SILVINO LASTIMOZA AND HONORATA GONZALES, PETITIONERS VS. HON. RAMON BLANCO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS EIGHT REGIONAL DISTRICT, ILOILO CITY AND NESTOR PAÑADA, RESP…

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction to annul certain orders of Hon. Ramon Blanco, as Judge of
the Court of Agrarian Relations and to restrain him from further
proceeding with CAR Case No. 724—Iloilo, for lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter in controversy. Giving due course to the petition,
this Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction prayed for upon
petitioners filing a bond of P200.00.

The facts of the case
are not disputed. On September 22, 1956, the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo in Land Registration Case No. N-341 (G. L. R. O. Rec. No.
N-10795) adjudicated in favor of Silvino Lastimoza and his wife
Honorata Gonzales, herein petitioners, a parcel of land identified as
Lot No. 14 of Plan PSU-87977. On April 12, 1957, Original Certificate
of Title No. 01204 covering the same was issued by the Register of
Deeds of the province in their names. They were, subsequently, or on
July 29, 1958, placed in possession of the land by writ of possession,
the sheriff of the province ejecting therefrom Perfecto, Rosalina,
Encarnacion, Lucila and Lydia, all surnamed Gallego.

On
September 13, 1958, herein respondent Nestor Pañada, claiming to be a
tenant since the start of the 1956-57 agricultural year of Perfecto
Gallego, one of those ousted by the writ of possession, filed against
herein petitioners a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations
praying, among other things, that he be maintained as tenant on about 2
Hectares of the land in question (Case No. 724-Iloilo). As prayed for
in the petition, the Agrarian Court issued an interlocutory order
directing the JAGO officer or his authorized representative to
supervise the harvest and threshing of the palay crops standing on the
landholding, and to deposit, after deducting the expenses therefor, the
net produce in a bonded warehouse.

On September 18, 1958,
petitioners filed a motion to lift the interlocutory order, and on the
following day, moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, it being alleged that there was
no tenancy relationship between them and respondent Nestor Pañada. Both
motions, however, were denied and reconsideration of the orders of
denial having been also denied, the petitioners filed the present
petition for certiorari and prohibition.

We find the petition meritorious.

It is not disputed that respondent Nestor Pañada worked on a portion of
the land in question by virtue of a so-called oral contract of tenancy
with Perfecto Gallego who was then in possession of the land. The
latter, however, was ejected from the land after the same had begin
adjudicated in a land registration proceeding to herein petitioners by
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and title thereto issued in
their names. Since that court has, in effect, ruled that Perfecto
Gallego, the supposed former landholder, was an unlawful possessor and
intruder, respondent Nestor Pañada cannot now invoke the security of
tenure guaranteed in section 9 of the Tenancy Law (Republic Act No.
1199) and claim that petitioners, as the prevailing party in the land
registration proceeding, are duty bound to maintain him as their
tenant. Said section 9 of the Tenancy Law—in providing that “the sale
or alienation of the land do not of themselves extinguish the tenancy
relationship,” for in such cases, “the purchaser or transferee shall
assume the rights and obligations of the former landholder in relation
to the tenant,”—obviously assumes the existence of a valid tenancy
relation between the former landholder and his tenants, and
contemplates privity of contract or alienation of valid title be it of
ownership or possession, between the old landholder and the new. In the
instant case, there can be no question that there is no privity of
contract or alienation in the sense contemplated by section 9 of the
Tenancy Law between Perfecto Gallego, the alleged former landholder and
herein petitioners. Neither can it be pretended that there was a valid
tenancy relation between said Perfecto Gallego and respondent Pañada.
Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true
and lawful landholder who is either the “owner, lessee, usufructuary or
legal possessor of the land” (sec. 5 [b], Rep. Act No. 1199), and not
thru the acts of the supposed landholder who has no right to the land
subject of the tenancy. Perfecto Gallego, the alleged former
landholder, having been ousted by writ of possession issued by a
competent court and virtually declared a usurper or intruder,
respondent Pañada, as his tenant, can have no better right and claim
security of tenure, a guarantee afforded only to tenants de jure.
To rule otherwise, would be to pave the way for fraudulent collusions
among the unscrupulous to the prejudice of the true and lawful
landholder. Such anomalous and absurd result certainly could not have
been the intention of Congress.

It being evident for the
reasons above stated that herein petitioners are not legally bound to
assume the former landholder’s rights and obligations in relation to
his tenants, it results that there is no tenancy relationship between
the parties in this case, and consequently, the Agrarian Court erred in
assuming jurisdiction to hear and determine respondent Pañada’s
complaint or petition.

Wherefore, the petition for a writ of
prohibition is granted, the orders complained of are set aside and the
petition filed with the Agrarian Court by respondent Pañada is
dismissed, with costs against him.

Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., concurs in the result.