EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4089. January 31, 1952.]

PATERNO JAPITANA , petitioner-appellee, vs . MANUEL V. HECHANOVA ,

respondent-appellant.

Orlando M. Jesena, for petitioner.

Eugenio G. Gemarino, for respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. TENANCY; COST OF SEEDLINGS. — To make the tenant bear the cost of

seedlings which ought to be borne share and share alike by landlord and tenant is
contrary to law.
2. ID.; TRANSPORTATION OF LANDLORD'S SHARE IN THE HARVEST. — To
require the tenant to haul or pay for the transportation of the landlord's share in the
harvest to his nearby barn or, if there be none, to the nearest provincial or municipal
road where he could accept the delivery thereof personally or by means of a
representative, is unfair and an additional burden imposed upon the tenant which
justi es his refusal to enter into such stipulation, because section 8, Act 4054, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 34 provides that the division of the produce or harvest shall
be made in the same place where the crop has been treshed and each party shall
transport his share to his warehouse. The exception is when the tenant agrees to
transport the landlord's share to any place.
3. ID.; DISMISSAL OF TENANTS. — A stipulation in the proposed contract of
share tenancy which does not authorize the landlord to dismiss the tenant before the
expiration of the contract for any just and reasonable cause without the approval of the
representative of the Department of Justice duly deputed for that purpose, is a
reiteration of the law on the point.

DECISION

PADILLA , J : p

This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision in Case No. 686-R of the Court of
Industrial Relations wherein Paterno Japitana is the petitioner and Dr. Manuel V.
Hechanova, the respondent, and from the resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration.
On 26 May 1949, in the Tenancy Law Enforcement Division of the Department of
Justice the petitioner led a complaint against the respondent alleging that he was
being ejected from an agricultural parcel of land containing an area of 3.5 hectares
planted to rice, situated in the barrio of Guintas, municipality of Leganes, province of
Iloilo, without just and reasonable cause. The respondent denied the existence of any
tenancy relation between him and the petitioner and alleged that the land was leased
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 only to the latter; that the lease expired at the end of the agricultural year 1948-1949;
and that the petitioner refused to sign a tenancy contract. Notwithstanding this, the
respondent admitted that he had allowed the petitioner to stay temporarily in the parcel
of land until the tenancy contract be signed by him.
The Court of Industrial Relations found that the petitioner was respondent's
lessee for many years up to the end of the agricultural year 1948-1949; that he
personally worked and cultivated the parcel of land owned by the respondent with the
help of Ernesto Alcayde; that at the beginning of the agricultural year 1949-1950 the
petitioner was allowed by the respondent to work and cultivate the same; that he
refused to sign the share tenancy contract because of certain terms and conditions
contained therein which were deemed by him unfair and contrary to law; and held that
out of such a situation arose a tenancy relationship between the parties; that the share
tenancy contract which the petitioner refused to sign is burdensome to him as tenant
and contrary to law, because it imposes upon him the obligation to bear exclusively the
cost of seedlings which is part of the expenses for planting and cultivation to be borne
share and share alike by the landlord and tenant;( 1 ) that the obligation to haul or
transport or to pay for the transportation of the landlord's share in the harvest to his
barn if there be any nearby or, if there be no such barn, to the nearest provincial or
municipal road where the landlord could accept delivery personally or through his
representative, is contrary to the provisions of section 8, Act 4054, as amended by Rep.
Act No. 34, which provides that "the division shall be made in the same place where the
crop has been threshed and each party shall transport his share to his warehouse,
unless the contrary is stipulated by the parties;" that the right of the landlord to dismiss
the tenant before the expiration of the contract, if there be just and reasonable cause
therefor in accordance with law, is in violation of the statute on the matter, because no
tenant can actually be dismissed for any of the causes provided in section 19, Act
4054, "without the approval of a representative of the Department of Justice duly
authorized for the purpose," as provided for in section 1, Rep. Act No. 44.
Appellant contends that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties during the agricultural year 1949-1950, because at the close of the
previous agricultural year the only relationship between the parties was that of lessor
and lessee which expired on May 1949. The juridical character of the relationship
between the appellant and the appellee should not be determined by the term used to
describe such relationship. If the tenant is to work and cultivate the land himself and
the harvest or produce is to be divided on proportional basis, the contract comes within
the purview and scope of Act No. 4054,( 1 ) the name, term or nomenclature given the
contract by the parties to the contrary notwithstanding. And it being admitted by the
appellant that he had allowed the appellee to work and cultivate temporarily the land
until the contract of share tenancy be signed by the latter, the contract of share tenancy
should not be deemed to have terminated and the further continuation or the expiration
of such contract would depend upon whether the appellee was justi ed in refusing to
sign the contract of share tenancy pro- offered to him by the appellant.
We hold with the Court of Industrial Relations that to make the tenant bear the
cost of seedlings which ought to be borne share and share alike by the landlord and
tenant is contrary to law.( 2 ) To require the tenant to haul or pay for the transportation
of the landlord's share in the harvest to his nearby barn or, if there be none, to the
nearest provincial or municipal road where he could accept the delivery thereof
personally or by means of a representative, is unfair and an additional burden imposed
upon the tenant which justi ed his refusal to enter into such stipulation, because
section 8, Act 4054, as amended by Rep. Act No. 34, provides that the division of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 produce or harvest shall be made in the same place where the crop has been threshed
and each party shall transport his share to his warehouse. The exception is when the
tenant agrees to transport the landlord's share to any place which is precisely one of
the reasons for the former's refusal to sign the contract.
We, however, disagree as to the interpretation given the stipulation found in
paragraph 17 of the proposed contract of share tenancy. The stipulation does not
authorize the landlord to dismiss the tenant before the expiration of the contract for
any just and reasonable cause provided for in section 19, Act 4054, without the
approval of a representative of the Department of Justice duly deputed for that
purpose, as provided for in section 1, Rep. Act No. 44. The stipulation is a reiteration of
the law on the point. Such stipulation would not authorize the landlord to dismiss the
tenant for any just and reasonable cause before the termination of the contract of share
tenancy without the approval by a representative of the Department of Justice duly
authorized for that purpose.
The judgment and resolution appealed from are a rmed, with costs against the
appellant.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Section 7, Act 4054, as amended.

1. Section 2, Act 4054 and section 3, Act 4054, as amended by Republic Act No. 34.

2. Section 7, Act 4054, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 178 and Republic Act No.
34.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com