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 use his tractor/bulldozer to level dikes and pump water for irrigation during drought, with only fuel and operator costs as extra charges. The tractor was used for irrigation in October 1957. After harvest, the tenants’ stacked palay risked damage. The tenants requested to use their chosen thresher (3½% fee), but the respondents refused, insisting on the De Guzman contract. The agrarian court granted the tenants’ petition, authorizing their chosen thresher and fixing the reaping fee at 10%. The respondents (the landowners/lessee) 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. Section 36 of R.A. No. 1199 grants tenants the right to choose a thresher, with the majority’s selection prevailing if there is more than one tenant. The Court held that the 28 petitioners did not constitute the required majority. Hacienda Galvan, though spanning three barrios (Partida, San Agustin, Escano), is a single, compact property of 517 hectares under one owner, one lessee, and one administration. The threshing contract with De Guzman covered the entire hacienda involving all 150 tenants. The fact that previous tenancy cases involved only tenants from a specific barrio did not mean the hacienda was administratively divided for purposes of applying the “majority” rule under the law. Therefore, the choice of thresher required the majority of all 150 tenants, not just the 28 from Barrio San Agustin (where there were 41 tenants total). The 4% fee in the De Guzman contract, while slightly higher, was offset by the free use of his equipment for irrigation and land preparation, a benefit that had already been realized.
2. On the reaping fee: NO. The Supreme Court also reversed the agrarian court’s 10% reaping fee ruling. The Court found that in a previous agrarian case involving the same hacienda’s tenants, an amicable settlement was approved by the court fixing the reaping fee at 5% of the gross produce. This 5% fee had been followed in the agricultural years 1955-1956, 1956-1957, and 1957-1958 by all tenants except the 28 petitioners. The agrarian court dismissed this agreement without a plausible reason. The Supreme Court held this prior agreement, to which some of the current petitioners were signatories, should be given due weight. No special circumstances justified deviating from this established and previously followed rate. The tenants’ evidence for a higher fee was insufficiently supported.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision of the agrarian court was REVERSED. The petition of the tenants was DISMISSED regarding their request to choose a thresher. The reaping fee for the 1957-1958 crop year was ordered to be 5% on the gross produce. No costs were awarded.