G.R. No. L-21012

GLICERIO TINIO AND TEODORA LIMBAN, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL, LUIS MARIN, ERNESTO PUNO, PABLO PUNO, TOMAS SAGUN, CIRILO MARIANO, VICTORIANO TUMIBAY, BUENAVENTURA TALAO, VICTOR PUYAT, PEDRO MAN, AND THE HONORABLE JOSE M. SANTOS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, SECOND REGIONAL DISTRICT, CABANATUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N

[ G.R. No. L-21012. February 25, 1967 ] 125 Phil. 815

[ G.R. No. L-21012. February 25, 1967 ]

GLICERIO TINIO AND TEODORA LIMBAN, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL, LUIS MARIN, ERNESTO PUNO, PABLO PUNO, TOMAS SAGUN, CIRILO MARIANO, VICTORIANO TUMIBAY, BUENAVENTURA TALAO, VICTOR PUYAT, PEDRO MAN, AND THE HONOR­ABLE JOSE M. SANTOS, PRE­SIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, SECOND REGIONAL DISTRICT, CABANATUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations granting the petition of herein respondents, Rodri­go Macapagal and ten (10) other persons,[1] for a change of their tenancy contract with petitioners herein, Glicerio Tinio and Teodora Limban, from share to leasehold system, as provided in Section 14 of Re­public Act No. 1199, as amended, granting the tenant the unilateral right to make such change.[2]

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the grant of said op­tion as a denial of both due process and equal protection.  These ob­jections have, however, been repeatedly rejected by this Court,[3] upon the ground that the contested legal precept is a reasonable and valid exercise of the police power of the State, to afford a relief to a socio-economic problem existing in the Philippines, and we find no justification to revise or otherwise alter our view thereon.

WHEREFORE , the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners-appellants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Castro, JJ., concur.