G.R. Nos. L-27897-98. October 29, 1971
LORENZO IGNACIO AND MAGDALENA DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN AND FELIZARDO LIPANA, RESPONDENTS.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Petition for certiorari and prohibition in forma
pauperis questioning the jurisdiction of the
Municipal Court of Plaridel, Bulacan,
in an ejectment case against petitioners, which case
was subsequently appealed to the Court of First Instance, where it was shown
that another case had been filed ahead in the Court of Agrarian Relations
wherein petitioners asked that they be declared the lawful tenants of the
disputed landholding. Upon motion of
petitioners, alleging that private respondent had moved in the Court of First
Instance for the execution of its decision affirming an order of the Municipal
Court which found them guilty of contempt of court and ordering them to vacate
the landholding in question, We ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction upon the filing of a bond in the sum of P200.00.
The said landholding consists of two hectares, more or less,
included in a larger tract owned by Felizardo Lipana and tenanted by Alipio
Marcelo until his death on December 3,
1962. Two cases involving
the land were pending in the Court of Agrarian Relations at the time of his
death, namely: CAR Case No. 750-Bulacan
’62, entitled “Alipio Marcelo vs. Felizardo Lipana“; and CAR
Case No. 827-Bulacan ‘62, entitled “Felizardo Lipana vs. Alipio Marcelo.”[1]
In both cases the deceased was subsequently substituted by Maximo
Marcelo and Emilia Tabol Vda. de Marcelo, surviving son and
wife, respectively. A third case – CAR
Case No. 895 – was filed on December 20, 1962 by Maximo
Marcelo against Felizardo Lipana
and Magdalena dela Cruz (the latter having been the
alleged common-law wife of Alipio Marcelo), praying
that he, Maximo, be declared as entitled to succeed
to the tenancy right and status of the deceased. One of the allegations of Lipana
in his answer to the complaint was that he “signified his intention to
recognize as his tenant Magdalena dela
Cruz, who is the widow of Alipio Marcelo.” This
is an admission that as far as Lipana was concerned
it was Magdalena who had the right to succeed the
deceased Alipio as tenant.
On July 23, 1963,
acting on a motion of Maximo Marcelo to enjoin Magdalena
dela Cruz from interfering with his peaceful
cultivation of the landholding, as well as on an urgent motion of Felizardo Lipana for leave to
cultivate the same land, the CAR issued the following order:
“For this Court to be able to resolve the above prayer and
motion intelligently and judiciously, there is
necessity for formal hearing to determine the following questions of fact:
(1)
Since the demise of the former tenant, Alipio Marcelo, who has been and is in actual possession
and cultivation of the holding in question?
(2)
Did the deceased voluntarily surrender the
holding to respondent in November 1962?
(3)
Is Maximo Marcelo the
natural son of the late Alipio Marcelo?
It appears, however, that these are the factual issues directly
involved in CAR Case No. 895-Bulacan ’62 where petitioner therein has already
presented three (3) witnesses and several exhibits. Respondents have not yet presented any
evidence. The cause of action indicated,
therefore, is for this Court to withhold action on Maximo
Marcelo’s prayer for interlocutory order and Felizardo
Lipana’s urgent motion for leave to cultivate the
holding.
In the meanwhile, to forestall any untoward incidents and in order
not to disturb the productivity of the land, this Court shall undertake the
cultivation thereof by administration through an impartial third-party. All the parties in the above-entitled cases
shall be restricted from doing any act of cultivation or planting on the land
and reaping, harvesting or threshing of crops thereon.
WHEREFORE, Maximo Marcelo, Emilia Tabol de Marcelo,
Magdalena dela Cruz, Felizardo
Lipana and/or their agents are directed to desist
from performing any act of cultivation or planting on the landholding formerly
tenanted by Alipio Marcelo at Lalangan,
Plaridel, Bulacan, with a
seedling capacity of 30 gantas of palay,
or from reaping, harvesting or threshing any crops thereon until further
orders from this court.
Pursuant to: Section 9, Rep.
Act No. 1267, as amended, Mr. Severino Madronio, Agricultural Extension Officer, Bureau of
Agricultural Extension, Bulacan, is hereby directed
to repair to the landholding in question, take possession of the same and
undertake the cultivation thereof and/or planting thereon according to his best
judgment and to proven farm practices.
If the hiring of laborers for the purpose of complying with this Order
is called for, the afore-named Agricultural Extension Officer shall give
preference of employment to Maximo Marcelo and
Magdalena dela Cruz at the prevailing wage for
agricultural laborers in the locality but in no case shall the wage be less
than P2.50 per day, with no allowance for board and lodging.”
Thereafter, a compromise agreement in the three CAR cases was
entered into by Maximo Marcelo and Felizardo Lipana, wherein the
former surrendered all his rights over the landholding in favor of the
latter. A judgment in accordance with
the terms and conditions of said compromise was thereupon rendered by the
trial Judge on November 5, 1964,
declaring that CAR Cases Nos. 750, 895 and 827 were deemed closed and
terminated as between Maximo Marcelo and Felizardo Lipana.
On January 27, 1965
the CAR ordered the issuance of a writ of execution in the three cases. On the same date another order was issued,
discharging the administration of the landholding by the Agricultural Extension
Officer. On February 5, 1965 the
corresponding writ of execution was issued, commanding the provincial sheriff
of Bulacan to place Felizardo
Lipana in possession; and on the following February
25 the provincial sheriff submitted to the court his return of service.
On July 15, 1965 Magdalena dela Cruz
filed a complaint against Lipana (Case No. 1221),
asking the CAR to declare her the lawful tenant of the landholding, to fix the
annual rentals thereof during the past three years and to award damages in her
favor by way of attorney’s fees and consequential expenses. In her complaint she alleged that Alipio Marcelo, the former tenant, surrendered the
landholding to Lipana on November 21, 1962, whereupon
she succeeded as such tenant upon agreement with the latter; that on November
13, 1964 the CAR issued an order stating that the dismissal of CAR Case No. 895
was without prejudice to her right to file an independent action to assert her
claim against Lipana, her co-defendant therein; that
together with her husband[2]
she continued to work on the land during the agricultural year 1964-65, but
that after they had plowed the land in preparation for the agricultural year
1965-66 defendant’s henchmen created some disturbance at the place for the
purpose of ejecting her forcibly therefrom. Plaintiff was allowed to litigate as pauper,
and notice of the filing of the complaint was served upon Lipana
on July 31, 1965.
On July 29, 1965 Lipana in turn went to
the Municipal Court of Plaridel, Bulacan
on an action for “Ejectment and Forcible
Entry” (Civil Case No. 235), with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction against Magdalena dela Cruz
and her husband Lorenzo Ignacio, alleging that he, Lipana,
had been placed in possession of the landholding by the provincial sheriff of Bulacan by virtue of the order of the CAR dated January 27,
1965 in CAR Cases Nos. 750, 827 and 895.
Defendants filed their answer with counterclaim on August 11, 1965, denying the
substantial averments of the complaint and alleging as affirmative defense the pendency of CAR Case No. 1221. In their counterclaim for damages, defendants
alleged that Magdalena dela
Cruz was the tenant of Felizardo Lipana
but that the latter wanted to eject her because she married her co-defendant
Lorenzo Ignacio, who was a member of a farmers’ organization in the locality.
On August 2, 1965
the Municipal Court of Plaridel ordered defendants,
pending the hearing of the case on the merits, to desist from plowing,
harrowing, and/or planting the land in question upon the filing by plaintiff
of a bond of P2,000.00.
On October 7, 1965
plaintiff filed a motion to declare defendants in contempt of court for having
plowed, harrowed and planted the land in question in spite of the existence of
the injunctive order. In their
opposition dated October 18, 1965
defendants pointed out that they did so as tenants of the land subject of CAR
Case No. 1221 and that if they observed the injunctive order of the Municipal
Court they would in effect be violating their rights and obligations in said
CAR case.
On November 25, 1965
the Municipal Court found defendants guilty of contempt and sentenced them to
pay a fine of P50.00 each or suffer imprisonment for ten days. This order was appealed by defendants, in
forma pauperis, to the Court of First
Instance, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3280-M.
On May 31, 1966
a decision in Civil Case No. 235 was rendered by the Municipal Court, ordering
defendants to vacate the land and to remove their house therefrom. This decision was likewise appealed to the
Court of First Instance, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No.
3363-M. Again, defendants were allowed
to appeal as paupers.
In due time the trial in CAR Case No. 1221 was terminated and the
trial Judge, in an order dated September 13, 1966, gave both parties fifteen
days from notice that the stenographic notes had been transcribed within which
to submit their memoranda, after which period the case would be deemed
submitted for decision. The CAR,
however, held its decision in abeyance for the reason that “it is
powerless to modify or set aside the decision rendered by the Municipal Court
in Civil Case No. 235, now on appeal with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.”
In Civil Cases Nos. 3280-M and 3363-M before the Court of First
Instance, defendants (petitioners herein), in a motion dated April 28, 1967,
asked for the postponement of the hearing scheduled on May 2, 1967. The court denied the motion on May 2, 1967 and allowed plaintiff to
present his evidence ex parte before
the Deputy Clerk of Court.
On May 16, 1967
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, pleading that the evidence
presented by plaintiff be disregarded and the hearing of the case reset for
another date. This motion was also
denied.
On July 27, 1967
the Court of First Instance rendered judgment in Civil Cases Nos. 3280-M and
3363-M, which reads as follows:
“Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered:
1.
With respect to Civil Case No. 3280, finding the
defendants guilty of contempt of court and sentencing them each to pay a fine
in the sum of P50.00 or to suffer an imprisonment of 10 days;
2.
With respect to Civil Case No. 3363, ordering
the defendants and/or anybody acting under them, to vacate the premises in
question and remove their house therefrom within 30
days from notice hereof.”
The facts show clearly that these cases proceed from and involve
essentially a tenancy dispute. Before
Civil Case No. 235 was filed in the Municipal Court of Plaridel,
three cases involving the same landholding had already been filed with the
Court of Agrarian Relations. The issue
as to who had been in actual possession of the land since the death of the
tenant Alipio Marcelo was before the CAR in Case No.
895, a suit brought by Maximo Marcelo against Lipana and Magdalena dela Cruz,
wherein he sought to be declared as the tenant by right of succession to Alipio Marcelo. The
case, however, was dismissed together with CAR Cases Nos. 725 and 827
originally brought by Alipio Marcelo, without the
issue of actual possession having been resolved, by virtue of the compromise
agreement entered into between Maximo and Lipana. Magdalena
dela Cruz thereafter filed her complaint – CAR Case
No. 1221 – to have herself declared the lawful tenant of the landholding.
While it is true that the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for
ejectment or forcible entry is determined by the
allegations in the complaint, yet where tenancy is averred as a defense and,
upon hearing, is shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case
for want of jurisdiction.[3]
The decision of the CAR, it should be remembered, was rendered upon a
compromise agreement between Maximo Marcelo and Felizardo Lipana. The right of Magdalena
dela Cruz, who was a co-defendant in CAR Case No.
895, was not touched upon in said agreement.
There the decision simply stated that CAR Cases Nos. 750, 827 and 895
were “deemed closed and terminated as between Maximo
Marcelo and Felizardo Lipana;”
and the writ of execution was limited to “placing Mr. Felizardo
Lipana immediately in possession of the landholding
formerly cultivated by Maximo Marcelo or any person,
agent, and/or representative acting in behalf of Maximo
Marcelo.”
It was therefore incorrect for respondent court to conclude from
the decision and writ of execution in the CAR cases that Lipana
had actual possession, as against Magdalena dela Cruz, over the landholding prior to the alleged
unlawful detainer and/or forcible entry. While both Maximo
and Magdalena asserted the right to succeed to the
tenancy of the same landholding after the death of Alipio
Marcelo, the CAR did not adjudicate that right to either of them nor did it
resolve the question as to who had actual possession of the landholding after
the death of Alipio.
What it did, in order to prevent further trouble between Maximo and Magdalena was to place
the landholding under the administration of the Agricultural Extension
Officer, with instruction that Maximo and Magdalena
should be given preference in working on the land as laborers. The allegations in the complaint in CAR Case
No. 1221 reveal that they worked on different portions of the land in
accordance with the CAR’s order. This was how things stood when Maximo entered into a compromise agreement with Lipana surrendering his rights over the landholding in
favor of the latter. For all intents and
purposes, therefore, the decision and writ of execution affected only the
claim of Maximo Marcelo as tenant and his actual
possession of the portion of the land on which he was working by virtue of the
provisional arrangement ordered by the CAR.
Since the tenancy dispute remained unresolved with respect to Magdalena
dela Cruz and was actually the subject of litigation
in CAR Case No. 1221, the filing of the ejectment
case was an intrusion upon the jurisdiction of said court.
WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is granted and the decision
of respondent court in Civil Cases Nos. 3280-M and 3363-M is set aside. No costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
[1]
(a) CAR Case 750 was a claim of Alipio Marcelo for change of tenancy relationship from
sharing to leasehold; and reliquidation of the previous
harvests against Felizardo Lipana;
(b) CAR Case 827 was a claim of Felizardo Lipana against Alipio Marcelo for accounting of the produce of auxiliary
crops.
[2] Magdalena
dela Cruz had married Lorenzo Ignacio on June 30, 1964.
[3]
See Evangelista vs. Court of Agrarian Relations G.R. No. L-13875, October 31, 1960; Basilio vs. David G.R. No. L-8702, April 28, 1956.