G.R. No. L-21309 December 29, 1967
BERNARDO PICARDAL and SEBASTIAN PICARDAL, petitioners, vs. CENON LLADAS, respondent.

FACTS

In 1950, petitioner Bernardo Picardal entrusted a seven-hectare coconut land (part of the conjugal estate of Bernardo and his deceased wife Aurea Burgos, under judicial administration and not yet partitioned) to respondent Cenon Lladas under a verbal tenancy agreement. The agreement provided for a 1/3-2/3 sharing of the coconut harvest in favor of the landowner, with Lladas as tenant responsible for keeping the plantation clean. Lladas entered the land, harvested, processed copra, and shared the proceeds accordingly. In November 1959, the court-appointed special administrator advised Lladas to take care of the plantation. In February 1960, Lladas harvested coconuts, but the copra was found mixed with fresh meat, prompting a complaint from the buyer. On March 3, 1960, Lladas filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) against Bernardo Picardal and others, alleging he was served a notice to vacate part of the land. In May 1960, another harvest was made and shared. Lladas made no further harvests after May 1960 but remained on the land, raising short-term crops. On October 12, 1960, Lladas filed an amended petition, alleging he was ejected in September 1960 by Sebastian Picardal (Bernardo’s son) with Bernardo’s consent, and claimed damages for lost shares from other plantings. The petitioners denied ejectment, claiming Lladas had abandoned the landholding. After trial, the CAR ordered Bernardo Picardal and the estate administratrix to reinstate Lladas, and ordered Bernardo and Sebastian Picardal to pay damages jointly and severally. The Picardals appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the finding of the Court of Agrarian Relations that Cenon Lladas was ejected from the landholding is supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether the damages awarded should be levied against the petitioners personally or against the intestate estate of Aurea Burgos.

RULING

1. Yes, the finding of ejectment is supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the CAR’s factual findings, emphasizing that such findings are conclusive on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. The CAR found compelling motives for the Picardals to oust Lladas (e.g., irritation over the poor-quality copra, a posted prohibition notice by Sebastian) and no cogent reason for Lladas to voluntarily abandon a profitable holding. The evidence, including Lladas’s continued cultivation of short-term crops and his timely amendment of the complaint upon actual ouster, negated the claim of abandonment.
2. The damages are properly levied against the petitioners personally, not against the intestate estate. The Supreme Court ruled that: (a) The unlawful act of dispossession was committed by the petitioners individually, not by the estate or its administrator. (b) The estate did not benefit from the dispossession, as it would have received the same share regardless of the tenant. (c) The estate, being a co-ownership among heirs, should not suffer for the unlawful act of only some co-owners. (d) Under Article 18 of the Civil Code, every person who willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter. Therefore, the petitioners, as the individuals responsible for the unlawful dispossession, are personally liable for the damages awarded to Lladas. The decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations was affirmed.