G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966
ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, Eighth Regional District, and JUDGE VALERIANO A. DEL VALLE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Anita Buensuceso de Lamera is the owner of a 4.2225-hectare lot in Iloilo, three-fourths of which is tenanted by respondent Silderico Buensuceso. On December 17, 1960, she sent the tenant a notice of her intention to personally cultivate the land, which he received on December 20, 1960. A copy was filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations. As the tenant refused to vacate, the landowner filed an ejectment complaint on January 2, 1962. The tenant contested the ejectment, arguing that the petitioner and her husband, both public school teachers, could not personally cultivate the land due to their full-time jobs. He also claimed the notice was written in English, a language he did not know. The Court of Agrarian Relations denied the petition for ejectment, ruling that the petitioner, as a woman with a full-time job, had no time for personal cultivation, and her husband, also a teacher, could not assist. It also found the notice non-compliant with the law, as it was sent more than two years before the ejectment petition was filed and was in English, unknown to the tenant.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations erred in denying the petitioner’s application to dispossess her tenant on the ground of personal cultivation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations. On the substantive requirement, the Court held that for dispossession based on personal cultivation under Section 50 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, the cultivation must be done personally by the landowner or a relative within the first degree by consanguinity, or through farm machinery. The petitioner admitted the cultivation would be done by paid helpers (“hargas”), which does not constitute “personal cultivation” as defined by law, as it would circumvent the security of tenure granted to tenants. On the procedural requirement, the Court upheld the lower court’s finding that the notice was defective. It was written in English, a language the tenant did not know, contrary to the law’s requirement that it be “in a language or dialect known to the latter.” The Court deferred to the factual conclusion of the Agrarian Court, supported by substantial evidence, that the tenant did not know English, despite his fourth-grade education and prior service as an election inspector. The notice was also sent in December 1960, more than two years before the ejectment petition was filed in January 1962, which exceeded the statutory period. The petition was denied, with costs against the petitioner.