G.R. No. L-14801. January 31, 1963.
FILOMENA SILVA, petitioner, vs. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON and FRANCISCO SICAT, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Francisco Sicat, a tenant on petitioner Filomena Silva’s land since 1937, filed a petition for the reliquidation of palay harvests from 1937-1938 to 1956-1957. Silva answered and later amended her answer to include a counterclaim for Sicat’s ejectment. She alleged his incapacity to work due to sickness and that, without her notice or permission, he employed his son to perform the farm work. The parties stipulated that the only issue for reliquidation was the amount of harvest for the 1955-1956 agricultural year, treating the ejectment counterclaim as a separate matter. The Court of Agrarian Relations ordered a reliquidation awarding Sicat additional palay and dismissed Silva’s counterclaim for ejectment due to insufficient evidence. Silva’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
The factual background for the ejectment issue revealed that Sicat fell ill with pneumonia in 1951 and was advised to avoid strenuous work for four years. He again fell sick in December 1957 and was diagnosed with a stomach ulcer in January 1958, admitting he could not plow for the second crop of 1957-1958. During his illnesses, his children, particularly his son Luisito, worked the land under his supervision. Silva also alleged that Sicat worked on another landholder’s field in 1950 without her knowledge.

ISSUE

The primary issue for resolution is whether the Court of Agrarian Relations correctly dismissed Silva’s counterclaim for the ejectment of tenant Francisco Sicat.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the ejectment counterclaim. The Court declined to review the factual findings supporting the reliquidation award, as they were binding. On ejectment, Silva invoked Section 9 of Republic Act No. 1199 , arguing Sicat’s incapacity extinguished the tenancy relationship, and Section 24(1), arguing he unlawfully worked another holding without her consent.
The Court found no evidence of permanent incapacity under Section 9. While Sicat was sick, he could still perform farm labor “little by little,” and with his son’s aid, remained efficient, as evidenced by a high farm yield. His admission of being unable to plow for one crop season established only temporary, not permanent, incapacity. Thus, the applicable law was Section 24(b) of the same Act, which permits a tenant to employ a sub-tenant or household member in cases of illness or temporary incapacity, provided the landlord is notified. The employment of Sicat’s son fell under this exception.
Regarding the claim under Section 24(1) that Sicat worked another holding in 1950 without consent, the Court held Silva slept on her right by not asserting it for years and could not invoke it belatedly. Consequently, the dismissal of the ejectment counterclaim was proper and in accord with law. Costs were imposed on petitioner Silva.