G.R. No. L-13891; October 31, 1960
JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, VICENTE JOVES, DALMACIO DADURAL, CATALINA DOYANEN and JOSE RAGUDO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ARMANDO LIM and PEDRO DE LA CRUZ, respondents.

FACTS

On August 20, 1956, petitioners Vicente Joves, Joaquin Ulpiendo, Jose Layno, Dalmacio Dadural, Jose Ragudo, and Catalina Doyanen filed a petition in the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) praying for recognition as tenants on agricultural lands owned by respondents Armando Lim and Pedro de la Cruz, a division of produce on a 70-30 sharing basis in their favor, and the execution of a tenancy contract. After hearing, the CAR rendered a judgment on July 22, 1957, finding an agricultural tenancy relationship existed between respondents and each petitioner, ordering respondents to maintain them peacefully as tenants, and directing the delivery of specific quantities of palay deposited in Lim’s bodega to each petitioner. The CAR denied the petitioners’ prayer for a written contract. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. On November 26, 1957, the CAR modified its judgment, holding that petitioners Dalmacio Dadural, Catalina Doyanen, and Jose Ragudo had no tenancy relation with respondents and dismissing their petition, but affirming the judgment as to petitioners Joaquin Ulpiendo and Vicente Joves. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration of this resolution. After further proceedings, on April 21, 1958, the CAR reversed itself, holding that Ulpiendo and Joves also had no tenancy relation and were without right to stay as tenants, affirmed its November 26, 1957 resolution regarding Dadural, Doyanen, and Ragudo, dismissed the petitioners’ complaint, and affirmed the parts of its prior judgments not inconsistent with this resolution. Petitioners (except Jose Layno) filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in entertaining and acting upon the respondents’ motions for reconsideration, which petitioners claim were filed out of time.
2. Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations erred in its final resolution finding that petitioners Joaquin Ulpiendo and Vicente Joves had no tenancy relationship with the respondents.

RULING

1. On the procedural issue: The Court ruled that the respondents’ motion for reconsideration was filed on time. The CAR granted respondents a 15-day extension from August 15, 1957, to file their motion. Applying the “exclude-the-first and include-the-last day” method of computation under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court (made applicable by the CAR’s rules), the period from August 15 to August 30 constituted only 15 days. Therefore, the motion mailed on August 30 was filed within the granted extension. Extensions sought before the expiration of the original period are within the court’s sound discretion.
2. On the substantive issue (tenancy relationship): The Supreme Court found that the CAR’s resolution of November 26, 1957, which affirmed the tenancy status of Ulpiendo and Joves, had already become final and executory as to them. This was because the respondents’ motion for reconsideration filed on December 7, 1957, which sought to reverse this affirmation, was a second motion for reconsideration regarding the same issue for these petitioners. The rules of the CAR do not allow a second motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the CAR’s subsequent resolution of April 21, 1958, which reversed the status of Ulpiendo and Joves, was issued in excess of jurisdiction and is null and void as to them. The final and executory status of the November 26, 1957 resolution as to Ulpiendo and Joves stands.
DISPOSITIVE:
The judgment concerning petitioners Dalmacio Dadural and Catalina Doyanen is affirmed.
The part of the judgment concerning petitioners Vicente Joves and Joaquin Ulpiendo set forth in the resolution of April 21, 1958, is set aside. The resolution of November 26, 1957, which had become final, stands.
* Petitioner Jose Ragudo’s petition for review is dismissed without prejudice to his right to receive his share for the agricultural years 1956-1957 and 1957-1958.
* The case against respondent Pedro de la Cruz, found to be merely a caretaker (encargado), is dismissed.
* No pronouncement as to costs.