G.R. No. L-12597; August 31, 1960
FERMIN LACAP, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On June 28, 1955, respondent Lourdes Gaddi filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (later transferred to the Court of Agrarian Relations) seeking authority to convert a portion of her 55-hectare riceland in Macabebe, Pampanga, into a fishpond. Five of the fourteen tenants on the land, the petitioners herein, opposed the conversion, arguing the land was unfit for fishponds because the water was not salty enough for milkfish (bangus) and that fresh water would allow dalag fish to thrive and eat the bangus fry. At trial, evidence established that before the war, the land was a fishpond, with the owner having spent P10,000 on dikes and leasing it for P20,000 annually. After the war, it was converted to riceland, but its biggest harvest was only 800 cavans per year. An adjoining smaller fishpond yielded a gross income of P36,000 in 1956, and an expert from the Bureau of Fisheries found the land better suited for fishponds. The agrarian court granted Gaddi’s petition on May 27, 1957, authorizing the reconversion and the ejectment of the tenant-respondents, with a condition allowing their possible reinstatement with damages if the conversion was not completed within two years. On May 29, 1957, Gaddi filed an urgent motion to open the floodgates to allow salty water to enter as an initial step, which the court granted on May 30, 1957.

ISSUE

1. Whether the agrarian court erred in authorizing the ejectment of the tenant-petitioners due to the conversion of the riceland into a fishpond.
2. Whether the court erred in ordering the immediate execution (allowing the opening of floodgates) of the decision before it became final and executory.

RULING

1. On the authorization of ejectment for conversion: The Supreme Court held that while the conversion of riceland to fishpond is not listed as a cause for dispossession under Section 50 of Republic Act No. 1199 , the agrarian court’s order was justified. The Court cited Section 25(1) of the same Act, which grants the landholder the right to choose the kind of crop, with conflicts to be settled by the court according to the best interest of both parties. The evidence showed the land would yield greater income as a fishpond (potentially P40,000 annually) compared to rice (800 cavans annually). The Court followed its precedent in Ramona Escoto de Miranda vs. Hon. Pastor P. Reyes (103 Phil., 207), which authorized such conversion under Section 25. The Court suggested that if the petitioners had been loyal tenants and possessed the requisite qualifications, the landholder should consider retaining them in service for the fishpond operation or as guards, if feasible.
2. On the immediate execution order: The Supreme Court found the order allowing the opening of the floodgates to let in salty water was not a premature execution of the judgment. It was a precautionary measure to allow the landowner to take advantage of a timely opportunity (the presence of salty water) to begin conversion within the two-year period set by the court. The Court found no abuse of discretion in granting this authority.
DISPOSITIVE:
The decision of the agrarian court is affirmed, with the modification that the landholder should consider retaining the petitioners as tenants or guards if feasible. No costs.