ENRIQUE ZOBEL, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GUILLERMO MERCADO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an action for ejectment filed before the Justice of the Peace
Court of Calatagan, Batangas, on February 5, 1954. Plaintiff seeks to
eject defendant from a fishpond defendant has leased from plaintiff for
a yearly rental of P239.03 but which rental defendant refused to pay
notwithstanding the demands made upon him. Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the justice of the peace court has no
jurisdiction over the case inasmuch as it was filed one year after the
cause of action accrued. The case was dismissed. Plaintiff took the
case to the Supreme Court by way of mandamus which set aside the order
of dismissal and remanded the case to the court of origin for trial on
the merits.

After trial, the justice of the peace court
rendered decision ordering defendant to vacate the fishpond and
surrender it to plaintiff, to pay plaintiff back rentals amounting to
P1,188.60, and the sum of P239.03 as yearly rental from March 31, 1954
until he vacates the property, and to pay the casts. Defendant appealed
the decision to the court of first instance. After trial de novo, the court affirmed in toto
the decision of the inferior court. Hence the present appeal, which was
certified to us because it merely involves questions of law.

The facts as found by the trial court are: The land in question is part
of the “Hacienda Bigaa”, situated in the municipality of Calatagan,
province of Batangas, and owned by plaintiff whose title is evidenced
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8262 of the land records of
Batangas. This land was originally owned by Jacobo Zobel but was sold
to plaintiff on June 29, 1951. On April 15, 1950, plaintiff and
defendant entered into a written contract whereby defendant leased for
fishing purposes a portion with an area of 47,806 square meters
situated in barrio Santiago, Calatagan, Batangas, for a yearly rental
of P50.00 per hectare. On the same date, defendant executed a
promissory note whereby he promised to pay the hacienda a
yearly rental of P239.03 on May 20, 1950, representing the rentals from
April 1, 1949 to March 31, 1950. Defendant failed to pay said amount,
as well as the subsequent rentals, notwithstanding several demands made
upon him to that effect.

The contention that the contract of
lease entered into between plaintiff and defendant is null and void
because the portion of land involved therein is a fishpond which is
part of the public domain is untenable, because there is nothing in the
evidence to show that such is the case. On the contrary, the evidence
is undisputed that said portion is covered by the certificate of title
issued in favor of plaintiff. As the trial court well observed,
“Needless to state, if there is any error in the Torrens title of the
plaintiff in the sense it included lands belonging to the government,
it is only the government who could properly question that fact. The
government is not a party to this action.”

The fact, that
defendant was granted an ordinary fishpond permit by the Bureau of
Fisheries to fish in the portion of land in question six years after
the execution of the contract of lease, is no proof that said portion
belongs to the government. There is still need of a judicial
pronouncement in order to have it excluded from the torrens title
issued to appellee. Moreover, since defendant entered into a contract
of lease with plaintiff over the portion of land in question and said
contract was found by the trial court to be valid and binding, it is
clear that defendant is now prevented from denying the title of
appellee over said portion pursuant to the provisions of Section 68
(b), Rule 123, of the Rules of Court. As this Court well observed:

“The defendants by attorning to him and becoming his tenants are estopped from disputing his title and his right to such possession upon the termination of the lease.
The defendants’ failure to pay the rent gave the plaintiff the right to
terminate the lease and oust them from their possession and before the
defendants can dispute his title and right to possession, they must
first surrender to him the possession of the land. (Alderete vs. Amandoron, 46 Phil., 488, 491;) (italics supplied.)

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.