CESAR D. MILITAR, PETITIONER, VS. VENTURA TORCILLERO AND HON. RAMON BLANCO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, EIGHT REGIONAL DISTRICT, ILOIL…

In CIR Tenancy Case No. 182-Iloilo for ejectment, entitled “Ventura
Torcillero, petitioner vs. Cezar D. Militar, respondent,”^[1] on 31 August 1956 the Court of Agrarian
Relations rendered judgment holding that the petitioner had been “ejected from
his landhoiding without any just and lawful cause and without the previous
authority of this Court,” and that he was not “only entitled to reinstatement as
tenant to his landholding but also to the recovery of damages suffered by him
during the period of his dispossession pursuant to Section 19 of Act No. 4054,”
and ordering the respondent “to reinstate the petitioner as tenant to the said
landholding immediately.” The Court further “reserved to the petitioner” “the
right to file an action for recovery of damages under Section 19 of Act No.
4054.” (Annex B) The respondent did not appeal therefrom and the judgment became
final and executory.

On 21 June 1957, herein respondent Ventura Torcillero filed a petition in the
Court of Agrarian Relations alleging that as a result of his unlawful dismissal
or dispossession of his landholding by the petitioner herein, Cesar D. Militar,
he suffered losses and damages as follows: 95 cavanes of palay during the
agricultural year 1954-1955; 90 cavanes of palay during the agricultural
year 1955-1956; and 105 cavanes of palay during the agricultural year
1956-1957, or a total of 290 cavanes and a total of 37 cavanes of
mongo during the same agricultural years; that despite repeated demands made by
respondent Torcillero upon the herein petitioner for the recovery of the said
amounts of palay and mongo or their monetary value, the latter had refused and
failed to compensate the former for the damages he had suffered; and that
because of such refusal and failure respondent Torcillero had to engage the
services of counsel, for which he had to pay the sum of P1,000, for the purpose
of recovering such damages, and praying that the herein petitioner be ordered to
pay him (respondent Torcillero) 290 cavanes of palay or the sum of
P2,900, its money value at the rate of P10 per cavan; 37 cavanes
of mongo or the sum of P1,295, its monetary value at the rate of P35 per
cavan; and the sum of Pl,000 for attorney’s fees; and for other just and
equitable relief (CAR Case No. 490-Iloilo, Annex A). On 6 July 1957 the
petitioner herein moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Court had
no jurisdiction of the subject matter. He claimed that since the action was for
recovery of damages and attorney’s fees, the subject matter of the action was
beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. Anticipating the
respondent Torcilleros’ probable argument that since his claim for damages and
attorney’s fees arose from his unlawful dismissal or dispossession of his
landholding by the herein petitioner, the case was within the jurisdiction of
the Court of Agrarian Relations, and invoking the prohibition against splitting
causes of action, the herein petitioner contended that respondent Torcillero’s
claims should have been litigated in the same case, CIR Tenancy Case No.
182-Iloilo, and that his failure to do so bars the present action. He added that
the reservation of the respondent Torcillero’s right of action for damages
against the herein petitioner made by the Court in the dispositive part of its
judgment was a surplusage (Annex E). On 20 July 1957 the Court denied the herein
petitioner’s motion to dismiss (Annex F). On 18 September 1957 the herein
petitioner filed his answer denying specifically the material averments of the
petition setting up the following special defenses: that he was not the owner
but a lessee of the parcel of land of which respondent Torcillero had been
dispossessed; that his leasehold right thereto having expired in May 1955, the
said parcel of land had been taken over by Patria Capay, daughter of the late
Natividad Benedicto, who was the owner thereof; that for that reason the herein
petitioner could no longer be held answerable for the work done by respondent
Torcillero on the parcel of land after May 1955 and his claim therefor should be
directed against the owner of the land; and that respondent Torcillero’s
sublease could not and did not prevent the expiration of the herein petitioner’s
contract of lease with the owner of the said parcel of land; and by way of
counterclaim, he alleged that respondent Torcillero had failed and refused to
pay him the stipulated annual rental of 45 cavanes of palay and his 20%
share in the mongo crop raised and harvested by respondent Torcillero; that on
various occasions the latter had obtained loans from the petitioner herein
totalling P150 but which respondent Torcillero had failed and refused to pay
despite repeated demands; and that because of the filing by respondent
Torcillero of this unfounded and malicious complaint, the herein petitioner had
been compelled to engage the services of counsel for the sum of P500. He prayed
that the petition be dismissed with costs against respondent Torcillero; that
the latter be ordered to pay him (the herein petitioner) 45 cavanes of
palay as rental for the agricultural year 1954-1955 and his 20% share in the
mongo crop raised and harvested by respondent Torcillero; the sum of P150, the
amount owed by the latter to him; and the sum of P500 as attorney’s fees; and
for other just and equitable relief (Annex G). On 24 September 1957 respondent
Torcillero filed a “reply and answer to counterclaim” dated 23 September 1957,
disclaiming: knowledge or information as to the truth of the herein petitioner’s
special defenses and stating that if the latter believed that he was entitled to
any contribution indemnity or relief against Patria Capay, the owner of the
parcel of land, he (the herein petitioner) should file a third-party complaint
against her. Answering the herein petitioner’s counterclaim, respondent
Tordllero set up the defense that he already had paid the annual rental of palay
and the amount he had owed; and that the herein petitioner was not entitled to a
share in the crop of mongo raised and harvested because of the increase of the
annual rental from 42 to 45 cavanes of palay, and prayed for the
dismissal of the herein petitioner’s counterclaim (Annex H). On 25 February
1958, the herein petitioner again filed a motion to dismiss predicated upon the
same ground of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter, this time advancing
the theory that since respondent Torcillero’s claim for damages and attorney’s
feea was based upon the provisions of Section 19, Act No. 4054, providing that
the landlord was liable to the tenant for damages to the extent of his share in
the product of the farm arising from the latter’s unlawful dismissal, neither
the Court of Industrial Eelations then nor the Court of Agrarian Relations now
had jurisdiction of the case. He reserved the right to present hia evidence,
should the motion to dismiss be denied (Annex 1). On 3 September 1958 the Court
rendered judgment holding that as respondent Torcillero was a tenant unlawfully
ejected from his landholding by the herein petitioner, the latter was liable to
him for damages, ordering the herein petitioner to pay respondent Torcillero 135
cavanes of palay or its value at the rate of P10 a cavan with
interest at the rate of 10% a year from the date of the judgment to its complete
payment, and P250 as attorney’s fees, and dismissing the herein petitioner’s
counterclaim, with costs against him (Annex J). On 3 October 1958 the herein
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (Annex K); on 17 October 1958,
respondent Torcillero, an “opposition to motion for reconsideration” dated 14
October 1958 (Annex L); and on 10 November 1958, the herein petitioner, a
“supplemental ground to motion for reconsideration” dated 6 November 1958 (Annex
M). On 20 November 1958 the Court entered an order directing the parties to
submit within seven days from receipt of notice their respective memoranda on
the effect of the respondent’s failure to appeal from that part of the judgment
of the Court in CIR Tenancy Case No. 182-Iloilo, reserving respondent
Toreillero’s right to bring an action for damages against the herein petitioner,
but should they fail to submit their memoranda, the case would be considered
submitted for resolution (Annex N). On 14 January 1959 the Court entered an
order denying the herein petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Annex O). On 9
February 1959, after receipt of a copy of the preceding order, the herein
petitioner filed a notice of appeal dated 7 February 1959 in the Court of
Agrarian Relations (Annex P), and on 12 February 1959 a petition for certiorari
in this Court by registered mail which waa received on 18 February 1959. On 23
February .1959 this Court ordered the herein respondents to answer the petition
for certiorari. On 1 April and 18 May 1959 the answers in behalf of the
respondent court and in behalf of the respondent Torcillero, respectively, were
filed.

The petitioner seems to have been in a quandary as to the choice of remedies.
In the caption of his petition the term “certiorari” appears. In his petition he
claims that the respondent court hadyio jurisdiction of the case and that “There
is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law from the
aforementioned orders (Annexes “F” and “O”) and the decision (Annex “J”), of the
respondent Judge, the Honorable Ramon Blanco except the present petition for
certiorari.” These are characteristics of a petition for a writ of certiorari as
a special civil action or extraordinary legal remedy. But the filing by the
petitioner of a notice of appeal from the judgment rendered by the respondent
court (Annex J) and the prayer in his petition that the respondent court be
directed “to certify and send to this Court for its review and determination a
transcript of the record and proceedings herein; and that the judgment of the
Court of Agrarian Relations, Eight Regional District, Iloilo City (Annex “J”) be
reversed by this Honorable Court * * *.” convey the idea1 that he seeks a review
of the judgment of the respondent court under section 13, Republic Act No. 1267,
as amended by Republic Act No. 1409. Since this Court does not have before it
the record of the case which should have been forwarded to it by the clerk of
the respondent court pursuant to section 1, Rule 19 as amended, of its rules
promulgated pursuant to section 10, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by
Republic Act No. 1409, this Court will consider the petition as a special civil
action or a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Section 19, Act No. 4054, provides:

The landlord shall not dismiss his tenant without just cause, otherwise the
former shall be liable to the latter for losses and damages to the extent of his
share in the product of the farm entrusted to the dismissed
tenant,

and section 27, Republic Act No. 1199, provides:

(1) The landowner shall not dispossess the tenant of his holdings except for
any of the causes enumerated in Section fifty, and without the cause having been
proved before, and dispossession authorized by, the court; otherwise, he shall,
aside from the penalty of fine and/or imprisonment provided for any violation of
this Act, be liable to tho tenant for damages to tile extent of the landholder’s
participation in the harvest in addition to the tenant’s right under Section
twenty-two of this Act.

Section 7, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409,
provides:

The Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the entire
Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle all questions,
matters, controversies or disputes involving all those relationships established
by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the cultivation and use
of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land: Provided,
however, That cases pending in the Court of Industrial Relations upon
approval of this Act which are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian
Relations, shall be transferred to, and the proceedings therein continued in,
the latter court.

Section 7, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, vests in the Court of Agrarian
Relations exclusive and original jurisdiction to determine controversies arising
from landlord-tenant relationship. From this it may be inferred that it also has
jurisdiction to hear and determine actions for recovery of damages arising from
the unlawful dismissal or dispossession of a tenant by the landlord, as provided
for in Act No. 4054 and Republic Act No. 1199, as amended. To hold otherwise
would result in multiplicity of suits and expensive litigations abhorred by the
law. For that reason the reinstatement to his landholding of a tenant
dispossessed or dismissed of such landholding without just cause and his claim
for damages arising from such illegal dispossession or dismissal should be
litigated in one and the same case. Such is the rule laid down by this Court in
David vs. Cruz and Calma, 103 Phil., 380; 54 Off. Gaz. 8073.

Nevertheless, the judgment rendered by the Court of Agrarian Relations, CIR
Tenancy Case No. 182-Iloilo, directing reinstatement of the tenant, who had been
unlawfully dispossessed of his landholding, and reserving to him the right to
bring an action against the landlord for recovery of damages under and pursuant
to section 19, Act No. 4054, even if the tenant had not prayed for damages in
his complaint, is now final and executory for failure of the herein petitioner
to appeal therefrom to have such reservation stricken from the judgment.
Erroneous as such reservation may be, failure of the herein petitioner to appeal
therefrom is or constitutes a waiver on his part. Such waiver precludes him from
filing a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that it is barred by a prior
judgment. Without such waiver the splitting of a cause of action would not be
allowed and any other cause of action arising from or bearing a relation to the
main, action could not be litigated in a subsequent suit or proceeding.

The writ prayed for is denied, without pronouncement as to
costs.

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

---

^[1] Originally commenced in the Court of
Industrial Relations, the case was transferred to the Court of Agrarian
Relations for final disposition upon the enactment into law of Republic Act No.
1267, as amended.