Case Digest:
JOSE MATIENZO, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
MARTIN SERVIDAD, defendant-appellee.
FACTS: Jose Matienzo and his wife Elenita Robles, were instituted head-overseer in the land of Martin and Feliza de Servidad who will take care of their plants. The plaintiff with respect to defendant will not share percentage for the land but the defendant has to plant coconut and the plaintiffs will not pay as their condition. Parties entered into another agreement concerning the conditions of copra. The condition given in copra making is one third. On January 30, 1964, defendant wrote plaintiff telling him not to “interfere with the plants” as they had no agreement yet for that year, and that being the land-owner, he should be the one to decide in accordance with the “tenancy law”. On March 4, 1964, defendant sent another letter to plaintiff prohibiting him from planting and clearing the land for the same reason. Plaintiff sought the assistance of the Office of the Agrarian Counsel in Naga City. Plaintiff brought an action against defendant in the Court of Agrarian Relations of Naga City praying that defendant be held guilty of illegal ejectment; that in view of the strained relationship with defendant, he was waiving his right to reinstatement provided that he will be paid reasonable compensation for his improvements; and that defendant be ordered to pay him actual and moral damages. A judgment was rendered on May 17, 1966 dismissing the suit for lack of merit. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which Court, however, certified the case to us.
ISSUES: Was the plaintiff instituted as an overseer or as a tenant by defendant.
HELD: It is clear from Exhibit C that plaintiff was made an overseer of defendant, not a tenant. No tenancy relationship had ever existed between the parties. What transpired was that plaintiff was made overseer over a 7-hectare land area; he was to supervise applications for loans from those residing therein; he was allowed to build his house thereon and to plant specified plants without being compensated he was free to clear and plant the land as long as he wished; he had no sharing arrangement between him and defendant; and he was not obligated to pay any price certain to, nor share the produce with, the latter.
Petition is hereby dismissed
Obligations and Contracts 