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…

Lastimoza versus Blanco

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition brought by Silvino Lastimoza and his wife Honorata Gonzales against Judge Ramon Blanco of the Court of Agrarian Relations and against Nestor Pañada. The spouses ask the Supreme Court to annul certain orders of the agrarian court and to restrain that court from proceeding with Pañada's tenancy complaint, on the ground that the agrarian court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter because no tenancy relationship ever existed between the parties. The case matters because it fixes the boundaries of the agrarian court's jurisdiction and defines who may claim the security of tenure under the Tenancy Law: only a tenant de jure, one whose tenancy was created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder, and never one who took his tenancy from a usurper.

Procedural History

The spouses Lastimoza and Gonzales obtained a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in a land registration proceeding, adjudicating a parcel of land in their favor, and an original certificate of title was issued in their names. Later, by writ of possession, the sheriff placed them in possession and ejected Perfecto Gallego and others from the land.

Nestor Pañada then filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations, claiming to be a tenant of Perfecto Gallego, and praying that he be maintained as tenant on about two hectares of the land. The agrarian court issued an interlocutory order directing the agrarian officer to supervise the harvest and threshing and to deposit the net produce in a bonded warehouse. The spouses moved to lift that order and then moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, alleging that there was no tenancy relationship between them and Pañada. Both motions were denied, and reconsideration was likewise denied.

The spouses then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction. The Court gave due course to the petition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond of 200 pesos.

Facts

On September 22, 1956, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, in a land registration case, adjudicated in favor of Silvino Lastimoza and Honorata Gonzales a parcel of land identified as Lot Number 14 of Plan PSU-87977. On April 12, 1957, Original Certificate of Title Number 01204 covering the land was issued in their names by the Register of Deeds of the province.

On July 29, 1958, the spouses were placed in possession of the land by writ of possession, and the sheriff ejected Perfecto, Rosalina, Encarnacion, Lucila and Lydia, all surnamed Gallego.

On September 13, 1958, Nestor Pañada, claiming to be a tenant since the start of the 1956 to 1957 agricultural year of Perfecto Gallego, one of those ousted by the writ, filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations praying that he be maintained as tenant on about two hectares of the land. The agrarian court issued an interlocutory order for the supervision of the harvest and the deposit of the net produce. The spouses' motions to lift the order and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction were denied, and reconsideration was denied as well.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction over the subject matter of Pañada's petition for maintenance as tenant.
• Whether or not Pañada, as tenant of Perfecto Gallego, may invoke the security of tenure under Section 9 of the Tenancy Law against the spouses as the prevailing parties in the land registration proceeding.
• Whether or not a valid tenancy relationship may be created through the acts of a supposed landholder who has no right to the land.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of the Tenancy Law, Republic Act Number 1199, provides:

The sale or alienation of the land do not of themselves extinguish the tenancy relationship, and in such cases, the purchaser or transferee shall assume the rights and obligations of the former landholder in relation to the tenant.

This is the provision Pañada invokes, and the Court holds that it presupposes a valid tenancy relation and a privity of contract or alienation of valid title between the old landholder and the new.

Section 5, paragraph b, of the same law provides:

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.

This defines who may create a tenancy, and it is the basis for the ruling that Gallego, having no right to the land, could not create one.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the agrarian court erred in assuming jurisdiction. Since there was no tenancy relationship between the parties, there was nothing for the agrarian court to hear and determine.

On the second issue, the Court held that Pañada cannot invoke the security of tenure. Section 9 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, whether of ownership or possession, between the old landholder and the new. Here there was neither privity nor alienation between Perfecto Gallego and the spouses, because Gallego was an unlawful possessor and intruder, ejected by writ of possession after the land was adjudicated to the spouses.

On the third issue, the Court held that no valid tenancy relation existed between Gallego and Pañada. Tenancy can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder, and not through the acts of a supposed landholder who has no right to the land. Gallego having been ousted and virtually declared a usurper or intruder, Pañada as his tenant can have no better right, and may claim security of tenure only if he is a tenant de jure, a tenant by law. The Court warned that to rule otherwise would pave the way for fraudulent collusions among the unscrupulous to the prejudice of the true and lawful landholder, a result Congress could not have intended.

Doctrine

A tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder, meaning the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of the land, and never through the acts of a supposed landholder who has no right to the land. The security of tenure under Section 9 of the Tenancy Law is guaranteed only to a tenant de jure, and the purchaser or transferee assumes the rights and obligations of the former landholder only where there is a valid tenancy relation and privity of contract or alienation of valid title between the old landholder and the new. Absent a tenancy relationship, the Court of Agrarian Relations has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Disposition

The petition for prohibition was granted, the orders complained of were set aside, and Pañada's petition in the agrarian court was dismissed, with costs against him. The spouses won.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a tenant of a usurper is no tenant at all, for security of tenure belongs only to a tenant de jure. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over tenancy disputes and the requisites of a valid tenancy relationship, especially the consent of the true and lawful landholder.