QUIRINO DUMLAO, ET AL., PETITIONERS VS. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petition to review on certiorari a decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations. The record shows—and it is not disputed—that on October 7,
1953 in a forcible entry and detainer case (Civil Case No. 190) filed
by Epifanio Farrales against herein petitioners Quirino Dumlao,
Poincaire Abdon, Modesto de los Reyes, Leonor de Jesus and Felix Abdon
in the Justice of the Peace Court of San Narciso, Zambales, that court
rendered decision dismissing the complaint and ordering Epifanio
Farrales to surrender possession of the land in question to defendants
therein, and to pay said defendants P2,000.00 as damages, plus costs.
Epifanio Farrales appealed the case to the Court of First Instance of
Zambales (Civil Case No. 1611), but the appeal was dismissed on
December 28, 1953 for having been filed out of time.

Thereafter, pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the Justice of
the Peace Court of San Narciso in Civil Case No. 190, the Deputy
Provincial Sheriff of Zambales, with the aid of policemen, restored the
defendants, herein petitioners, to the possession of the land in
dispute. Epifanio Farrales questioned the legality of the issuance of
the writ of execution in a petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction filed with the Court of First Instance of the province
(Civil Case No. 1615), but that court dismissed the petition and
subsequently denied reconsideration of its decision.

On
January 12, 1954, Ambrosio Farrales, Macario Farrales, Benjamin
Farrales, Virginio Farrales, Juan Farrala and Alfredo Falsario,
respondents herein, filed with the Court of Industrial Relations a
petition for reinstatement with damages against herein petitioners,
alleging that they were illegally dispossessed of their landholdings
and that as a result thereof they suffered damages in the aggregate
amount of 220 cavans of palay and P300.00 as attorney’s fees. The
petitioners, respondents below, in their answer containing a
counterclaim for damages, denied the material allegations of the
petition and on July 3, 1957, after hearing, the Court of Agrarian
Relations—to which the case was transferred—rendered decision finding
the petitioners therein to have been illegally dispossessed of their
holdings and ordering their immediate reinstatement. In the same
decision, Quirino Dumlao and his co-respondents below were ordered to
vacate the premises and to pay the sum of P100.00 as attorney’s fees.
Reconsideration of the decision having been denied, respondents
Ambrosio Farrales et al. brought the case to this Court through the
present petition for review.

It is not disputed that herein
respondents were dispossessed from the landholdings claimed to be
tenanted by them by virtue of the writ of execution issued by the
Justice of the Peace Court of San Narciso for the enforcement of its
decision in the forcible entry and detainer case which had already
become final and executory. They were constituted as tenants on their
respective landholdings by Epifanio Farrales who by order of the court
was ejected from the land. Since said Epifanio Farrales has in effect
been held to be an unlawful squatter and intruder in the land,
respondents cannot now claim that petitioners are legally bound to
maintain them as their tenants. As we said in the case of Lastimoza, et
al vs. Hon. Ramon Blanco, etc., et al infra, p. 835), the security of tenure guaranteed by the Tenancy Law (Republic Act No. 1199), may be invoked only by tenants de jure
and not those who are not true and lawfull tenants, but who became so
only thru the acts of a supposed landholder who had no right to the
landholdings. Tenancy relation can only be created with the consent of
the true landholder who is either the “owner, lessee, usufructuary, or
legal possessor” of the land. (Sec. 5 (b), Republic Act No. 1199.)
There being no valid tenancy relation between respondents and their
former landholder, petitioners, who have been declared to be the lawful
possessors of the land, cannot be compelled to retain them as tenants.
And there being no tenancy relation between the parties herein, it is
obvious that the Agrarian Court acquired no jurisdiction over the case.

The fact that the decision of the Justice of the Peace Court in Civil
Case No. 190, as alleged by the respondents, is now the subject of
annulment proceedings instituted by Epifanio Farrales is of no legal
consequence insofar as our finding on the Agrarian Court’s lack of
jurisdiction is concerned. Needless to say, such decision until
actually voided is valid and binding upon the parties. Besides,
whatever may be the outcome in the annulment proceedings, the fact
still remains that the respondents are not, and have never been,
petitioners’ tenants.

Wherefore, the decision complained of
is reversed and set aside, with costs against respondents except the
respondent Judge of the Agrarian Court.

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