VILLALIZA V. JUDGE PANGANIBAN, et. al.

G.R. No. L-19760 (April 30, 1964)

NATURE OF THE CASE: A review of the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations
FACTS
1. The private respondents were tenants since 1944 in a riceland situated in Aliaga, Nueva
Ecija, and owned by Domingo Fajardo. Fajardo gave out the land for lease (civil lease) to
the petitioner, Quirino Capalad, starting with the crop year 1955-56.
2. The said lessee, in June, 1955, plowed the land by machinery, and installed petitioners
as his own tenants so that when the private respondents (original tenants) went back to
their respective landholdings to prepare them for planting they found the land already
cultivated.
3. The private respondents-tenants demanded their reinstatement. Quirino Capalad
promised to do so but never fulfilled, to reinstate them for the agricultural year following
said demands.
4. The respondents filed a complaint before the Court of Agrarian Relations.

COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS: The tenancy court ordered the tenants installed by
Quirino Capalad to vacate their respective landholdings in favor of the private respondents
subject to the provisions of pars. 3 and 41, Sec. 22, R.A. No. 1199, as amended, and the

1 SECTION 22. Rights of the Tenant. -(1) The tenant shall be free to work elsewhere whenever the nature of his
farm obligation warrants his temporary absence from his holdings.
(2) The tenant shall, aside from his labor, have the right to provide any of the contributions for production whenever
he can do so adequately and on time.
(3) The tenant's dwelling shall not, without his consent, be removed from the lot assigned to him by the landholder,
unless there is a severance of the tenancy relationship between them as provided under Section nine, or unless the
tenant is ejected for cause, and only after the expiration of forty-five days following such severance of relationship or
dismissal for cause.
If the tenant is dismissed without just cause and he is constrained to work elsewhere, he may choose either to
remove his dwelling at the landholder's cost or demand the value of the same from the landholder at the time of the
unjust dismissal.
(4) The tenant shall have the right to be indemnified for his labor and expenses in the cultivation, planting, or
harvesting and other incidental expenses for the improvement of the crop raised in case he is dispossessed of his
holdings, whether such dismissal is for a just cause and not, provided the crop still exists at the time of the
dispossession.

indemnity in the aforestated paragraphs, supra, shall be paid by private respondent Quirino
Capalad.
As to the basis of the indemnity, the tenancy court found that the ejected tenants-respondents
have engaged in gainful occupations since their illegal ejectment and had delayed the filing of
the case, and for these reasons the court made an award for damages against Quirino Capalad
equivalent to only two harvests based on the landholder's share for the crop year 1954-1955.
1wph
ISSUE: Is the conclusion of the lower court supported by substantive evidence?

Case for Petitioner: As grounds for the petition for review, the petitioners claim grave abuse of
discretion by the Agrarian Court and a lack of substantive evidence to support its findings
Case for Defendant: (The private respondents did not file an appeal to the Supreme Court.)

SC RULING with RATIO:

The above claim is wild and reckless and definitely without merit, since the decision itself
contains the recitals of the testimonies of the witnesses upon which the court based its findings,
and the petitioners do not question the existence and adequacy of these testimonies. That the
court believed the evidence for the respondents rather than those for the petitioners is the
tenancy court's prerogative, and, as a reviewing court, the Supreme Court will not weigh anew
the evidence.
SC affirmed CAR decision, but it pointed out that the premises for the award are erroneous.
Under section 27(1)2 of Republic Act 1199, as amended, a tenant's earnings may not be
deducted from the damages because the said section positively provides that the
tenant's freedom to earn elsewhere is to be added ("in addition") to his right to damages
in case of illegal ejectment (Lustre, et al. vs. CAR, et al., L-19654, March 21, 1964).

2Section 27. Prohibitions to the Landholder:(1) The landholder shall not dispossess the tenant of his holdings
except for any of the causes enumerated in Section fifty, and without the cause having been proved before, and the
dispossession authorized by, the court; otherwise, he shall, aside from the penalty of fine and/or imprisonment
provided for any violation of this Act, be liable to the tenant for damages to the extent of the landholder's right under
Section twenty-two of this Act.

Nor can it be said that the respondents-tenants are guilty of laches for having unnecessarily
delayed to Capalad's promises to reinstate them. The action prescribes in ten years. The
respondents were ousted from their landholdings in June, 1955, they filed the present action on
31 March 1960; therefore, the period of limitation had not expired.
The amount of the award to each respondent should not, however, be disturbed because the
respondents' non-appeal from the decision indicates their satisfaction therewith and a waiver of
any amounts other than those indicated in the decision.
DISPOSITIVE: The decision under review is hereby AFFIRMED with costs against the
petitioners.