14mateo de ramas v. car

8/20/2019 14Mateo de Ramas v. CAR

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/14mateo-de-ramas-v-car 1/4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-19555 May 29, 1964

MATEO DE RAMAS, petitioner,

vs.

THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS an GERONIMO !. RAMOS, respondents.

Carlos P. Torres for petitioner.

J. M. Dator and T. T. Riel for respondents.

LA!RADOR, J.:

This is a petition for a writ of with prohibition to review and set aside a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations,

on. !uiller"o B. #antos, presiding, approving a petition of !eroni"o B. Ra"os, tenant, against his landlord, Mateo

de Ra"as, for the change of their tenanc$ fro" share to leasehold tenanc$.

Respondent !eroni"o B. Ra"os is the tenant of herein petitioner Mateo de Ra"as on a %&'(% hectare land at Mu)on

Naic, Cavite, under a verbal share tenanc$ contract at *+&+. -n une %%, '/0+, or one "onth before the beginning of

the agricultural $ear '/0+&'/0', Ra"os infor"ed petitioner of his desire to change their contract fro" that of share

tenanc$ to leasehold tenanc$. Petitioner refused to grant the re1uest insisting on the for"er *+&+ sharing basis, so

on Ma$ %, '/0' Ra"os 2led a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations pra$ing that he be allowed to change

their tenanc$ contract fro" share to leasehold, in accordance with the provisions of #ection '3 of Republic Act No.

''//, as a"ended. Petitioner opposed the petition as groundless and violating their gentle"an4s agree"ent.

5uring the pendenc$ of the case respondent Ra"os "oved to suspend the proceedings on the ground that the

constitutionalit$ of #ection '3 Republic Act No. ''// has been raised, a"ong other issues, before the #upre"e Court

in the case of Juliano v. CAR, et al., !.R. No. 6&'*0%*, and that to continue with the case would onl$ result in loss of

ti"e, "one$, etc., if the #upre"e Court declare #ec. '3 of Republic Act No. ''// unconstitutional. This "otion was

denied in an order dated #epte"ber %%, '/0'. -n 5ece"ber '3, '/0' Ra"os presented his evidence7 but Ra"aswaived the presentation of his evidence, "anifesting that he would appeal whatever decision the agrarian court

"ight render. -n March ', '/0%, respondent court rendered 8udg"ent upholding the constitutionalit$ of #ec. '3 of

Republic Act No. ''//, citing -ur ruling in Pineda, et al. vs. Pingul and CIR, !.R. No. 6&9909, #epte"ber +, '/9%,

where :e upheld the constitutionalit$ or validit$ of Act No. 3+93, as a"ended b$ Co". Act '*; and Republic Act 3.

Against the above 8udg"ent the present petition is brought before <s, petitioner pra$ing that after proper hearing,

#ec. '3 of Republic Act No. ''// be declared unconstitutional and that the writ of prohibition pra$ed for be granted.

Petitioner 2rst 1uestions the agrarian court4s action in proceeding with the hearing of CAR Case No. %30, Cavite 40',

deciding the sa"e, and ordering e=ecution of its decision despite, the pendenc$ before <s of a si"ilar case raising

the constitutionalit$ of #ec. '3 of Republic Act No. ''//. :e 2nd no error or irregularit$ in the court4s proceeding

with the case. The "ere fact that the constitutionalit$ of a law is raised in another case pending in the #upre"e

Court is not a valid reason for suspending the proceedings in this case. 6aws are considered valid until declared

unconstitutional, and until then courts are in dut$ bound to enforce the". >Magtiba$ v. Ali?pala, !.R. No. 6&'*9/+

and uliano v. CAR, !.R. No. 6&'**%*, both pro"ulgated on Nove"ber %/, '/0%.@

The present suit, speci2call$ concerns the validit$ of #ection '3 of the said Act which is as follows

#EC. '3. Change of System. The tenant shall have the right to change the tenanc$ contract fro" one of

share tenanc$ to leasehold tenanc$ and vice versa and fro" one crop sharing arrange"ent to another of the

share tenanc$. f the share tenanc$ contract is in writing and is dul$ registered, the right to change fro" one

crop sharing arrange"ent to another "a$ be e=ercised at least one "onth before the beginning of the ne=t

agricultural $ear after the e=piration of the period of the contract. n the absence of an$ registered written

contract, the right "a$ be e=ercised at least one "onth before the agricultural $ear when the change shall be

eDected. >As a"ended b$ #ection 3, R.A. %%0.@

The above provision is attac?ed on the ground of unconstitutionalit$ in that it i"pairs the obligation of contracts,

because after a contract of share tenanc$ has been adopted between the landlord and the tenant, the latter is

e"powered, notwithstanding said contract, to change it into leasehold tenanc$. The 1uestion presented "a?es a

review of tenanc$ laws useful in order to secure a correct perspective of the issue.

The pro"otion of social 8ustice and of the well&being and econo"ic securit$ of all the people is a pri"ar$ ai" of the

Constitution >#ec. 9, Art. ''@. n line with this goal, the #tate encourages s"all landholdings as against large estates

>Article of the Constitution@ and has ta?en upon itself the dut$ to protect the agricultural laborer and to regulate

the relations between hi" and the landowner. >#ec. 0, Art. F, id.@



Even before the approval of the Constitution the 6egislature had alread$ passed Act No. 3+93, ?nown as the

Philippine Rice Tenanc$ ActG, approved Hebruar$ %*, '/. The Act4s ai" is pri"aril$ to regulate the relations

between landlords and tenants. Hreedo" of tenanc$ contract is allowed so long as it is not contrar$ to e=isting laws,

custo"s, "orals and public polic$ >#ec. *@. n the absence of contract the crop is divided e1uall$ between the

landlord and the tenants a s$ste" ?nown as the share tenanc$ >#ec. ;@. The contract is to last according to the

stipulation of the parties, and in its absence it shall be in force onl$ during one agricultural $ear. The landlord "a$

not dis"iss a tenant while a tenanc$ contract is in force, e=cept for an$ 8ust and reasonable cause as enu"erated in

#ection '/ of Act No. 3+93.

-n une /, '//, Co""onwealth Act No. 30' was passed. This law further protects the securit$ of tenure of thetenant, and provides that the tenant "a$ not be dispossessed of the land e=cept for an$ of the causes "entioned in

#ection '/ of Act No. 3+93 and sub8ect to the approval of a representative of the 5epart"ent of ustice >#ec. '@.

-n #epte"ber +, '/30, Republic Act No. 3 was approved, a"ending certain sections of Act No. 3+93 and providing

for a sharing ratio between the landlord and the tenant, depending on which of the" furnishes the necessar$

i"ple"ents and wor? ani"als and defra$s all the e=penses for planting and cultivation >#ec. , Rep. Act No. 3,

a"ending #ec. ;, Act No. 3+93@.

n the case of Tapang v. Court of Industrial Relations, *% Phil. */, the validit$ of #ection '/ of Act No. 3+93 >#ec. '/

provides that landlord "a$ not dis"iss tenant e=cept for good pause@ and of Co""onwealth Act No. 30' was

1uestioned on the ground that the$ violate the constitutional guarantee against i"pair"ent of contracts. -verruling

this argu"ent, the #upre"e Court said

El argu"ents de 1ue la 6e$ No. 30' del Co""onwealth es contraria a la Constitution por1ue altera

obligaciones contractuales, no tiene ningua fuer)a, por1ue, ... la "is"a Constitution "anda 1ue se debe

Gpro"oter la 8usticia social a 2n de asegurara el bienestar $ la estabilidad econo"ica de todo el pueblo,G $

1ue se debe protegee al "is"o tie"po Ga todos los traba8adores, especial"ente a las "u8eresG7 $ no ha$ duda

de 1ue las dos "encionadas leves tienden a licho 2na, protegiendo al aparcero $ al propietario por igual $

estableciendo reglas 1ue han de deter"inar las relaciones 1ue deben e=isting entre los dos para su propio

bene2cio. >Per Pablo, ., Tapang v. CR,supra@

The argu"ent that the tenanc$ relationship had ceased after the e=piration of the agricultural $ear was declared b$

the Court to be without an$ validit$ because #ection %0 of Act No. 3+93, the basis of said argu"ent, "ust be

understood to have been annulled or at least sub8ect to the provisions of Co""onwealth Act No. 30' >ante@ #aid this

Court

GNo obstante todo contrato o disposicion en contrario de cual1uier le$ vigente en todos los casos en 1ue un

terreno es ocupado ba8o un siste"a cual1uiera de aparceria no se ha de desposeer alaparo del terreno

cultivado porel "is"o, in la aprobacion de un representante del 5epart"ento de usticia debida"iente

authori)ado al efecto $ co"o no sea por alguna de las causes e=presadas en al articulo diecinueva de la 6e$

Nu"ero Cuatro "il cincuenta $ cuatro o por alguno otro "otivo 8usti2cada.G > Iid.@

After the passage of the above laws the need was felt for an agenc$ fa"iliar with landlord&tenant proble"s and

capable of eDectivel$ enforcing e=isting laws. #o, a special division of the 5epart"ent of ustice to act as co"pulsor$

arbiter was 2rst set up7 later the arbitration and litigation aspects of tenanc$ cases were transferred to the Court of

ndustrial Relations whose doc?et was alread$ clogged with cases involving other labor legislation. Act No. 3+93 left

"uch to be desired. t is not of universal application. ts principles were not in force throughout the Philippines, butonl$ in localities where it was adopted or where it was put into eDect b$ presidential procla"ation. >C.A. '*;, #ec. 37

buran v. 6abes, ;* Phil. %3.@ n other places, the standard of conduct laid down b$ Act No. 3+93 was inapplicable

>5e la Cru) v. Asociacion Ian8ero Casilia7 ; Phil. %'3@. Even under the law oppressive conditions under which

tenants theretofore found the"selves were practicall$ left unre"edied7 the$ still re"ained at the "erc$ of their

landlords. !"#ph$!.%&t

The latest atte"pt to re"ed$ the "iserable plight of tenants ca"e with the passage of Republic Act No. ''//,

otherwise ?nown as the GAgricultural Tenanc$ Act of the Philippines,G which repeals the old Tenanc$ Act >Act No.

3+93@, Co""onwealth Act No. 30', and various a"end"ents of these laws. The purpose of this Act, according to

#ection % thereof, is Gto establish agricultural tenanc$ relations between landholders and tenants upon the principle

of social 8ustice7 to aDord ade1uate protection to the rights of both tenants and landlords7 to insure an e1uitable

division of the produce and inco"e derived fro" the land7 to provide tenant far"ers with incentives to greater and

"ore eDicient agricultural production7 to bolster their econo"ic position and to encourage their participation in the

develop"ent of peaceful, vigorous and de"ocratic rural co""unities.G

6ater on, or on une '3, '/99, Republic Act No. '%0* was passed creating the GCourt of Agrarian RelationsG, said to

be a conco"itant of the Agricultural Tenanc$ Act, and designed to provide the long&needed "ediu" for deciding

agricultural proble"s. > Philippine Annotated 6aws, p. *%.@

A stud$ of the Agricultural Tenanc$ Act >Rep. Act No. ''//@ discloses that it is an i"prove"ent of its predecessor Act

3+93, as a"ended. Most of its provisions deal with the regulation of the relations of the landlord and tenant >#ecs. 0,

*, ;, /@, 2=ing of the share of each in the products of the land cultivated b$ the tenant in general >#ecs. %, , 3,

9@, the guaranteeing of the per"anenc$ of tenure of the tenant and his heirs on the land he and his predecessors



cultivate >#ecs. 0, *, /, 3/, 9+, 9'@. ts "ost i"portant provision is the protection of the tenant against e=ploitation b$

the landlord as it prescribes the utili)ation b$ the landlord of the personal services of the tenant and the "e"bers of

his household without co"pensation >#ec. %@. t 2=es interests on loans secured b$ the tenant fro" the landlord and

prescribes the pa$"ent of such loans fro" the share of the tenant in the harvest at the current price, and re1uires

the ?eeping of boo?s of account showing the a"ounts received b$ the tenant as loans fro" the landlord, etc. >#ecs.

'0, ';, 3;.@

The above provisions are clearl$ an i"prove"ent of Act No. 3+93. The$ are intended to protect tenants fro" abuse

and e=ploitation b$ their landlords. The validit$ of these provisions has not been 1uestioned as the$ clearl$ fall within

the province of regulator$ provisions en8oined e=pressl$ in the Constitution >Art. F, #ec. 0@. The provisions areclearl$ of apparent wisdo" and validit$, evidentl$ not sub8ect to 1uestion as the$ do not appear to have ever been

1uestioned in the short span of life of the law >approved August +, '/93@.

The histor$ of land tenanc$, especiall$ in Central 6u)on, is a dar? spot in the social life and histor$ of the people. t

was a"ong the tenants of Central 6u)on that the late Pedro Abad #antos, acting as a saviour of the tenant class,

which for generations has been relegated to a life of bondage, without hope of salvation or i"prove"ent, enunciated

a for" of socialis" as a re"ed$ for the pitiful condition of the tenants of Central 6u)on. t was in Central 6u)on also

that the tenants for"ing the PJM organi)ation of tenants and, during the war, the u?balahap, rose in ar"s against

the constituted authorit$ as their onl$ salvation fro" per"anent thralldo". According to statistics, whereas at the

beginning of the centur$ we had onl$ '/K of the people belonging to the tenant class, after 0+ $ears of prevailing

percentage has reached /K. t is the desire to i"prove the condition of the peasant class that "ust have i"pelled

the 6egislature to adopt the provisions as a whole of the Agricultural Tenanc$ Act, and particularl$ #ection '3 of said

Act.

The section in 1uestion >#ee. '3, Rep. Act No. ''//@ per"its a tenant who has accu"ulated savings to free hi"self

fro" obtaining the usurious loans for e=penses needed in plowing, harrowing, planting, and harvesting. The tenant

who has accu"ulated savings that would enable hi" to bu$ i"ple"ents and far" ani"als is allowed b$ the provision

in 1uestion to free hi"self fro" the bondage of per"anent share tenanc$ b$ a change to lease&hold tenanc$. The

tenant who is used to cultivating riceland cannot conceive of an$ for" or "anner in which he can invest his "eager

savings other than b$ the purchase of far" i"ple"ents and wor? ani"als. n other words, the onl$ avenue left to hi"

to i"prove his lot is b$ per"itting hi" to change his contract to tenanc$ fro" that of share s$ste" to that of

leasehold s$ste". The increase that he receives in his share as a conse1uence of the change, is onl$ 9K >under the

share s$ste" the landlord receives +K and under leasehold he receives onl$ %9K if the land is 2rst class, and %+K if

the land is second class@. But b$ the change the tenant is released fro" the stranglehold of the landord, and beco"es

a se"i&independent far"er. The provision in 1uestion is certainl$ 8usti2ed b$ the directive contained in theConstitution to do 8ustice to labor. B$ the change the laborer can i"prove his lowl$ lot. And if it cannot be 8usti2ed as

an act of social 8ustice en8oined in the Constitution, it "a$ be considered as an e=ercise of the police power of the

#tate, which tries to i"prove the situation of a great percentage of the people and preserve the securit$ of the #tate

against possible internal upheavals that the tenant class "ight be forced to create to i"prove their lowl$ lot. The

tenants uprising in Central 6u)on fro" '/30 to '/9% "ust certainl$ have been the "ain cause or reason for the

enact"ent of the Agricultural Tenanc$ Act in '/93 and of the particular section in 1uestion. The desire to i"prove

the tenant class certainl$ has been i"pelled b$ the necessit$ of insuring the internal securit$ of the countr$, a

para"ount ai" and end 8ustif$ing the e=ercise of the police power.

The legal 1uestion that is posed before <s is s the enact"ent of #ection '3 of Republic Act No. ''// in virtue of the

police power of the #tate li"ited b$ the fact that it violates a contractual right >e=isting in favor of the defendant&

appellant in this case@ L The general rule has been stated thus

A police regulation, obviousl$ intended as such, and not operating unreasonabl$ be$ond the occasions of its

enact"ent, is not rendered invalid b$ the fact that it "a$ aDect incidentall$ the e=ercise of so"e right

guaranteed b$ the Constitution. Hor e=a"ple, it is said that the proper e=ercise of the police power is not

sub8ect to restraint b$ constitutional provisions designed for the general protection of rights of individual life,

libert$ and propert$. >'' A". ur. //'&//%@

s #ection '3 of Republic Act No. ''// legall$ 8usti2ed in i"pairing the obligation of an e=isting contract between the

tenant and the landlordL The answer to this is again stated as follows

The constitutional prohibition against state laws i"pairing the obligation of contracts does not restrict the

power of the state to protect the public health, the Public "orals, or the public safet$. -ne or "ore of these

factors "a$ be involved in the e=ecution of such contracts. Rights and privileges arising fro" contracts aresub8ect to regulations for the protection of the public health, the public "orals, and the public safet$, in the

sa"e sense and to the sa"e e=tent as is all propert$, whether owned b$ natural persons or corporations. Not

all police legislation which has the eDect of i"pairing a contract is obno=ious to the constitutional prohibition

as to i"pair"ent. > Iid., pp. '+++&'++'@.

-bligations of contracts "ust $ield to a proper e=ercise of the police power when such power is e=ercised, as in this

case, to preserve the securit$ of the #tate and the "eans adopted are reasonabl$ adapted to the acco"plish"ent of

that end and are not arbitrar$ or oppressive. >'' A". ur. '++%&'++.@



The right granted to the tenant to change the contract fro" share tenanc$ to that of leasehold tenanc$ can not be

considered unreasonable or oppressive, because b$ the landlord4s giving up of 9K of the harvest >the change fro"

share to leasehold tenanc$ reduces the landlord4s share fro" +K to %9K@, the tenant beco"es, "ore responsible,

"ore co"petent, and 2nanciall$ prepared to co"pl$ with his obligations under the lease, to the ulti"ate bene2t of

the landlord, with the conse1uent i"prove"ent of a lot of a big seg"ent of the population and thereb$ giving full

"eaning to the social 8ustice directive contained in the Constitution.

:EREH-RE, in view of the above considerations, :e hold the disputed #ection '3 of Republic Act No. ''//

constitutional and valid. The 8udg"ent appealed fro" is aDir"ed. :ithout costs.

'autista Angelo, Con(ep(ion, Reyes, J.'.). and 'arrera, JJ., (on(ur.

Regala and Ma*alintal, JJ., too* no part.

14mateo de ramas v. car

Documents