PEDRO GABANI, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. JUAN E. REAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

In the Justice of the Peace Court of Wright, Samar , Juan E. Reas filed an
action styled unlawful detainer against Pedro Gabani, Eustaquio Orabiles,
Alejandro Obina and Claro Obidos (Civil Case No. 11). A motion for dismissal was
presented by defendants therein, on the ground that the court lacked
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. The motion having been denied, the
defendants answered. After due hearing, the inferior court, on October 14, 1957,
ordered each of the defendants to give as rentals, 3 sacks of palay and 3 sacks
of corn for the year 1955 and 1956 or P39.00 for each of them or a total of
P156.00; to pay interest; to vacate the land and restore possession thereof to
the plaintiff, to pay P200.00 as damages and P300.00 for attorney’s fees. On
December 26, 1957, plaintiff therein moved for the execution of the judgment
which was issued on March 24, 1958 The defendants could not furnish the bond of
P500.00 fixed by the inferior court, to stay the execution of the judgment. On
May 21, 1958, a notice of attachment of the property was filed by the Sheriff
with the Register of Deeds.

On September 20, 1958, a special civil action for certiorari was
presented by the same Gabani, Orabiles, Obina and Obidos, petitioners, against
Juan E. Reas and Luis F. Muñoz, as Justice of the Peace of Wright, respondents,
in the CFI of Samar (Civ. Case No. 4631), reciting the proceedings in civil case
No. 11 of the Justice of the Peace of Wright and alleging that the inferior
court had exceeded its jurisdiction and gravely abused its discretion in
condemning the petitioners to pay the respondents (1) damages in the sum of
P200.00 plus rentals for P156.00; (2) P300.00 as attorney’s fees; and in
ordering the execution of the judgment, for their failure to put up the P500.00
bond; that they have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law to stop the execution of the decision handed down by the
respondent court, other than the petition for certiorari, and that the complaint
for illegal detainer was malicious, unfounded and fraudulent, thereby causing
upon them mental anguish, painful anxiety, and fear of losing their rights and
had compelled them to employ the services of a lawyer. They prayed, therefore,
that (a) the decision of the Justice of the Peace court in civil case No. 11, be
declared null and void; (b) that respondent Reas be condemned to pay petitioners
the sum of P1,000.00 as moral damages, P300.00 as attorney’s fees and costs. On
November 30, 1957, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
following grounds;

1. That the petition stated no cause of action.
2. That respondent Justice of the Peace Court was vested with jurisdiction to
   take cognizance of Civil Case No. 11.
3. That the petitioners had the right of appeal in said civil case No. 11.

The motion to dismiss having been denied, respondents answered; alleged as
their affirmative defenses, the same grounds contained in their motion to
dismiss the petition, and set up a counterclaim. After due hearing, the CFI of
Samar handed down a decision, the dispositive portion of which states:

“In view of the foregoing, the Court renders judgment declaring the decision
Exhibit F, rendered by the respondent Justice of the Peace in Civil Case No. 11,
null and void; and condemning the respondent Juan E. Reas to pay to the
petitioners damages of three hundred pesos and another three hundred pesos for
attorney’s fees, and the costs.”

Respondents appealed to this Court and in their brief, submitted four errors
alleged to have been committed by the trial court, but which may be reduced to
one dominant proposition, to wit: Whether the trial court acted correctly in
annulling the decision of the Justice of the Peace of Wright in civil case No.
11, for lack of jurisdiction.

The complaint in the justice of the peace court (Case No. 11) among others,
alleges:—

“3. That in May, 1956, defendants contracted with the plaintiff to plant rice
and corn on the above properties, under the conditions of paying a yearly rental
of 1½ sacks of palay and corn, valued P8.00 per sack of palay and P5.00 per sack
of corn, and defendants forthwith began planting the said products and have been
harvesting the same up to the present time, but without paying the agreed
rentals, despite repeated demands.

4. That for such failure and refusal of the defendants as above stated or to
vacate the land, the plaintiff has been forced to institute the present action
incurring damages of more than P200.00 and attorney’s fees of P300.00.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court may
order the defendants to pay for each of these rentals in palay of 3 sacks and 3
sacks also of corn for 1955 and 1956 valued in all P39.00 or P156.00 for all the
four defendants, plus interest of 6% from the filing of this complaint, with
costs against them; order them to vacate the land, and to pay damages of more
than P200.00 and attorney’s fees of P300.00; and extending to the plaintiff such
other remedies fair and equitable in the premises” (Exhs. “9” and
“A-1”).

Judging from the above averment, one may readily see that the case falls
under the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act No. 1199, approved on Aug.
30, 1954, as amended by Act No. 1267, approved on June 14, 1954; the pertinent
portions of which recite:—

“SEC. 4. Systems of Agricultural Tenancy; Their
definitions—Agricultural Tenancy is classified into leasehold tenancy and
share tenancy.

Share tenancy * * *,

Leasehold Tenancy , exists when a person who, either personally or
with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household,
undertakes to cultivate a piece of agricultural land susceptible of cultivation
by a single person together with members of his immediate farm household
(belonging to or legally possessed by, another in consideration of a price
certain or ascertainable to be paid by the person cultivating the land either in
percentage of the production or in a fixed amount in money, or both.

SEC. 21. Ejectment; Violation; Jurisdiction.—All cases involving the
dispossession of a tenant by the landholder 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 hereinafter be authorized by law to take cognizance of tenancy relations
and disputes”. (Act No. 1199).

SEC. 7. Jurisdiction of the Court.—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, and shall have concurrent
jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over the employer and farm
employees or labor under the Republic Act numbered Six Hundred Two (Minimum Wage
Law), and over landlord and tenant involving violations of the Usury Law (Act No
2655) as amended, and of inflicting the penalties provided therefor” (Act No.
1267).

The causes of action in the complaint describes a leasehold Tenancy; it is a
case of dispossession or ejectment of a tenant by the landlord, of an
agricultural land where the tenant cultivates or works the land, in
consideration of a price certain paid by the one cultivating the land,
consisting of so many sacks of rice and corn, for rentals. The above cited laws
are clear and definite as to what court should take cognizance of disputes
arising from such relationship. Section 21 aforequoted, says “all cases”
involving the dispossession of tenant by the landholder “shall be under the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of such court” as may be authorized by law
to take cognizance of Tenancy relations and disputes; and such court, by virtue
of sec. 7 aforequoted, which again provides that all questions, matters,
controversies or disputes involving all the relationships established by
law which determines the varying rights of persons in the cultivation and use of
agricultural land where one of the parties works the land, is the Court of
Agrarian Relations (Santos, et al., vs. Vivas, et al., 96 Phil., 538;
51 Off. Gaz., 690; Mendoza vs. Manguiat, 96 Phil., 309; 51 Off. Gaz.,
137; also Valencia , et al vs. Hon. J. T. Surtida, sapra, p.
513).

Having reached the above conclusion, it would seem unnecessary to pass upon
other minor issues raised by the respondents-appellants.

The decision appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against
respondents-appellants.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.