GR L 29359; (August, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29359 August 16, 1985
URSULA CALDERON and AGAPITO PASCUAL, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VICTORIANO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellants Ursula Calderon and Agapito Pascual, owners of agricultural land in Bulacan, filed a complaint for ejectment against their agricultural lessee, defendant-appellee Victoriano de la Cruz. The appellants sought to personally cultivate the land through Agapito’s unemployed son, Gregorio Pascual, after providing the required notice. The appellee resisted, arguing the appellants and their son were not farmers and were incapable of personal cultivation. The appellee also filed a counterclaim for reliquidation of harvests, alleging he had been short-shared for the past four agricultural years. The Court of Agrarian Relations dismissed the ejectment complaint, ruling that Gregorio lacked sufficient knowledge of farm practices to qualify for personal cultivation. The court, however, granted the counterclaim, ordering the appellants to deliver a quantity of palay as compensation for the established short-sharing.
ISSUE
The main issues are: (1) Whether a landowner or a member of his immediate family must possess sufficient knowledge in farming to validly eject an agricultural lessee on the ground of personal cultivation under Republic Act No. 3844 ; and (2) Whether the principle of res judicata bars the appellee’s counterclaim for reliquidation of past harvests.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the agrarian court’s denial of ejectment but affirmed the grant of the counterclaim. On the first issue, the Court held that Section 36(1) of RA 3844 allows dispossession for personal cultivation by the landowner or an immediate family member. The law contains no requirement that such person must first be an experienced or knowledgeable farmer. The finding that the landowner’s son would personally cultivate is sufficient. The law even allows the cultivator to avail of labor from the farm household or traditional practices like “bayanihan.” While RA 3844 is a social legislation, its liberality must extend to small landowners as well to avoid economic imbalance. The right to personal cultivation is statutory, and the law provides a safeguard: if the landowner fails to cultivate for three years, bad faith is presumed, and the tenant may recover possession and damages.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that res judicata does not bar the counterclaim. A previous case (CAR Case No. 1324) between the same parties involved the tenant’s status and the fixing of rentals. The cause of action in that case was distinct from the claim for short-sharing and reliquidation of past harvests, which was neither raised nor adjudicated therein. The factual finding of short-sharing by the agrarian court, being supported by substantial evidence, is final. The Supreme Court thus ordered the appellee to vacate the landholding and surrender possession to the appellants, while affirming the order for the appellants to deliver the determined palay or its monetary equivalent to the appellee.