ANTONIO NIPAY, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE M. MANGUIAT, ETC., RESPONDENT.

On June 10, 1959, Soledad Arguelles filed before the Municipal Court of
Lipa City a complaint seeking to eject Antonio Nipay, et al. from a
parcel of land situated in barrio Balete of said city on the ground
that they are withholding its possession from plaintiff.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) that
a tenancy relationship exists between plaintiff and defendants; (2)
that defendants have been the tenants of Mr. Arsenio Luz, previous
owner of the land, and continue to be such up to the present; and (3)
that this case being tenancy in nature comes under the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

On June 29, 1959, the municipal court, assuming jurisdiction over the case, denied the motion.

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, and when the same was
denied, they brought before this Court the present petition for
prohibition seeking to enjoin respondent municipal judge from taking
cognizance of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 1409, which creates the Court of Agrarian Relations,
the latter court is given original and exclusive jurisdiction 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.
Said Act No. 1267, as amended, is a complement of Republic Act No. 1199
which originally confers jurisdiction over tenancy cases on the Court
of Industrial Relations.

In Mendoza vs. Manguiat, 96 Phil., 309; 51 Off. Gaz. (1) 137 this Court, speaking of the scope of the term agricultural lands, said:

“But
since then, and more specifically on August 30, 1954, Republic Act No.
1199 entitled ‘An Act to Govern the Relations between Landholders and
Tenants of Agricultural Lands (Leasehold and Share Tenancy),’ has been
approved. This law governs the relations between landlord and tenant in
all kinds of agricultural lands. It repeals C.A. No. 454, known as the
Rice Share Tenancy Act, and C. A. 461. The provisions of the Act are
made to apply to all kinds of agricultural lands, whatever may be their
nature or character, whether rice, sugar, corn or coconut, and as all
controversies between landlord and tenant are placed within the
jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, so any controversy
between landlord and tenant, or owner and lessee falls under said
court’s jurisdiction.”

The question now to
determine is whether the case instituted before the Municipal Court of
Lipa City is one of unlawful detainer or one which involves a tenancy
case within the meaning of the law. This requires an examination of the
allegations of the complaint as well as of the motion to dismiss filed
by the parties.

In the complaint it is alleged that
plaintiff purchased the land in question from Arsenio Luz, its previous
owner; that after the purchase plaintiff attempted to take possession
of the land but was prevented by defendant Antonio Nipay who claims
that he has entered into a contract of lease over the land with Mrs.
Arsenio Luz; that Nipay in turn hired his co-defendants Elisa Landicho
and Emilio Roxas to plant calamansi thereon, and the latter refused to leave the land notwithstanding demands upon them to do so.

The motion to dismiss, on the other hand, states that there is tenancy
relationship between plaintiff and defendants; that defendants have
been tenants of Arsenio Luz, previous owner of the land, and continue
to be such up to the present; and that the case being tenancy in nature
comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian
Relations.

While the allegations of the complaint seem to
indicate that defendants are merely withholding the land from plaintiff
because after having purchased it she demanded that they leave the same
and they refused to do so, even if it is alleged that Nipay had a
contract of lease on the land and his co-defendants were hired to plant
calamansi thereon, which does not necessarily indicate that a
tenancy relationship was created thereby, the motion to dismiss avers
clearly that between plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest and defendants
there existed a tenancy relationship continued up to the institution of
the action. This claim of defendants apparently is not disputed by
plaintiff although she claims that it is a mere averment which is not
substantiated.

From the pleadings, therefore, it does not
appear clear the real relationship existing between the parties, and
since this matter needs to be clarified in order that we may pass upon
the question of jurisdiction, it is necessary that evidence thereon be
first presented by the parties. It would then appear that the present
petition is premature for defendants should have waited until trial is
had and the parties had presented their evidence. Only then there would
be sufficient basis for determining which court has jurisdiction over
the case.

Wherefore, petition is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.