[ G.R. No. 28609. January 17, 1974 ] 154 Phil. 24; 70 OG 4165 (May, 1974)
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 28609. January 17, 1974 ]
ZOILA DE CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. ENRIQUE ZOBEL AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS. [No. L-28610. JANUARY 17, 1974] BARTOLOME DIMAALA, RUFO GARCIA, PAULINO ESGUERRA, FERNANDO VEROYA, WILSON ZAPATERO, RUFINO ZAPATERO, ALMARIO ALAB, ROMAN BEROYA, AND ROMANA VIZCONDE, PETITIONERS, VS. ENRIQUE ZOBEL AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
FERNANDO, J.:
These two petitions[1] for the review of a joint decision of respondent Court of Appeals, sustaining the right of respondent-landholder, Enrique Zobel to eject petitioner-tenants and thus reversing a judgment in their favor by the Court of Agrarian Relations, present the crucial issue of how far this Tribunal is bound by the cardinal policy set forth in a presidential decree[2] that ordains the emancipation of tenants and confers on them ownership of the lands they till, upheld as part of the law of the land under the Revised Constitution.[3] This too, in the face of its avowed primordial objective: “The State shall formulate and implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the bondage of the soil and achieving the goals enunciated in this Constitution."[4] As thus posed, its resolution is rather obvious. We cannot sustain respondent Court of Appeals. Private respondent Zobel, as the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Calatagan, Batangas, known as Hacienda Bigaa, with an aggregate area of more than five hundred hectares, sought to eject petitioners, his tenants tilling lands in a portion thereof, relying on the provision of Republic Act No. 1199, which would justify such a move where the land is suited for mechanization.[5] Petitioners, as tenants, vigorously objected to such petition not only on the ground that the small areas they are occupying were not suited for mechanization, but likewise on the allegation that the true intention of respondent as landholder was to utilize the same for pasture and for the raising of sorghum. The Court of Agrarian Relations dismissed the petition for ejectment, doubting such an intent to mechanize and at the same time holding that mechanization during the rainy season of the year was not practicable. The matter was elevated to respondent Court of Appeals, which reversed the Court of Agrarian Relations and granted such petition for ejectment. Hence this petition for review. There is no question as to the tenancy relationship as well as to the areas occupied by petitioners as tenants. For the decision of the Court of Appeals now sought to be reviewed did clearly specify: “At the hearing of these cases on July 15, 1963, the litigants, through their counsels, entered into the following stipulation of facts: 1. That the relation of landholder and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents is admitted; 2. That the respective area cultivated by each of the respondents is as indicated * * * as follows: Bartolome Dimaala - 1 lot with an approximate area of 1.1440 hectare; Rufo Garcia - area of lot is more or less one (1) hectare; Paulino Esguerra - two (2) lots with an aggregate area of about two (2) hectares; Fernando Veroya - one (1) lot with an area of about 1/2 hectare; Wilson Zapatero - one (1) lot with an area of about less than 1-1/2 hectares; Rufino Zapatero - one (1) lot with an area of about one (1) hectare; Almario Alab - three (3) lots with an area of about 3 hectares; Roman Veroya - one (1) lot of about 1/2 hectare; Romana Vizconde - one (1) lot with an area of about 1/2 hectare; and Zoila de Chavez - four (4) lots with an aggregate area of about 6 hectares."[6] That is why, as set forth at the outset, the applicability of Presidential Decree No. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them the ownership of the land they till and providing the instruments and mechanism therefor is unavoidable.[7] Hence, again, as was made mention of at the outset, the decision of the Court of Appeals cannot be sustained. 1. The tenancy problem in the Philippines is of ancient vintage. The opinion of Justice Tuason in the leading case of Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration[8] made reference to the concern shown by our great patriot and hero, Jose Rizal, one arising from first-hand knowledge and the bitter personal experience of his family. As was so vividly expressed by Justice Labrador, speaking for this Court, in De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations:[9] “The history of land tenancy, especially in Central Luzon, is a dark spot in the social life and history of the people. It was among the tenants of Central Luzon that the late Pedro Abad Santos, acting as a saviour of the tenant class, which for generations has been relegated to a life of bondage, without hope of salvation or improvement, enunciated a form of socialism as a remedy for the pitiful condition of the tenants of Central Luzon. It was in Central Luzon also that the tenants forming the PKM organization of tenants and, during the war, the Hukbalahap, rose in arms against the constituted authority as their only salvation from permanent thralldom. According to statistics, whereas at the beginning of the century we had only 19% of the people belonging to the tenant class, after 60 years, the prevailing percentage has reached 39%."[10] Such situation calls to mind this apt observation of Laski, “of the normal life of the poor, their perpetual fear of the morrow, their haunting sense of impending disaster, their fitful search for a beauty which perpetually eludes."[11] The 1935 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were not unaware of the gravity of the problem. Under the Commonwealth and under the Republic therefore, the appropriate legislation was enacted.[12] Progress in the solution of this serious social malady, while considerable, did not supply the necessary corrective. On this vital policy question, one of the utmost concern, the need for what for some is a radical solution in its pristine sense, one that goes at the root, was apparent. Presidential Decree No. 27 was thus conceived. It was issued in October of 1972. The very next month, the 1971 Constitutional Convention voiced its overwhelming approval. There is no doubt then, as set forth expressly therein, that the goal is emancipation.[13] What is more, the decree is now part and parcel of the law of the land according to the revised Constitution itself.[14] Ejectment therefore of petitioners is simply out of the question. That would be to set at naught an express mandate of the Constitution. Once it has spoken, our duty is clear; obedience is unavoidable. This is not only so because of the cardinal postulate of constitutionalism, the supremacy of the fundamental law. It is also because any other approach would run the risk of setting at naught this basic aspiration to do away with all remnants of a feudalistic order at war with the promise and the hope associated with an open society. To deprive petitioners of the small landholdings in the face of a presidential decree considered ratified by the new Constitution and precisely in accordance with its avowed objective could indeed be contributory to perpetuating the misery that tenancy had spawned in the past as well as the grave social problems thereby created. There can be no justification for any other decision then whether predicated on a juridical norm or on the traditional role assigned to the judiciary of implementing and not thwarting fundamental policy goals. 2. With the disposition of these petitions for review thus so clearly indicated by the controlling constitutional provisions, a discussion of the errors assigned by petitioners would be fruitless. Nonetheless, insofar as they would stress the basic doctrine that the findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations, supported by substantial evidence, is well-nigh conclusive on an appellate tribunal, it is undeniable that such a submission is supported and buttressed by a host of our decisions dating back to 1958.[15] WHEREFORE, the joint decision in these two petitions of respondent Court of Appeals of November 23, 1967 is reversed and set aside, and the joint decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations of October 1, 1964 dismissing the actions filed by respondent Enrique Zobel is reinstated and given full force and effect. Costs against respondent Enrique Zobel. Zaldivar, (Chairman) and Aquino, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., concurs in a separate opinion. Antonio and Fernandez, JJ., concur as qualified by the separate opinion of Justice Barredo.