Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

109 Phil 775:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-15192. October 24, 1960.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL., Respondents.

Ramon B. de los Reyes for Petitioner.

Jorito C. Peralta for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. TENANCY; RICE SHARE TENANCY ACT; CONTRACT ENTERED THROUGH DECEIT NULL AND VOID; NO TENANCY RELATION CREATED TO AFFORD TENANT SECURITY OF TENURE. — Since the Agrarian Court conclusively found that respondent was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in the signing of the tenancy contract Exhibit "A", having falsely identified himself to the representative of the bank as the tenant of the lend in question, and it was only on that basis that the bank signed and gave its consent to said contract, the same is not only void ab initio for being contrary to the law giving the true tenant security of tenure, but also voidable on the part of the bank whose consent thereto was given through fraud and mistake; and being a nullity, said contract did not create any tenancy relation between the bank and respondent so as to entitle the latter to the security of tenure guaranteed by Republic Act 1199.

2. ID.; ID.; TENANCY LAW PROTECTS LAWFUL TENANT ONLY. — The tenancy law, conceived as it was to redeem the tenant from the onerous terms of his tenancy and uplift his social and financial status (Pineda v. Pingul & C.I.R., 92 Phil., 89; 48 Off. Gaz., [9] 3901) can not be invoked to protect one who is not a true and lawful tenant but who became so only through deceitful and insidious acts.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Appeal taken by the Philippine National Bank from the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations in its Case No. 558-P-58.

The facts leading to the filing of the action in the Court below were found by said Court to be as follows:ClubJuris

"That since 1953 Agustin Pecio had been cultivating the two hectares of land in question located at Bo. Capulaan, Balungao, Pangasinan, belonging to Jose Castillo y Refuerzo; that when the Philippine National Bank became the administrator of the estate of the late Jose Castillo y Refuerzo, its Trust Officer, through his representative, Atty. Jose Manalansan, executed contracts of tenancy with the tenants of the hacienda; that for his purpose, Atty. Manalansan went in 1955 to Balungao, Rosales, and Umingan, Pangasinan, to contact the tenants and he stayed there for two months; that Atty. Manalansan met the tenants in the municipal building of Balungao and there executed the tenancy contracts; that Atty. Manalansan did not know any of the tenants then and so what he did was to rely on the information given to him by the tenants; that one morning, while Atty. Manalansan was in front of the municipal building under the acacia tree, Teofilo Ramirez approached him and told him that he was the tenant in two parcels of land located in Bos. Esmeralda and Capulaan, Balungno; that Teodorico Dirije then filled in the blank in the contract forms by typing the information dictated by Teofilo Ramirez; that the finished contract of tenancy (Exhibit "A") was registered in the municipal treasurer’s office of Balungao on the same date of execution, June 25, 1955; that according to the contract, Ramirez was to cultivate four hectares of land situated at Bos. Esmeralda and Capulaan, Balungao, Pangasinan; that a few days thereafter Agustin Pecio appeared and reported to Atty. Manalansan that he was the actual tenant in the landholding in Capulaan included in the contract of tenancy executed by the Philippine National Bank and Teofilo Ramirez; that Atty. Manalansan then referred the matter to the Chief of Police to bring them to the municipal mayor for conciliation; that as a result a ‘katulagan’ or agreement was entered into by and between Ramirez and Pecio; that by virtue of the ‘katulagan’ Ramirez cultivated one-hectare portion of the same in the agricultural year 1955-1956; that Ramirez harvested 40 cavanes in said year, with the seeds, threshing and harvesting expenses already deducted, while Pecio harvested 35 cavanes; and that after the agricultural year 1955-1956 the entire two-hectare landholding in Capulaan was, by virtue of the ‘katulagan’ or agreement, delivered to Agustin Pecio who cultivated the same since then up to the present time." clubjuris

Later, Teofilo Ramirez filed the aforestated case against the Philippine National Bank in the Agrarian Court, alleging that he had been illegally ousted from one-half air the land in question during the agricultural year 1956-1957, and from the whole of it thereafter, and asking for reinstatement and for the payment of the value of his unrealized shares of the harvest of the land during the period of his dispossession, plus moral damages and attorney’s fees. The bank answered, denying liability under the complaint, and, with the authority of the court, brought in Agustin Pecio as third-party defendant, who likewise denied any liability. The case was then tried, and on September 29, 1958, the Agrarian Court rendered judgment, holding, on the basis of the above-quoted finding of fact, that although the tenancy contract between the bank and Ramirez was executed through fraud and mis-representation on the part of the latter, the "katulagan" or agreement Exhibit "1" between Ramirez and Agustin Pecio was an express ratification by the latter of said tenancy contract and had the effect of a surrender by Pecio of his right as tenant over one-half of the land in question and of constituting Ramirez as the tenant over such portion, so that thereafter, he was entitled to security of tenure under section 49 of Republic Act No. 1199; whereupon, the bank was ordered to reinstate Ramirez to one-half of the land in question, and to pay him damages of 12 cavanes of palay yearly from the agricultural year 1956-1957 until his reinstatement. From this judgment, the bank, as already stated in the first part of this decision, appealed.

The appeal should be sustained.

First of all, we agree with the petitioner bank that the lower court having found that third-party defendant Agustin Pecio was the true tenant of the land in question and not respondent Ramirez, Pecio is entitled to security of tenure under section 7, Republic Act No. 1199, and may not be dispossessed of his landholding except for any of the causes enumerated in Section 19 of the same Act, and without the cause having been proved before and the dispossession authorized by the Agrarian Court, in accordance with section 49, same law. Consequently, the tenancy contract Exhibit "A" signed between the petitioner bank and appellee Ramirez is illegal and void since it deprives Pecio of his tenure over the land in question; and being a nullity, said contract did not create any tenancy relation between the bank and Ramirez, nor could the latter acquire any rights thereunder.

What is more, the Agrarian Court conclusively found that respondent Ramirez was guilty of fraud and mis-representation in the signing of the tenancy contract Exhibit "A", having falsely identified himself to the representative of the bank as the tenant of the land in question, and it was only on that basis that the bank signed and gave its consent to said tenancy contract. This contract is, consequently, not only void ab initio for being contrary to the law giving Pecio, the true tenant, security of tenure, but also annullable or voidable on the part of the bank whose consent thereto was given through fraud and mistake. Thus, the bank was justified in refusing to recognize said contract after it learned of Ramirez’ deceitful act, and in giving the land to Pecio, the lawful and true tenant. The Court below, in ordering the reinstatement of Ramirez, was, in effect, legalizing his imposture. Such a decree is against morals and public policy and can not be allowed to stand.

As for the "katulagan" or agreement (Exhibit "1") entered into by Pecio and Ramirez merely to settle their dispute over the tenancy of the land in question that arose from the latter’s fraud, the only effect that could be given this agreement was, as stipulated therein by the parties, for Ramirez to share the cultivation of the land in question equally with Pecio during the agricultural year 1955-1956. Obviously, said agreement could not have created between Ramirez and the petitioner bank the relationship of landlord and tenant so as to entitle the latter to the security of tenure guaranteed by Republic Act No. 1199. Besides, the tenancy law, conceived as it was to redeem the tenant from the onerous terms of his tenancy and uplift his social and financial status (Pineda v. Pingul & C.I.R., 92 Phil., 89; 48 Off. Gaz. [9] 3901), can not be invoked to protect one who is not a true and lawful tenant but who became so only through deceitful and insidious acts.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs against respondent Teofilo Ramirez.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152