G.R. No. L-13274; January 30, 1960
REMEDIOS SACLOLO and ERNESTO PASCUAL, petitioners, vs. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS and SANTIAGO MADLANGSAKAY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Remedios Saclolo is the owner of a four-hectare land in Bulacan, which is her paraphernal property. The land is tenanted by respondent Santiago Madlangsakay. Petitioner Ernesto Pascual is the husband of Remedios Saclolo. The petitioners sought to eject the tenant so that Ernesto Pascual, who is unemployed and has farming experience, could personally cultivate the land to support their family. They served the required notice under Section 50(a) of Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act). The Court of Agrarian Relations dismissed the ejectment suit. The lower court reasoned that while it might be a wise policy to allow such ejectment to enable an owner to cultivate land through a spouse, the law (Section 50(a) of R.A. 1199) expressly permits ejectment only for “personal cultivation” by the owner. The court held it could not, by judicial construction, extend this permission to cultivation by the owner’s husband, as that would be judicial legislation.

ISSUE

Whether the husband of a landowner-wife can be considered as cultivating the land “personally” for the purpose of ejecting a tenant under Section 50(a) of Republic Act No. 1199 , thereby allowing the landowner to eject the tenant to have her husband cultivate the property.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and granted the petition to eject the tenant. The Court held that the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act must be construed in light of existing legal principles governing the relation between husband and wife. Marriage creates a joint life where husband and wife become a single moral, spiritual, and social being, with a full and complete community of existence. Therefore, the husband cannot be considered a being distinct from the wife; the cultivation of the wife’s land by the husband is a joint effort of both spouses and constitutes personal cultivation by the owner. The Court further noted that the law allows a tenant to cultivate land personally or with the aid of his immediate farm household. By parity of reasoning, the same right should not be denied to a landowner. Additionally, Article 137 of the Civil Code, which allows a wife to empower her husband to administer her paraphernal property, supports the view that such administration can include cultivation by the husband. The purpose of the law is to afford protection to both tenants and landholders, and this interpretation aligns with that principle.