G.R. No. 14631. March 30, 1962
PAULINA ANTONIO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. CEFERINO NATIVIDAD, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
DIZON, J.:
1499-NE-58) with the Court of Agrarian Relations, Cabanatuan City
Branch, against his grandparents, the spouses Raymundo Ruz and Paulina
Antonio, and Angeles Natividad, to restrain them “from molesting the
petitioner in the peaceful cultivation of the landholding in question”
situated in Casanaitan, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, alleging therein
that, after he had been engaged as tenant by Paulina Antonio in the
landholding aforesaid, the latter, without any reason whatsoever,
replaced him with Angeles Natividad.
In their answer to the petition, respondents averred the
petitioner, their grandson, had never been their tenant, and alleged by
way of special defense, that in Ejectment Case No. 907 of the Justice
of the Peace Court of Sto. Domingo filed by them against petitioner,
judgment had been rendered against the latter ordering him to vacate
the land in question and deliver its possession to said spouses.
They also filed a counterclaim for damages in the amount of P150.00.
After three postponements of the hearing of the case at the instance of
the respondents, the case was finally set for September 18, 1958. As
on said date they and their counsel failed to appear, the court
proceeded to receive petitioner’s evidence and afterwards rendered
judgment as follows:
“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby
rendered commanding respondent-landholders, the spouses Baymundo Buz
and Paulina Antonio, and/or their successors in interest, to reinstate
petitioner Ceferino Natividad as tenant on the two-cavan landholding
located at Casanaitan, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, and to maintain the
latter in the peaceful possession and cultivation thereof, with all the
rights granted and obligation imposed by law, and ordering respondent
Angeles Natividad to vacate said landholding and to cultivation of
petitioner Ceferino Natividad”.
In this appeal interposed by the Ruz spouses, the main issue is
whether or not a tenancy relationship existed between them on the one
hand, and their grandson, Ceferino Natividad, on the other, in
accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 1199. If such
relationship existed, it is clear that the Justice of the Peace Court
of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, had no jurisdiction over the controversy
between the parties, because under section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199,
the Court of Agrarian Relations has original exclusive jurisdiction
over all “cases involving the disposession of a tenant by the
landholder or by a third party”
Petitioner’s evidence on this question consists of his own testimony
and that of Ricardo Nicolas — a municipal policeman — Geronimo
Alcantara and Narciso Maglayo.
Petitioner’s testimony is to the effect that on December 25, 1957,
he and his grandmother went to the house of Geronimo Alcantara, then
the tenant of the landholding in question, to take such landholding
from him because it was to be cultivated by petitioner; that Alcantara
agreed to surrender the property to his landlords and that thereafter
petitioner started preparing the seedbed and later planted the palay
seedlings in the months of May and June, 1958; that when the seedlings
were about a foot high, he uprooted 700 bundles to be transplanted, but
before he could do so and while certain differences he had with his
grandparents remained unsettled, his grandmother filed an action for
forcible entry against him on June 23, 1958, which action was decided
against him; that upon receipt of the decision of the Justice of the
Peace of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, on August 7, 1958, he discontinued
working or abandoned the landholding and then filed the present action
with the Court of Agrarian Relations.
It is clear from petitioner’s own testimony that whatever tenancy
agreement he had with his grandparents was merely oral, and that his
testimony does not establish the particular conditions under which he
was allegedly taken as tenant. Moreover, although he filed a written
answer in the Justice of the Peace Court, the same consisted
exclusively of denials and petitioner never questioned the jurisdiction
of said court over the subject matter. According to the record of this
case, it was only after he had appealed to the Court of First Instance
of Nueva Ecija, that he raised the question of lack of jurisdiction of
the Justice of the Peace Court, by filing therewith a motion to
dismiss, which, as far as the record of this case shows, still remains
undecided. As a matter of fact, neither one of the parties herein has
informed this Court as to the status of the case in the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija.
Nicolas’ testimony is substantially to the effect that on June 20,
1958 Dionisio Ruz, a son of the Ruz spouses, went to his house with an
order of the Chief of Police of Sto. Domingo, directing him to
investigate Ruz’s complaint against petitioner who had illegally
occupied the land which he, Dionisio, was cultivating for his parents;
that when they went to the landholding he saw petitioner plowing the
land; that he advised Dionisio and petitioner to talk matters over but
they could not settle their controversy.
It is obvious that while this testimony shows that petitioner had
really entered the land, it does not prove that he was doing so as
tenant of the owners. Precisely, the latter admits his entry, but
claimed that it was illegal, this having prompted them to bring suit
against petitioner in the Justice of the Peace Court of Sto. Domingo.
Alcantara’s testimony, on the other hand, is to the effect that he
had been the tenant of the landholding in question since 1954; that on
December 25, 1957 petitioner and his grandmother went to his house to
ask him to give up the landholding because it would be cultivated by
petitioner, to which demand he acceded.
This testimony is also unsatisfactory in view of the fact that it
does not show that petitioner had actually entered into any tenancy
agreement with the owners and actually took possession of the
landholding as such. Moreover, assuming Alcantara’s testimony was true,
it does not negate the possibility that after December 25, 1957 and
before any formal tenancy agreement could be entered into between
petitioner, on the one hand, and his grandparents, on the other, the
latter had decided to make their own son, Dionisio, instead of
petitioner, cultivate the aforesaid landholding. Besides, there appears
to be good grounds to believe that Alcantara was not an entirely
unbiased witness, considering the circumstance that the owners of the
land had taken it away from him.
Regarding the testimony of Maglayo to the effect that in the month
of May, 1958, he saw the petitioner working in the landholding in
question, we can make the same observation we have already made in
connection with the testimony of Nicolas.
It is clear, therefore, that neither petitioner nor any one of his
witnesses had testified regarding the conditions under which he was
allegedly taken in as tenant by the owners; that when petitioner was
sued for ejectment in the Justice of the Peace Court of Sto. Domingo he
did not allege in his written answer that he was the tenant of the
plaintiffs therein and that for that reason said justice of the Peace
Court did not have jurisdiction over the case, and that it was only
after he lost the case that petitioner filed this action with the Court
of Agrarian Relations in an obvious attempt to take away the dispute
from the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
Due to the circumstances mentioned above we are of the opinion that
the finding of the Court of Agrarian Relations that petitioner was
actually the tenant of his grandparents is not supported by substantial
evidence. Furthermore, the question of whether or not petitioner was a
mere intruder or a tenant of his grandparents being still pending in
the regular courts, the present case appears to have been filed
prematurely.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision is here by reversed and another rendered dismissing the case, with costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Baustista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.