SPECIAL FIFTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. No. SP-06963. March 30, 1978.]
PEDRO H. ESCUETA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BARTOLOME GERODIAS and PONCIANO LIMOSNERO, defendants-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
SISON, J p:
Before the Court of Agrarian Relations of San Pablo City (CAR Case No. 2653, Laguna '74), plaintiff Pedro H. Escueta seeks that defendant Bartolome Gerodias be declared the true and lawful tenant, to the exclusion of defendant Ponciano Limosnero, over a certain parcel of agricultural land located in Barrio Halang, Biñan, Laguna and to determine the proper lease rental thereof, alleging among others, that he (Bartolome Gerodias) is the duly designated tenant since the year 1954 under a verbal sharing agreement of 75% for the tenant and 25% for the landowner.
Defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint and assert that defendant Ponciano Limosnero is the duly designated tenant, cultivating and performing all the other phases of production thereon.
After trial on the merits a judgment, dated April 17, 1977 was rendered, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the landholding with an area of 4.9 hectares, located at Barrio Halang, Biñan, Laguna, and owned by the plaintiff, to be without a tenant. ASTcaE
Accordingly, plaintiff is given full freedom to select a lessee of his choice; defendants are therefore enjoined from molesting in any way the possession of whoever plaintiff will henceforth employ as lessee or lessees therein, subject however to the outcome of the referral of this case to the Department of Agrarian Reform in compliance with PD 316.
Let the Clerk of this Court refer the above-entitled case to the Regional Director, Region IV, Department of Agrarian Reform, Capitol, Pasig, Metro Manila, as contemplated under PD 316.
Rental for the use of the subject landholding is hereby fixed at 64 cavans of palay every harvest, effective as of the date of this decision with no reliquidation.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED." (pp. 269-270, Record)
Defendants interposed the instant appeal under the following assignment of errors:
"I. THE AGRARIAN COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING AS TENANTLESS.
II. THE AGRARIAN COURT ERRED IN GIVING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE FULL FREEDOM TO SELECT A LESSEE OF HIS CHOICE AND ENJOINING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS FROM MOLESTING IN ANY WAY THE POSSESSION OF WHOEVER PLAINTIFF WILL HENCEFORTH EMPLOY AS LESSEE OR LESSEES THEREIN.
III. THE AGRARIAN COURT ERRED IN FIXING THE RENTAL FOR THE USE OF THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING AT 64 CAVANS OF PALAY EVERY HARVEST EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE OF ITS DECISION WITH NO RELIQUIDATION." (p. 4, Memorandum for Appellants)
The undisputed fact shows that plaintiff-appellee Pedro H. Escueta is the registered owner of the controversial parcel of agricultural land containing an area of 49,490 square meters, situated at Barrio Halang, Biñan, Laguna and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-712 of the Register of Deeds of Laguna (Exhibit B; p. 46, Record; Tsn, pp. 5-6, March 7, 1995); that the subject landholding, which is an irrigated land, is principally devoted to the planting and cultivation of palay and capable of producing two (2) harvests in one agricultural year, known as the "panahon" and "palagad" harvest.
Plaintiff-appellee claims that defendant-appellant Bartolome Gerodias is the actual tenant having been duly designated as such since 1954 and personally cultivating the same up to the present, whereas defendant-appellant Ponciano Limosnero, who is a jeepney driver by occupation, having a passenger's jeepney of his own, has merely acted and/or acting in behalf of appellant Gerodias more particularly in the matter of delivering the lease rental of the disputed land to the plaintiff-appellee.
Contrari wise, defendants-appellants maintained that appellant Ponciano Limosnero is the true tenant on the litigated landholding and have been cultivating the same and performing all the other phases of production thereon to the exclusion of appellant Gerodias.
It must be noted that appellant Bartolome Gerodias denied having any tenancy relationship with the appellee on the subject landholding by executing a document entitled "Malayang Salaysay" wherein he stated therein that appellant Ponciano Limosnero is the true tenant of the appellee on the landholding in question. Thus, the pertinent portion of the said document marked as Exhibit 2 reads:
"1. Na, ako ay bayaw at kasambahay ni G. PONCIANO LIMOSINERO ng Bo. Halang, Biñan, Laguna;
"2. Na, siya ang tunay na KASAMA ni G. PEDRO ESCUETA ng San Antonio, Biñan, Laguna, sa lupang sakahang may sukat na 49,490 metros kuadrados, humigit kumulang na matatagpuan sa Bo. Halang, Biñan, Laguna;
"3. Na, ako bilang kasambahay niya ay kusang-loob lamang na tumutulong sa kanya pagka't ako ay tinutulungan din niya sa aking sariling sinasaka sa sakop ng Bayan ng SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA na may lawak namang 20,000 metros kuadrados humigit kumulang at may sarili parin akong saka sa sakop ng Bo. Halang, Biñan, Laguna na may lawak namang 10,000 metros kuadrados humigit kumulang;
"4. Na, ako ay walang anumang kaugnayan sa lupang sinasaka ng aking bayaw na si G. PONCIANO LIMOSINERO." (Exhibit 2).
There is no question that the aforesaid document (Exhibit 2) was freely and voluntarily executed by appellant Gerodias and as such, he is bound by his voluntary admissions and declarations against his own interest appearing therein (Dequito vs. Llamas, L-28090, September 4, 1975; 66 SCRA 504).
The basic issue, therefore, to be resolved in this appeal is whether or not appellant Ponciano Limosnero is a tenant of the appellee, Pedro Escueta, in the latter's land at Bo. Halang, Biñan, Laguna. The trial court resolved this issue in the negative and We are persuaded to approve the pronouncement of the court a guo on this score for the following reasons: ASTcaE
First, appellant Ponciano Limosnero failed to present at least a single adjoining tenant of the landholding in question to corroborate his claim of tenancy thereof. If there is truth that he is actually the tenant on the subject landholding, he should have taken advantage of such opportunity. On the contrary, no less than the adjoining tenant of the disputed landholding in the person of Angel Almeda, who has been a tenant thereof for 15 years, categorically declared that he only saw appellant Limosnero on the subject landholding once; when the latter get the harvested palay for delivery to the one concerned he (Limosnero) being an owner of a passenger's jeepney (Tsn., pp. 37-38, August 21, 1975).
This testimony of witness Almeda finds positive support from the statement of Bo. Captain Isidro Alminanza of Bo. Halang who testified that he never saw appellant Limosnero work on the landholding in question (Tsn, pp. 28-29, June 25, 1975). Appellant Ponciano Limosnero has not adduced an iota of proof why these witnesses, who undoubtedly had no material interest in whatever be the outcome of the instant case, have any improper motive to testify falsely against him (Limosnero). Thus, it has been held that the "absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive existed, and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit" (People vs. Sawah, L-15333, June 29, 1962; People vs. Valera, L-15662, August 30, 1962).
Second, the alleged master list of tenant-farmers in the area relied upon by appellant Limosnero wherein he claimed that he was included therein was not presented in evidence to bolster his claim of tenancy. A cursory reading of the certification (Exhibit 3) issued by Amador L. Peralta of the Bureau of Agricultural Extension based in Biñan, Laguna, wherein he states that appellant Limosnero is a bona fide tenant and is included in the Master list of farmers, does not specifically refer that the land mentioned in said certificate is the very same land subject matter of the present controversy.
As a matter of fact, witness Peralta himself admitted that he never saw appellant Limosnero on the landholding in question during the three (3) times he visited the same. Moreover, he (Peralta) admitted that he should not have consented to the issuance of the questioned certificate had he been told that the same would be utilized as evidence in this case.
Third, it has been uncontroverted that appellant Limosnero is a jeepney driver since 1972 with a playing route from Calamba to San Pedro, Laguna and vice versa (Tsn, pp. 40-42, June 25, 1976). In fact, he admitted that he himself drive his own jeepney as he do not trust anybody to drive the same. Moreover, he (Limosnero) virtually conceded that he had been on the road daily from 6:00 o'clock and sometimes from 8:00 o'clock in the morning and sometimes he work in the field in the morning and drive in the afternoon. (Tsn., pp. 42-43, Ibid). In view hereof, it is strange how could appellant have performed the task of a farmer and at the same time a jeepney driver. Thus, the agrarian court aptly observed:
"In any event, the task of cultivating an irrigated riceland with an area of almost five hectares is a heavy job for a bachelor like Limosnero. He has no farm household from which he could obtain aid. Even if he devotes full time in the cultivation and care of the land his efforts would be hardly sufficient. For this court to allow the allege distribution of Limosnero's efforts between his jeep and the cultivation of the riceland would be inimical to the cause not only of the land reform but to national economy as well.
"We have no doubt therefore that Limosnero has not been a farmer and in all probability will never be one." (Decision, p. 45, Record, p. 264).
As heretofore shown, appellant Bartolome Gerodias disclaimed having been a tenant of the appellee on the subject landholding and instead pointed to appellant Ponciano Limosnero as the true and actual tenant thereon (Exhibit 2). However, the evidence clearly established the fact that the latter has never been a tenant on and never personally cultivated the disputed landholding as he devotes his time to his principal calling formerly as a rig driver (Tsn., p. 36, August 11, 1976; Tsn., pp. 21-22, November 19, 1976) and later on as a jeepney driver. (Tsn., pp. 40-42, June 25, 1976). Thus, in order to be a tenant, he himself must and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivate the land belonging to, or possessed by, another. (Sec. 5 (a), Rep. Act 1199, as amended).
In view hereof, appellant Limosnero's pretense of tenancy is clearly negated by the evidence. In the case of Dequito vs. Llamas (66 SCRA 504), the Supreme Court held:
"There is no clearer manifestation of reneging on one's plighted word than that shown by the tenant. He ought to know that if he has rights to protect as a tenant, the landowner has also rights under the law. The protective mantle of social justice cannot be utilized as an instrument to hoodwink courts of justice and undermine the rights of landowners on the plea of helplessness and heartless exploitation of the tenant by the landowner. False pretenses cannot arouse the sentiment of charity in a compassionate society," (Emphasis supplied)
The jurisprudence is that findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations will not be disturbed on appeal as long as there is substantial evidence to support them, and all that this Court is called upon to do so insofar as the evidence is concerned is to find out if the conclusion of the agrarian court is supported by substantial evidence (Toledo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-16054, July 31, 1963; Zablan vs. Basilio, et al., CA-G.R. No. 45951-R, February 8, 1972, Chavez vs. Zobel, L-28609, January 17, 1974). In the instant case, the agrarian court's finding that Ponciano Limosnero is not a tenant over the landholding in question indeed, appears to be substantially supported by the evidence on record.
Anent the question of referring the present case to the Department of Agrarian Reform, suffice it to quote the pertinent argument advanced by the appellee in his memorandum, to wit:
"Since the Agrarian Court has properly construed the evidence and correctly applied the pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees, plaintiff-appellee sees no logic in further referring the aspect of tenancy to the Department of Agrarian Reform. The question of tenancy is justiciable in character. It has been amply resolved and put at rest in this case. In any event, the preliminary determination of relationship by the Dept. of Agrarian Reform is at most persuasive and not binding on courts of Justice. Such referral will be only an exercise in futility and will inevitably result in delaying the disposition of this case. By the way, the delay occasioned by such referral is obviously against the spirit of expeditious determination of cases as mandated by P.D. 946." (p. 3, Ibid.; p. 6, Rollo).
Considering that the landholding in question has been declared to be without any tenant and that appellant Limosnero has not been a tenant thereon, discussion as to the amount of rentals is deemed unnecessary for that would only mean to be an exercise in futility.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against the appellants. ASTcaE
SO ORDERED.
Gancayco and Ericta, JJ ., concur.