ACSAY MANDIH, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. GREGORIO TABLANTIN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del
Norte, Hon. Wenceslao M. Ortega, presiding, dismissing the complaint of
the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 754 of said court, entitled “Acsay
Mandih, plaintiff, versus Gregorio Tablantin, defendant.”

Plaintiff-appellant filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace
Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte on December 10, 1954, alleging
among other things that he is the owner of a piece of agricultural land
situated in the barrio of Mandih, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte; that
the land has been declared for taxation purposes and that he has been
in possession thereof for more than fifteen years; that defendant in
his capacity as tenant of plaintiff worked and cultivated the eastern
portion of the land in 1952; that in the month of October, 1954, after
the palay harvest, plaintiff demanded from defendant his share in the
produce, but defendant refused and still refuses to deliver his share;
that by reason of defendant’s refusal to deliver the harvest, plaintiff
demanded that he vacate the premises, but defendant refused, claiming
ownership of the land; that plaintiff’s share in the harvest is 5
cavans of corn and 10 cavans of palay yearly, etc. Defendant filed an
answer in the Justice of the Peace Court, alleging that the land
described in the complaint has been occupied, cultivated and possessed
by him in concept of owner, except only as against the government, from
the year 1947 until the present; that the defendant and his
predecessors-in-interest have introduced improvements thereon since
1947; that defendant had filed a Homestead application for the land. He
filed a counterclaim for P200.00 as attorney’s fees and P1,000.00 as
damages. The Justice of the Peace Court, after trial, rendered judgment
ordering the defendant to vacate the premises and pay a monthly rental
of P10.00 from October, 1954, until the possession is restored. The
court also dismissed defendant’s counterclaim.

Not satisfied with the decision, defendant appealed, and upon the
docketing of the case in the Court of First Instance he filed an
answer, and later, an urgent motion to dismiss. In this motion,
defendant alleges that the court has no jurisdiction to try the case
because Republic Act No. 1199, known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of
the Philippines, passed on August 30, 1954, expressly provides that all
cases involving the dispossession of a tenant by, the landlord shall be
under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of
Industrial Relations; that upon the creation of the Court of Agrarian
Relations by Republic Act No. 1267, all such actions were to be filed
in the Court of Agrarian Relations. Plaintiff opposed said motion to
dismiss, arguing that the case at bar was covered by Rule 72, Sec. 1 of
the Rules of Court; that the real cause of action is not the tenancy
relationship, but the failure of defendant to recognize plaintiff as
his landlord, for instead of doing so he has claimed the land himself.
Acting upon the motion to dismiss, the court below sustained the same,
citing the case of Ojo, et al., vs. Jose Jamito, et al., (46
Off. Gaz., Supp. to No. 11, 1950, p. 216). Against the said order of
dismissal, plaintiff has come to Us on appeal.

It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the Court of Agrarian
Relations has jurisdiction over tenancy cases when a landlord-tenant
relationship exists and is not disputed by the tenant, and in the case
at bar since the defendant claims the land himself, upon the making of
said claim by the defendant, his occupation ceases to be one of a
tenant but a usurper, who may be ejected by an act of unlawful
detainer. In other words, it is argued that once the relationship of
tenant and landlord is denied, such relationship becomes terminated,
and the Court of Agrarian Relations loses jurisdiction over the case.
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199 reads as, follows:

“All cases involving the dispossession of a tenant
by the landlord or by a third party and/or the settlement and
disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landholder and
tenant, as well as the violation of any of the provisions of this Act,
shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of such court as
may now or hereafter be authorized by law to take cognizance of tenancy
relations and disputes.”

An examination of the above-quoted provision discloses, that the Court of Industrial, Relations is granted jurisdiction over all cases involving dispossession of a tenant by the landlord.
The complaint alleges that defendant is plaintiff’s tenant, and since
the law does not exclude, from the jurisdiction of the Court of
Industrial Relations (now Court of Agrarian Relations), cases in which
a tenant claims ownership over the land given to him for cultivation by
the landlord, we can not see eye to eye with the argument of
plaintiff-appellant. The same ruling, has been adopted by Us in the
case of Basilio vs. David, 98 Phil., 955; 52 Off. Gaz. [7] 3556.

Finding that the order of dismissal is justified by the above quoted
provision of law, we hereby affirm the order appealed from, with costs
against plaintiff-appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.