You're currently signed in as:
User
CONTINUE TO LAWYERLY APP
Digest Add to Casebook
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c4658?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[GLICERIO TINIO v. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c4658?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c4658}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show opinions
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. L-21012, Feb 25, 1967 ]

GLICERIO TINIO v. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL +

DECISION

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.


[1] Luis Marin, Ernesto Puno, Pablo Puno, Tomas Sagun, Cirilo Mariano, Victoriano Tumibay, Lorenzo Macapagal, Buenaven­tura Talao, Victor Puyat and Pedro Mana.

[2] Sec. 14. Change of System The tenant shall have the right to change the tenancy contract from one of share tenancy to lease­hold tenancy and vice versa and from one crop sharing arrange­ment to another of the share tenancy.  If the share tenancy con­tract is in writing and duly registered, the right to change from one crop sharing arrangement to another may be exercised at least one month before the beginning of the next agricultural year after the expiration of the period of the contract.  In the absence of any registered written contract, the right may be exercised at least one month before the agricultural year when the change shall be effected.

[3] llusorio vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, G.R. No. L-20344 (May 16, 1966), Cuizon vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, G.R. No. L-20905 (April 30, 1966), Gamboa vs. Pallarca, G.R. No. L-20407 (March 31, 1966), Uichangco vs. Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. L-20275 (May 31, 1965), Macasaet vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-19750 (July 17, 1964) and Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, G.R. No. L-19555 (May 29, 1964).

tags