GR L 11920; (July, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11920; July 31, 1958
JUAN V. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. Hon. JUDGE PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN of the Court of Agrarian Relations and ROMAN GUERRERO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Roman Guerrero, owner of a 17-hectare lot, leased it to petitioner Juan Agustin on February 13, 1951, for four years at an annual rental of 400 cavans of palay. The lease was extended to ten years on December 17, 1952. Subsequently, due to sales of portions of the land by Guerrero, Agustin relinquished his leasehold rights over parts of the property through agreements, reducing the leased area first to about 12 hectares and later to about 7 hectares, with corresponding decreases in rental and a shortening of the lease term to January 30, 1958. Guerrero then filed a complaint with the Court of Agrarian Relations to eject Agustin for alleged failure to comply with the leasehold tenancy contract and to recover back rentals, taxes, and irrigation fees. Agustin moved to dismiss the complaint, contending the court lacked jurisdiction because the relationship was a simple lease, not agricultural tenancy. The motion was denied, and after hearing, the court rendered a decision in favor of Guerrero, authorizing Agustin’s ejectment and ordering him to deliver back rentals and pay irrigation fees. Agustin petitioned for review, challenging only the court’s jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction over the case, which hinges on whether the relationship between Agustin and Guerrero was one of leasehold tenancy under the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction. The contract between the parties constituted leasehold tenancy as defined in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1199. The land area, initially 17 hectares and later reduced to 7 hectares, was susceptible of cultivation by a single person with the aid of his immediate farm household. Agustin’s allegation that he did not personally work the land but employed his own tenants was a gratuitous assertion not supported by evidence and was denied by Guerrero. The Agrarian Court, in denying the motion to dismiss, must have found as a fact that it was a tenancy case, a determination supported by the stipulation of facts showing Agustin planted onions on the land. The case is distinguishable from Rural Progress Administration vs. Dimson, where the land was 323 hectares, beyond the capacity of a single household to cultivate, and the lessee employed paid laborers. The jurisdiction is sustained. Costs against petitioner.