GARCIA SAMSON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. RAMON ENRIQUEZ AND FERMIN FILOTEO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

On 24 June 1955 Garcia Samson filed in the Municipal Court of Zamboanga
City a verified complaint against Ramon Enriquez and Fermin Filoteo
for recovery Of possession of Lot No. 422, a parcel of land situate in
Zamboanga City, for collection of P1,150 as actual and moral damages,
P250 as attorney’s fees, and the costs, and for other just and
equitable relief. At the same time the plaintiff applied for a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from disturbing his
possession of the parcel of land, cultivating and planting palay
therein. In support of his complaint and application the plaintiff
alleged that sometime in 1913 he and Jose Borja, now deceased, in his
own behalf and as attorney-in-fact (apoderado general) of his
co-owners, entered into a contract of tenancy (contrato de aparceria)
whereby, for and in consideration of 25 cavanes of palay payable
annually by him to the owners of the parcel of land, he was allowed to
take possession of and cultivate and plant palay in the said parcel of
land; that from 1913 until 13 April 1955 he had been in peaceful
possession of the parcel of land; that on 13 April 1955 the defendants,
by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, entered
upon the parcel of land, and deprived him of its possession; that on 13
and 23 April and 2 and 3 June 1955 the defendants cut and destroyed two
bamboo groves he had planted in the parcel of land thereby causing him
damage in the sum of P150; that the defendants have refused and failed
to restore to him the possession of the parcel of land thereby causing
him damage in the sum of P1,000; that unless restrained the defendants
would continue molesting and depriving him of the possession of the
parcel of land; and that by reason of the defendants’ illegal acts he
had been compelled to engage the services of counsel for the protection
of his right and the redress of the wrong committed against him, for
which he had to pay P250 (civil No. 435).

On 14 July 1955 the
defendants answered the complaint denying the plaintiff’s material
averments and setting up the following special defenses: that the
plaintiff had no written contract with the owners of the parcel of land
and had never acquired possession thereof; that the plaintiff was a
mere cropper in the parcel of land whose right to stay therein and
share in its harvest lasted only from the planting to the harvesting of
the crop or on a year to year basis; that Jose Borja, who was married
to one of the co-owners, was not and had never been in charge of the
parcel of land but Fermin Filoteo to whom the plaintiff as a cropper
had paid the “abono” (rental or share) of the land; that sometime in
March 1955 the defendant Filoteo notified in writing the plaintiff
terminating his services as a cropper and engaged the services of the
defendant Ramon Enriquez in his place; that, without the knowledge and
consent of the defendants, the plaintiff and others, with whom he had
agreed, worked on the parcel of land as croppers for the last two
agricultural years, the plaintiff receiving from those with whom he had
dealt 50% of the harvest of the parcel of land and in turn paying to
the defendant Filoteo 25 cavanes of palay a year as nabono”
(rental or share) of the land; and that the plaintiff had never made
any permanent improvement on the parcel of land which is in the same
state as it had always been, a great part of it being planted to rice
and the rest still remaining undeveloped. As counterclaim the
defendants alleged that as a result of the malicious institution by the
plaintiff of a clearly unfounded suit, they suffered “mental torture,
anguish and moral shock,” for which they should be indemnified by way
of moral damages in the sum of P2,000, and had to engage unnecessarily
the services of counsel to defend them in this suit, for which they had
to pay him P300 as attorney’s fees.

On 22 July 1955 the
Municipal Court dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction it had
theretofore issued upon the filling by the defendants of a counterbond
in the sum of P1,500.

On 25 October 1955 the defendants
moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. In support of the
first ground the defendants contended that the plaintiff’s alleged
right to possess the parcel of land being based upon a contract of
tenancy (contrato de aparceria), which involves a system of
cultivation, the Court of Agrarian Relations, pursuant to Republic Act
No. 1267, is amended, and not the Municipal Court, has jurisdiction of
the case. Moreover, the Municipal Court is without jurisdiction to hear
and determine a case that involves an interpretation of the contract
referred to by the plaintiff. In support of the second ground the
defendants maintained that upon the death of Jose Borja, who alleged
had entered into a contract of tenancy (contrato de aparceria)
in his own behalf and in behalf of his co-owners, the agency or
authority granted him by his co-owners was terminated and,
consequently, the contract entered into by and between him and Jose
Borja was also terminated. Furthermore, the plaintiff was a mere
cropper who did not acquire possession of the parcel of land and could
not maintain an action of forcible entry against the defendants.
Besides, granting that he had a right to posses the parcel of land
his alleged contract not having a fixed period, the same was on a year
to year basis and expired at the end of each and every agricultural
year.

After hearing, on 12 May 1956 the Municipal Court
rendered judgment holding that a tenancy relation existed between the
plaintiff and the defendants and that their controversy involved a
system of cultivation of an agricultural parcel of land and for that
reason declaring itself without jurisdiction over the case. It
transmitted the case to the Court of Agrarian Relations pursuant to
section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended. On 10 January 1957 the
Municipal Court, upon the suggestion of the Court of Agrarian Relations
to act on the defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on 25 October 1955
dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

On 31 January 1957 the
plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. On 20
February 1957 the defendants informed the Court of First Instance that
they are reproducing and refiling the answer and motion to dismiss
filed in the Municipal Court on 14 July 1955 and 25 October 1955 and
objected to the Court of First Instance taking cognizance of the case
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

On 9 November
1957 the Court of First Instance entered an order holding that the case
is for forcible entry over which the Municipal Court has jurisdiction
to hear and determine and remanding the case to it.

On 20
March 1958 the Municipal Court rendered judgment holding “that the
plaintiff have (has) proven with preponderance of evidence that he is
entitled to the possession of the parcel of land in question and
subject of the present action for Forcible Entry and Detainer” and
ordering—

* * * the defendants to vacate
the parcel of land, Lot No. 422 of Expediente No. 8571 and deliver
possession of the said Lot 422, Expediente No. 8571 to the plaintiff;
to pay to the plaintiff actual damage of Five Hundred Pesos (P100.00),
value of the palay which the plaintiff failed to realize when he was
dispossessed of the parcel of land which he was working, planting the
same with palay yearly from the time!he was deprived of its possession
of April 13, 1955 by the defendants; to pay to the plaintiff attorney’s
fee of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00), and to pay the costs of the action.
The writ of preliminary injunction is hereby declared final. The
counterclaims of the defendants which they failed to prove is hereby
ordered dismissed.

On 30 June 1958 the
defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga and on
15 July 1958 moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground
that it does not state a cause of action because he was a mere cropper,
a laborer tilling a part of the parcel of land without acquiring
possession thereof, and could not maintain an action in Court against
its owner for forcible entry; and that the Court of First Instance,
originally or on appeal, has no jurisdiction of then case because the
case is between landlord and tenant involving a system of cultivation
under the Tenancy Act, Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, which
properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian
Relations. On 6 August 1958 the Court. of First Instance entered, an
order holding that the plaintiff was a mere cropper who tilled the
parcel of land but did not divest the owners thereof of their right to
enter and take possession of it; that if the plaintiff insists that he
has a right to possess the parcel of land by virtue of a contract of
tenancy (contrato de aparceria) the proper Court from which he
could seek redress is the Court of Agrarian Relations; and that the
Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction of the: case, and
dismissing the appeal.

The plaintiff has appealed to this Court on the question of jurisdiction only.

The complaint filed in the Municipal Court avers—

2.
Que allá por el año 1913, el Sr. Josê Borja, hoy finado, por si y en
representacion de todos los condueños, como apoderado general de estos,
del Lotê No. 422, del Expidiente No. 8571, otorgó con el aquí
demandante un contrato de aparencía, cadiento de êste el Lote No. 422,
siendo aun parte inculto, para barbechar y hacer sementera, bajo las
sigientes condiciones, a saber:

    a) Que el
demandante se barbecherá el Lote No. 422 del Expediente No. 8571,
haciendole aproposito para la siembra de palay, por cuenta y riesgo del
aqui demandante;

    b) Que los animales de labor
y aperos de labranza que se han emplear en barbechar dicho terreno,
Lote No. 422, Serân también por cuenta y riesgo del demandante; y

    c)
Que anualmente, al recolectar la cosecha de palay, el demandante tendrá
que pagar al apoderado general, Sr. José Borja y condueños de dicho
lote, VIENTE Y CINCO CAVANES (25) DE PALAY, limpios seco y vendible.

He alleges unequivocably that he is entitled to the possession of the parcel of land under a contract of tenancy (contrato de aparceria). Such being the case the Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction of the case.

The order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

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