[G.R. No. L-7738. May 30, 1955. ]
BALDOMERO TACAD, ET AL., Petitioners, v. POTENCIANA VDA. DE CEBRERO, Respondent.
Nicolas V. Reyes, for Petitioners.
Onofre Guevara for Respondent.
1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; PLANNING AND CULTIVATION DISTINGUISHED; RATIO OF SHARES; WHEN NO EXPENSE SHOWN FOR CULTIVATION. — Cultivation which has to do with the tilling of land, promoting the growth and taking care of the plants, is an operation distinct from the planting itself, and if no expense was incurred for such operation, it must be assumed that the work was done by the tenant himself. Such being the case, one half of the 30 percent alloted to planting and cultivation expenses must be credited to the tenant. It results that the liquidation should be made on the following basis: For the landlord 45 percent (30 percent for the land [capital] and 15 percent for the planting expenses) and for the tenant 55 percent (30 percent for labor aside from cultivation, 15 percent for cultivation, 5 percent for work animals and 5 percent for farm implements.)
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations.
The decision authorizes the ejectment of the herein petitioning tenants from their landholdings at the close of the 1953-1954 agricultural year and decrees that the 1952-1953 harvest be reliquidated on a 60-40 basis in favor of the respondent landowner.
Ground for the ejectment is the finding that the tenants were guilty of disobedience and negligence for "concertedly disappearing on the appointed dates for threshing" with the result that the thresher, who was then and there with his machine and a crew of not less than ten employees, was not able to do any threshing, and was for that reason requiring the landowner to compensate him for damages suffered. Petitioners dispute this conclusion on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence. But the question raised is factual, and findings on the weight of evidence by the Court of Industrial Relations are conclusive on this Court.
The question of reliquidation was submitted below on the following stipulation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(1) That the only year involved is the last agricultural year 1952-1953;
"(2) That in that agricultural year, the landlord:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) shouldered the planting expenses;
(b) furnished the seedlings;
(c) and shared equally in the threshing expenses;
"(3) That the tenants also in that agricultural year:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) supplied the farm implements and work animals;
(b) shouldered the harvesting expenses which was 5 cavans per cavan of seedlings;
(c) plowed and harrowed;
"(4) That the crop sharing basis was 50-50."cralaw virtua1aw library
On the basis of the above stipulation the lower court ordered a reliquidation on a 60-40 basis in favor of the landowner, stating its reasons as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . the Court should be guided by precedents particularly that laid down by our Supreme Court in the case of Sibulo v. Altar, G. R. No. L-1916. In that case the highest court established a fixed computation to be the basis in the determination of the proportionate shares in the harvest to which the tenant and the landlord are entitled, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
First Class Second Class
Capital (land) 30 percent 25 percent
Labor 30 percent 35 percent
Expenses 30 percent 30 percent
Work animals 5 percent 5 percent
Farm animals 5 percent 5 percent
‘On the basis of the computation laid down by the Supreme Court, and considering the conditions as stipulated by the parties, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner who is the landlord is entitled to 30 percent for her capital (land) and another 30 percent for shouldering the expenses, including the seedings, and the respondents are entitled to 30 percent for labor, 5 percent for work animals, and another 5 percent for farm implements, or a total of 40 percent."cralaw virtua1aw library
This ruling is disputed by the tenants as a misapplication of the formula adopted in the case cited, it being contended that the respondent landowner should not here be credited with the whole 30% alloted by that case to the expenses of planting and cultivation because, according to the stipulation, she only shouldered "the planting expenses." In answer respondent’s counsel maintains in his brief that the expenses of planting must be deemed to include expenses of cultivation, if any. To this we can not agree. Cultivation, which has to do with the tilling of the land, promoting the growth and taking care of the plants, is an operation distinct from the planting itself, and if no expense was incurred for such operation it must be assumed that the work was done by the tenant himself. Such being the case, one-half of the 30% allotted to planting and cultivation expenses must be credited to the tenant. It results that the liquidation should be made on the following basis:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
For the landlord:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
30 percent for the land (capital)
15 percent for the planting expenses
For the tenant:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
30 percent for labor aside from cultivation
15 percent cultivation
5 percent for work animals
5 percent for farm implements
In view of the foregoing, the decision below is affirmed in so much as it authorizes the ejectment of the tenants and modified as to the reliquidation of the 1952-1953 crop in the sense that the basis thereof, should be 55-45 in favor of the tenants. Without costs.
Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.