Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-23348 March 14, 1967
JUAN DELFIN, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS and PATRICIO MERCED, respondents-appellees.
Bernardo M. Norada for petitioner-appellant.
E. T. Estrada, S. M. Castro, R. B. Bandal and Domingo C. Valmores for respondents-appellees.
SANCHEZ, J.:
Dispossessed of the 3-hectare landholding he has been cultivating in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya, petitioner, on August 25, 1958, went to the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) for reinstatement and for damages.1CAR, in a decision dated April 16, 1964, directed principal respondent to reinstate petitioner as share tenant on the landholding and to pay P500.00 by way of attorneys' fees, but declined to award damages by reason of petitioner's "failure to present sufficient evidence".
Thwarted in his motion for reconsideration and for reopening of the case "to prove the amount of the indemnification", petitioner appealed direct to this Court. The refusal to award damages and to reopen the case is thrust upon us as errors committed below.1äwphï1.ñët
1. The measure of damages for dispossession is, inter alia, "the extent of the landholder's participation in the harvest".2To arrive at the landholder's participation, the net produce must be ascertained. To get the net produce, expenses are to be deducted from the gross produce. The threshing fee and reaping fee are such deductible items.3Admittedly, "petitioner did not present his evidence on the amount of the threshing fee and reaping fee".4Therefore, contrary to petitioner's assertion, evidence on damages is insufficient. Damages, jurisprudence teaches, may not be awarded on the basis of speculation, conjecture or guess work.5We perceive no error on this score.
2. Reopening of a case before decision thereon acquires finality, is a matter addressed to the court's sound discretion. This tenancy case was pending in the court below for over 5 years. The failure to present evidence on the threshing fee and reaping fee is not ascribed to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect. Said evidence is not newly discovered. It is old forgotten evidence. In this factual backdrop, forgotten evidence is not a ground for reopening or new trial.6Really, if a case may be reopened from time to time as a party or his lawyer remembers evidence which was overlooked, then litigation will suffer undue delay. Instead of giving relief, court suit may become intolerable. Here, neither equity nor law sanctions reopening.7With the lower court, we reject it.
Judgment affirmed. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1CAR Case No. 75-NV-58, Court of Agrarian Relations.
2Section 27(l), Republic Act 1199.
3Section 32, Republic Act 1199.
4Annex E of petition for review before this Court, entitled "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and for Reopening of the Case to Prove the Amount of the Indemnification".
5Choa Tek Hee vs. Philippine Publishing Company, 34 Phil. 447, 456-460, and cases and authorities cited.
6Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. De Coster 49 Phil. 574, 583-584; Manila Railroad Company vs. Mitchel, 49 Phil. 801, 808; National Shipyards and Steel Corporation vs. Asuncion, 54 O.G. No. 24, pp. 6246, 6247; Sy Ha vs. Galang, L-18513, April 27, 1963.
7Cf.: David vs. De la Cruz, 54, O.G. No. 35, pp. 8073, 8074.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
