision should be, as it is hereby, affirmed. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Gaviola, Jr. and Paras, JJ ., concur.