GR L 22966; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22966; August 10, 1967
FAUSTO MIPALAR, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE M. SANTOS, as Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, EUGENIO SAGUN, SOTERO FERNANDEZ, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner-landowner Fausto Mipalar filed a petition for mechanization of a 45-hectare riceland in the Court of Agrarian Relations on January 28, 1963, seeking to dispossess the fourteen tenants thereon. He alleged that he had sent written notices to the tenants of his intention to cultivate the land through farm machinery, with the tenants receiving these notices on January 28, 1961, and subsequent dates, the last being February 23, 1961. Earlier, on December 28, 1960, Mipalar had filed a notice of the same intention with the Court of Agrarian Relations. The respondents-tenants filed a motion to dismiss, contending the petition was filed beyond the two-year reglementary period required by Section 50(a) of Republic Act 1199, as amended. The Court of Agrarian Relations dismissed the case on February 13, 1964, sustaining this ground.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for mechanization was filed in compliance with the notice requirements under Section 50(a) of Republic Act 1199, as amended, specifically whether both the notice to the court and the notice to the tenants must be made within the period of at least one year but not more than two years prior to the filing of the petition.
RULING
No. The petition was correctly dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements. Section 50(a) of Republic Act 1199, as amended, plainly requires that two notices be made within the stated period: (1) to the Court of Agrarian Relations, and (2) to the tenant in writing in a language or dialect known to him. Both notices must be made at least one year but not more than two years prior to the filing of the petition for dispossession. In this case, while the notices to the tenants were made within the period (received from January 28, 1961, to February 23, 1961, which is within two years prior to the January 28, 1963 petition), the notice to the court was filed on December 28, 1960, which is more than two years (specifically, two years and one month) prior to the filing of the petition. This failure to comply with the substantive requisite of filing the court notice within the two-year period warrants dismissal. The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention for a liberal interpretation that would consider the period in relation to whichever notice is later, as the statute uses the conjunctive “and,” and under Section 56 of the same Act, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the tenant. Counting the two-year period from the later notice would be unfavorable to the tenant as it would give the landowner a longer period to seek dispossession. Therefore, the dismissal order of the Court of Agrarian Relations is affirmed.