DOMINGO NATIVIDAD, PETITIONER, VS. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 7TH REGIONAL DISTRICT, CEBU AND CLODUALDA C. MANUBAG, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to reverse an order of the Court of
Agrarian Relations sitting at Cebu in Court of Agrarian Relations Case
No. 155, entitled “Domingo Natividad, petitioner vs. Rosendo
Cabal and Clodualda C. Manubag, respondents.” The order appealed from
dismisses the case without prejudice to the filing of the claim under
Rule 3, Section 17, of the Rules of Court.

On February 26,
1958, Domingo Natividad filed a petition against Rosendo Cabal and
Clodualda C. Manubag, father and daughter respectively, for damages
resulting from the unlawful and illegal ejectment of the petitioner
from his landholding. On March 4, 1958, Cabal and Manubag filed an
answer alleging that the land over which Natividad wag a tenant, which
was originally owned by Rosendo Cabal, was subsequently donated by
Cabal to his co-respondent Clodualda C. Manubag Cabal retaining for
himself the use and enjoyment of the same during his lifetime. When the
case was called for trial on July 17, 1958, the court was informed that
Rosendo Cabal had died for which reason counsel for Natividad moved for
the dismissal of the case against Cabal and for the action to proceed
against Clodualda C. Manubag, daughter and heir of the deceased. Trial
having been held on August 4, 1958, during which the tenant introduced
his evidence and closed his case, counsel for respondent moved for the
dismissal of the case. The Court did not dismiss the case but ordered
Natividad to amend his petition pursuant to Section 17 of Rule 3 of the
Rules of Court and Section 9 of Republic Act No. 1199. Whereupon,
Natividad filed an amended petition only against Clodualda C. Manubag
as “legal representative of Rosendo Cabal and as successor in interest
of the latter.” On November 12, 1958 counsel for Manubag filed a motion
for the reconsideration of the above order of the court and the court
revoked the order and dismissed the case. A motion for the
reconsideration of this order having been presented, the court, Hon.
Pastor M. de Guzman presiding issued an order dated January 29, 1959,
dismissing the case “without prejudice to the filing of an action for
damages against the heirs of the decedent Rosendo Cabal, pursuant to
the last paragraph of Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.” It is
this order that is sought to be reversed by the petition for certiorari.

The record discloses that Natividad has expressly waived his right to
be returned or reinstated as tenant on the land. In the petition for
certiorari, it is argued that the original defendants were Rosendo
Cabal, as donor-usufructuary and Clodualda C. Manubag, as donee-owner
of the land where petitioner was a tenant. It is further argued that
upon the death of Rosendo Cabal, his usufruct over the land came to an
end and title in fee simple to the landholding as well as the
obligations under the tenancy contract were transmitted to and
concentrated in the person of the surviving respondent Clodualda C.
Manubag. It is lastly argued that the application of Section 17 of Rule
3 of the Rules of Court violates the injunction contained in Republic
Act No. 1199 and Republic Act No. 1267 that strict rules of procedure
should not be followed. We find these arguments to be of weight.

It is to be noted that at the time the owner-tenant relationship
existed between Cabal and Natividad, the bare ownership to the land had
already been conveyed by Cabal to his daughter Clodualda C. Manubag,
such that the latter was made party-defendant in the original petition
of Natividad, and the fact of her bare ownership over the property,
with Cabal as the usufructuary, was alleged in the answer to the
petition. I Therefore, whatever obligations the deceased usufructuary,
Cabal, had contracted in relation to the land, such obligations were
transmitted to the bare owner of the land, namely, Manubag. The
provisions of Section 17 of Rule 3, under whose authority the court
ordered the dismissal of the case, would seem to apply to obligations
of a decedent transmissible to his heirs in general, not to obligations
of the decedent in particular relation to land or properties under
tenancy. The obligations sought to be enforced in the case at bar are
presumably obligations in favor of the tenant in respect to the
property ownership of which had been transferred to Manubag. Manubag is
naturally responsible for such obligations, as these fall upon the
assignee or transferee of the land, not upon the other heirs who do not
have any claim to such land. To this effect is Section 9 of Republic
Act No. 1199, which expressly provides:

“Section
9. The tenancy relationship is extinguished by the voluntary surrender
of the land by, or the death or incapacity of, the tenant, but his
heirs or the members of his immediate farm household may continue to
work the land until the close of the agricultural year. The expiration
of the period of the contract is fixed by the parties, and the sale or
alienation of the land do not of themselves extinguish the
relationship. In the latter case, the purchaser or transferee shall assume the rights and obligations of the former landholder in relation to the tenant. In case of death of the landholder, his heir or heirs shall likewise assume his rights and obligations.” (Italics supplied)

For the foregoing considerations, we hold that the court below abused
its discretion in ordering the dismissal of the case, without prejudice
to bring the same against the heirs of the deceased Cabal, instead of
allowing it to proceed against the transferee and owner of the land
subject of the tenancy contract, herein respondent Manubag. The writ
prayed for is hereby granted and the order subject of the petition is
set aside, without costs.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Parades and Dizon, JJ., concur.