the participations of the parties in this case should be governed, not by the provisions of section 3 of Act No. 34 which amended section 8 of Act No. 4054, as decided by the said Tenancy Division of the Departure nt of Justice, but by... an oral, contract embodying the old customs of tenancy sharing observed by the parties, in accordance with section 8 of Act No. 4054 which according to the lower court's theory recognizes the validity of an oral contract.
the records show that Act No. 4054 had been proclaimed effective in the Province of Pangasinan in January, 1937, Act No. 53 seems to recognize an oral contract inspite of section 4, of said Act No. 4054;"
Section 4 of Act No. 4054 provides that "the contract on share tenancy in order to be valid and binding shall be in writing, drawn in triplicate in the language known to all the parties thereto to be signed or thumbmarked both by the landlord or his authorized representative... and by the tenant before two witnesses, one to be chosen by each party."... section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 53, promulgated on October 17, 1936
"where a covenant or oontraot made between the owner of land and a lessee or... tenant on share thereof has not been reduced to writing or has not been set forth in a document written in a language known to the lessee or tenant, the testimony of such lessee or tenant "shall be accepted as prima facie evidence on the terms of a covenant or... contract,"... oral contracts are recognized by law inspite of the provision of section 4 of Act No. 4054
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations which reversed that of the Tenancy Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Justice that ordered a 70 per cent and 30 per cent division in favor of the petitioners hereinafter... deducting from the gross produce the expenses of harvesting and threshing, the palay planted in the haciendas of the now respondents located in the Municipality of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan, during the agricultural year of 1946-1947.
the decision appealed from is reversed or set aside, and the decision by the Tenancy Lava Enforcement
Division of the Department of Justice, in so far as it applies the provisions of said Act No. 34 to the present case, be carried out, with costs against the respondent.
It is elementary rule that a subsequent general law should not be oonstrued to repeal or modify a prior special law; and that repeal by implication is not favored, and therefore the former and subsequent act must... if possible, be so construed as to give effect to both. Hence, Commonwealth Act No. 53 which refers to "covenant or contract made between the owner of land and a lessee or tenant on share thereof" in general, and does not mention or make any reference to Act No. 4054 should be... construed to apply to tenancy contracts on all other agricultural products which may be oral, as well as to tenancy contract on rice in provinces where Act No. 4054 had not yet then made effective by Proclamation in which oral tenancy oontraots were valid; but not in those where... said No. 4054 was proclaimed to be effective and, therefore, oral contracts are not valid and binding... oral contract is not valid and binding, no amount of evidence of whatever kind can be admitted to prove the legal existence and terms thereof;... unconceivable that the Legislature had intended, for it would be retrogressive
(2) The major premise of the other conclusion is also incorreot. Proclamation No. 14 issued by the President of the Philippines dated November 30, 1946, which declares the provisions of Act No. 4054, as amended, to be in full force and effect throughout the Philippines, was... obviously intended for territories in the Philippines in which said Act had not yet been declared in force by Proclamation Prior to said date, and not to provinces, like Pangasinan, where Act No. 4054 had already been put in force since January 20, 1937
Proclamation was... never set aside or suspended.
Act No. 34, amendatory of said Act No. 4054, became effective ipso facto in Pangasinan since the date of its passage, September 30, 1946... it is to be inferred that it was the intention of the Congress to make it applicable to the harvest of rice during the agricultural year 1946-1947
No retrospective effect would be given to said provision of section 8 of the Act No. 4054, as amended by section 3 of the Republic Act No. 34 relating to share basis, if applied to the rice harvested during agricultural year 1946-1947;