DANIEL DE LEON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. JOAQUIN HENSON AND MANUEL E. CASTAÑEDA, AS ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon.
Bienvenido A. Tan, presiding, dismissing the complaint filed in the
above-entitled case upon motion of the defendant Joaquin Henson.

The complaint filed by plaintiff alleges the following facts: (a) As
first cause of action—That plaintiff is and has been a tenant and bona
fide occupant of lot No. 39, Block No. 11 of the Nuestra Señora de Guia
Estate, Tondo, Manila, having built thereon a house of strong materials; that he
had been paying rentals to the Government represented by the Rural Progress
Administration, for the occupation of said lot (Receipt for P66.86, dated May
31, 1949, covering the period from February, 1947 to May, 1949, Records, pp.
11-12); that in good faith and upon demand of the Rural Progress Administration
he has made for .the said lot a down payment evidenced by a receipt dated August
16, 1950 (Contract No. 256 for P150); that he has improved the land and built
his house thereon, which improvements and house are valued at P10,000; that
without having occupied the land and without any right, defendant Joaquin Henson
signed a contract for the sale to him of the said lot, dated March 9, 1956,
signed by the Chairman of the Land Tenure Administration; that the
above-mentioned contract in favor of Henson is illegal, unlawful and in
violation of existing law, which grants bona fide tenants or occupants
the right to purchase the said lands, (b) As a second cause of
action—That defendant embarrassed and molested him by filing against him a
criminal case in Manila, which case was subsequently dismissed; and, that by
reason of the said action he was caused moral damages amounting to P5,000 and
actual damages in the amount of P300; and (c) As a third cause of
action—That because of the acts of defendant he has been compelled to employ the
services of a lawyer for P500. In the prayer plaintiff asks that the contract
executed by the Land Tenure Administration in favor of defendant Joaquin Henson,
dated March 9, 1956, be declared null and void; that defendant be ordered to pay
him damages in the total sum of P5,300 and attorney’s fees in the amount of
P500.

Defendant Joaquin Henson through counsel filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on three grounds, namely, (a) that plaintiff has no cause of
action; (b) that there is another case pending between the same parties
for the same cause, namely, Civil Case No. 43143, Municipal Court of Manila,
entitled Joaquin Henson vs. Daniel de Leon; and (c) that the
cause of action is barred by prior judgment, the cause of action having been
finally decided between the parties in B. L. P. Conflict No. 238, entitled
Joaquin Henson vs. Daniel de Leon, dated August 31, 1955. Arguing on
said grounds, the defendant alleges that plaintiff suffered no injury for
damages to the extent of P5,800 because he was not deprived of any rights over
lot No. 39 of Block No. 11; that the pejiding action between the parties is one
for ejectment; that the judgment that has barred the action was the teci’sion in
his favor and against plaintiff made by the Director of Lands on August 31,
1955.

Defendant Land Tenure Administration filed an answer alleging, in answer to
the first cause of action that the receipt of the amount of money from plaintiff
was subject to the approval of the manager; that according to information
obtained from Joaquin Henson, the latter had been occupying the land in question
since February, 1945; and that it has power to sell the land to defendant
Henson, and that the payments received from plaintiff were subject to the
approval of the manager. Answering the third cause of action, said defendant
alleged that plaintiff’s application to purchase the lot in question was revoked
and instead the lot was sold to Joaquin Henson who had a preferential right
thereto. As a special defense, it alleged that the Director of Lands has decided
that defendant Henson has preferential right to purchase the property over and
above that of plaintiff. On May 26, 1956, the court declared that the motion to
dismiss is well founded and dismissed the case. The plaintiff moved to
reconsider the order of dismissal but the court denied the motion; hence this
appeal.

A consideration of the pleadings clearly shows that the following issues,
mostly of fact, cannot be decided without a trial of the case on the merits:
(a) Whether or not plaintiff was a previous bona fide occupant
of the lot subject of the action, or whether it was the defendant who was such
previous occupant and had the preference to purchase the lot; (b)
whether or not, the acceptance of the down payment by the Rural Progress
Administration from the plaintiff on August 16, 1950 was under the condition
that the sale had to be approved by the Chairman of the Rural Progress
Administration, and that the latter had the right to sell the same lot to
another purchaser, the defendant Joaquin Henson; (c) whether the sale
made in favor of Joaquin Henson is valid as against plaintiff; (d)
whether or not plaintiff is entitled to damages by the filing of the criminal
action against him by defendant Henson and the amount thereof; and (e)
whether or not the orders or decisions of the Director of Lands are binding
against plaintiff and constitute res judicata against him.

The plaintiff has a right to a trial of the issues of fact above set forth.
Failure on the part of the court below to grant him such right is clearly a
denial to him of due process of law.

Wherefore, the order of dismissal is hereby set aside and the case is
remanded to the court below for trial on the merits, with costs against
defendant Joaquin Henson.

So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.