G.R. No. L-13712; September 30, 1959
SERAFIN G. DAVID, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE M. SANTOS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Simeon Villanueva and 27 other tenants of Hacienda Galvan in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations. They sought authority to choose a rice thresher for their 1957-1958 harvest at a 3½% fee and to charge a 10% reaping expense on the gross produce. The respondents were Serafin David, the lessee of the 517-hectare hacienda, and his overseer, Pedro David. The respondents opposed, stating they had already contracted with Amando de Guzman to thresh the entire hacienda’s harvest for a 4% fee. This contract included De Guzman’s obligation to provide his tractor/bulldozer to level dikes and pump water for irrigation during drought, with the tenants’ conformity. They also argued the 10% reaping fee was exorbitant. After proceedings, the agrarian court granted the tenants’ petition, authorizing them to choose a thresher at 3½% and fixing the reaping fee at 10%. The respondents (landholders) filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Did the agrarian court correctly authorize the 28 tenants to choose their own rice thresher at a 3½% fee under Section 36 of Republic Act No. 1199 ?
2. Was the agrarian court’s ruling fixing the reaping fee at 10% of the gross produce justified?

RULING

1. On the choice of thresher: No. The Supreme Court reversed the agrarian court’s decision. Section 36 of R.A. No. 1199 grants tenants the right to choose a thresher, with the selection of the majority of tenants prevailing if there is more than one tenant. The hacienda is one compact property of 517 hectares under a single administration (one owner, one lessee, one overseer). The contract for threshing the entire harvest was made for the whole hacienda. The 28 petitioning tenants work only in one barrio (San Agustin) of the three comprising the hacienda. They do not constitute the majority of the 150 total tenants of Hacienda Galvan. Therefore, they cannot exercise the right of selection. The 4% fee in the existing contract with De Guzman, while slightly higher, was offset by the free use of his equipment for land leveling and irrigation, which benefit had already been realized.
2. On the reaping fee: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the reaping fee should be 5% of the gross produce, not 10%. In a previous agrarian case involving tenants of the same hacienda, an amicable settlement was approved by the court fixing the reaping fee at 5%. This agreement had been followed in the preceding agricultural years (1955-1956, 1956-1957) and for the 1957-1958 crop by all other tenants. Some of the present petitioners were signatories to that agreement. The agrarian court erred in disregarding this binding settlement without a plausible reason. The tenants’ evidence for a 10% fee was insufficiently supported.
DISPOSITIVE:
The decision of the agrarian court is reversed. The petition of the tenants is dismissed regarding their request to choose a thresher. The reaping fee for the 1957-1958 crop is ordered to be 5% of the gross produce. No costs.