ROMAN TOLEDO, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS (8TH REGIONAL DISTRICT) BACOLOD CITY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

This is a petition for review under section 13 of Republic
Act No. 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409, of.
a judgment rendered on 27 May 1959 by the Court of
Agrarian Relations 8th Regional District, Bacolod City,
in CAR cases Nos. 148, 172, 178, 220, 289, 293, 294,
295 and 296.

In CAR cases Nos. 289, 293, 294, 295 and 296 the
respondents were declared in default for failure to answer
within the reglementary period and the petitioners allowed
to submit their evidence before a commissioner of the
court. The other cases enumerated above were jointly
tried.

It appears that on 8 August 1956 Jose Rongo brought
an action against Bernardino Erillana for ejectment and
recovery of the plaintiff’s share in the produce of Lot3
Nos. 743 and 748 of the cadastral survey of Pontevedra
situated in the municipality of La Castollana, Negros Occidental, in the crop year 1956-1957 (CAR case No. 148).
Rongo alleged that defendant Erillana was his tenant or
share cropper (about three hectares of Lot No. 743 where
defendant planted rice and about a hectare of Lot No. 748
where he planted corn on the sharing ratio of 3/5 for
the tenant and 2/5 for the landholder of the net produce)
and that in 1956-1957 the defendant unlawfully refused
to deliver the share of the plaintiff in the crop of corn;
and for that reason he prayed that the defendant because
he had refuse to recognize the plaintiff as owner of the
land be ejected therefrom and required to render a liquidation of the corn crop, to deliver the plaintiff’s share
in the rice to be harvested the following November 1956. In his answer the defendant denied being a share cropper
of the plaintiff and alleged that he was tenant of Roman
Toledo and the other heirs of Silvestra Lubrico.

On 3 November 1956 a group composed of Loreto Perez,
Bernardino Erillana, Daniel Mercurio, Gervasio Hilario
and Margarita Hilario appeared as plaintiffs in a petition
docketed as CAR case No. 172 against Roman Toledo
and Jose Rongo for the delivery of their shares as tenants
of Roman Toledo in Lot No. 743. The petition was signed
by all the plaintiffs except Daniel Mercurio. In an affidavit (Annex B; p. 91, record of CAR case No. 172)
respondent Roman Toledo admitted the existence of
tenancy relation on Lot No. 743 between him and the
plaintiffs. However, respondent Jose Rongo denied such
tenancy relation, objected to the petition and prayed for
its dismissal, and alleged that in May 1955 Roman Toledo.
and Gcrvasio Hilario forcibly entered upon a part of Lot
No. 743 (about four hectares) and for that reason an
action of forcible entry was brought against them, and

that during that time the action was pending Roman
Toledo, Gervasio Hilario, Loreto Perez, Margarita Hilario
and many others forcibly entered upon and occupied
additional part of Lot No. 743, thereby dispossessing the
tenants of Jose Rongo and Perpetuo Fuerto who are the
registered owners and in possession thereof. Hence, he
further prayed that the plaintiffs or petitioners be ordered to vacate the parts of the lot unlawfully entered
upon and occupied by them.

On 17 November 1956 Daniel Mercurio filed a complaint
against Roman Toledo and Jose Rongo for the delivery
to him (Mercurio) of his share of 70% of the palay
produced as tenant of Felix P. Amante in a part of Lot
No. 743 (CAR Case No. 178). Felix P. Amante appeared
as an intervenor and asked for delivery of his share as
landholder of petitioner Daniel Morcurio. Respondent
Roman Toledo objected to the claim of the intervenor
alleging that the petitioner was his tenant and not intervenor’s.

On 3 January 1957 CAR case No. 220 was filed by Gervasio Hilario,
Margarita Hilario, Agaton Francisco, Jovito Aguilar, Valentin Galida,
Basilio de las Marias, Lorenzo Tuario, Aquilino Caballero, Felipe
Ibañez, Nicolas
Pisca, Bernardino Erillana, Loreto Perez, Alfredo Perez and Alfredo
Manalo against Roman Toledo for the delivery to them as tenants of
respondent Roman Toledo in Lot No. 743 of their shares in the harvest
during the crop year 1956-1957. In his answer Roman Toledo admitted tne
tenancy relation between him and the plaintiffs and offered no
objection to their prayer; whereas Felix P. Amante, Daniel Mercurio,
Tereso Teologo, Eugenio Medina, Alejandro Quiatchon, Ceferino
Quiatchon, Avelino Jeruta and Carlos Ocido appeared as intervenors and
objected to the petition, alleging that Daniel Mercurio was the tenant
of Felix Amante and other intervenors, of Jose Rongo in Lot No. 743.

From 13 to 16 March 1957 cases for reinstatement
Were filed and docketed in the same court as follows:

CAR Case No. 289 filed by Avelino Jeruta as petitioner
against Loreto Perez, Porfirio Regalado, Nicolas Pisca,
Lucio Balar and Roman Toledo as respondents;

CAR Case No. 293 filed by Alejandro Quiatchon as
petitioner against Bernardino Erillana, Salvador Cuevas,
Valentin Galida, Arturo Dulana, Alfredo Manalo, Agaton
Francisco and Reman Toledo as respondents;

CAR Case No. 294 filed by Ceferino Quiatchon as petitioner against Felipe Ibañez, Emilio Osorio and Roman
Toledo as respondents;

CAR Case No. 295 filed by Tereso Teologo as petitioner
against Porfirio Regalado and Roman Toledo as respondents; and

CAR Case No. 296 filed by Eugenio Medina as petitioner
against Porfirio Regalado and Roman Toledo as respondents.

All the petitioners in these last enumerated cases alleged,
that they were tenants of Jose Rongo in Lot No. 743
but were dispossessed by the respondents. As stated
at the beginning of this opinion, having failed to answer
within the reglementary period the respondents were
declared in default and the petitioners allowed to present
their evidence.

In CAR Case Nos. 148, 172, 178 and 220, counsel for
all the parties agreed during the trial that the evidence
taken in one case will be deemed taken for all other cases.
After trial the Court of Agrarian Relations, 8th Regional District, Bacolod City, rendered judgment the
dispositive part of which is, as follows:

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in the above-entitled
Cases as follows:
;

(a) Declaring petitioner Jose Rongo (in CAR Case No. 148
and intervenor Felix P. Amante (in CAR case No. 178) to be the

lawful landholders vested by law with the right and authority to,
appoint and place tenants en the lot in question;

(b) Declaring respondent Bernardino Erillana (in CAR Case No. 148)
to be the tenant of the petitioner Jose Rongo (in CAR Case No. 148) on
the lot in question during the crop year 1956-1957; and ordering the
respondent to vacate the landholding and to deliver to the petitioner
the quantity of 42,180 cavans and .54907 kilos of palay as the latter’s
share in the produce of the respondent during the crop year 1956-1957.
The claim of the petitioner for his share in the corn produce of the
respondent in the crop year 1955-1956, and the counterclaim of the
respondent against the petitioner for moral damages and attorney’s fees
are hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence;

(c) Dismissing the complaint of petitioners Loreto Perez, Bernardino Erillana, Gervasio Hilario and Margarita Hilario against
respondents Roman Toledo and Jose Rongo (in CAR Case No. 172)
for lack of jurisdiction, there being no tenancy relationship between
the parties.

(d) Dismissing the complaint of petitioner Daniel Mercurio
against respondents Roman Toledo and Jose Rongo (in CAR Case
No. 178) for lack of jurisdiction, there being no tenancy relationship:
between the parties; and declaring the petitioner to be the tenant
of interveror Felix P. Amante (in CAR Case No. 178) on the
let in question during the crop year 195G-1957; and ordering tho
petitioner to deliver to the intervenor the quantity of 8.946 cavans
and 11622 kilos of palay as the latter’s share in the produce in
the crop year 1956-1957;

(e) Dismissing the complaint of petitioners Gervacio Hilario,
Margarita Hilario, Agaton Francisco, Jovito Aguilar, Valentin
Galida Basilio de las Marias, Lorenzo Tuaro, Aquilino Caballero,
Felipe Ibañez, Nicolas Fisca, Bernardino Erillana, Loreto Perez,
Alfredo Manalo, and Alfredo Perez against respondents Roman Toledo (in CAR Case No. 220) for lack of jurisdiction, there being no
tenancy relationship between the parties; and declaring tenants-interveners Daniel Mercuro, Tereso Teoloso, Eugenio Molina,
Alejandro Quiatchon, Ceferino Quiatchon, Avelino Jeruta, Carlos
Ocido (in CAR Case No. 220). Jorge Rongo, Amando Salavia,
Josefino Torrecarion, Rodolfo Pasamante, and Dioscoro Tamayo
to be the lawful and De jure tenants of Jose Rongo and Felix P.
Amante of the landholdings on the lot in question as shown in the
parcellary plan (Exh. X) during the crop years 1956-1957 and
1957-1958;

(f) Ordering the respondents Loreto Perez, Porfirio Regalado,
Nicolas Pisca, Lucio Balar, Bernardino Erillana, Salvador Cuevas,
Valentin Galida, Arturo Dulana, Alfredo Manao, Agaton Francisco,
Felipe Ibañez, Emilio Osorio, Melicio (Hospicio) Tenerife, and
Roman Toledo (in CAR Cases Nos. 289, 293-296) to vacate the
landholdings of petitioners Avelino Jeruta, Alejandro Quiatchon,
Ceferino Quiatchon, Tereso Teologo, Eugenio Medina (in CAR
Cases Nos. 289, 293-296), tenants intervenors Daniel Mercurio,
Carlos Ocido (in CAR Case No. 220), Jorge Rongo, Amado Salavia, Josefino Torrecarion, Rodolfo Pasamante, and Dioscoro Tamayo
and to maintain the latter in the peaceful possession of their
landholdings on the lot in question;

(g) Declaring petitioners Basilio de las Marias and Lorenzo
Tuario (in CAR Case No. 220) to be the tenants of Felix P.
Amante on the lot in question, during the crop year 1956-1957;
and ordering them to vacate the landholding on the lot in question,
and to deliver to Felix P. Amante the quantity of 30.518 cavans
and 39726 kilos of palay corresponding to the latter’s share in
the produce in the crop year 1956-1957;

(h) Ordering the liquidation of the produce of the tenants of
Jose Rongo and Felix P. Amante (in CAR Cases Nos. 148, 178,
220) the lot in question during the crop years 1956-1957 and
1957-1958 on the basis of 70-30 of the net produce in favor of
the tenants in accordance with the items of contribution of the
parties;

(i) Ordering the delivery of the 70% shares (in CAR Cases
Nos. 148, 178, 172, 220) of the following tenants in the produce
during the crop years 1956-1957 and 1957-1958 as follows: Alejandro
Quiatchon—126.072 cavans and 5.47269 kilos, Bernardino Erillana
—98.419 cavans and 1.28112 kilos, Carlos Ocido—89.330 cavans
and 2.60235 kilos, Ceferino Quiatchon— 39.687 cavans and 2.604G80
kilos, Tereso Teologo—12.410 cavars and 63378 kilos, Bienvenido.
Eladier—53.595 cavans and 2.73707 kilos, Jorge Rongo—63.745
cavans and 3.25543 kilo3, Amando Salavia—18.395 cavans and
93944 kilos, Josefino Torrecarion—37.078 cavans and 1.89355 kilos,
Rodolfo Pasamante—28 545 cavans and 1.45779 kilos, Daniel Mercurio—20.813 cavans and .275 kilos, Lorenzo Tuario—71.208 cavans
and 92691 kilos, and Dioscoro Tamayo—93.041 cavans and 4.75155,
kilos;

(j) Ordering the delivery of the 30% share (in CAR Case
Nos. 148, 172, 178, 220) of Jose Rongo in the produce of his
tenants on the lot in question during the crop years 1956—1957
and 1957-1958 in the quantity of 243.123 cavans and 9.55849 kilos,
and also the delivery of his own produce in the quantity of 30.752

eavans and 1.57048 kilos daring the crop year 1957-1958 on the
lot in question;

(k) Ordering the delivery of the 30% shares (in CAR Cases
Nos. 148, 172, 178, 220) of Felix Amante in the produce of his
tenants on the lot in question during the crop years 1956-1957
and 1957-1958 in the quantity of 79.340 cavans and 2.54986 kilos;

(l) Declaring that the total quantity of palay due Jose Rongo,
Felix P. Amante and their tenants (in CAR Cases Nos. 148,
172, 178, 220) amounted to 936.926 cavans and 39.72043 kilos,
standard measurement, to be taken frcm the palay deposited in
the Irabela and San Enrique FACOMAS of which they had already
withdrawn 446 cavans and 24.260 kilos, thereby leaving a balance
of 490.926 cavans and 15.46043 kilos still due;

(m) Declaring that this Court has no jurisdiction to liquidate the
produce during the crop year 1956-1957 of the following third parties
(in CAR Cases Nos. 172, 220) who are not tenants on the lot in
question, namely: Loreto Perez—48.358 cavans and .63087 kilos,
Margarita Hilario—26.358 cavans and 34310 kilos, Melicio
Tenerife—33.536 cavans and 17619 kilos, Porfirio Regalado—45.438 cavans
and .59147 kilos, Valentin Galida—26.404 cavans and 34370 kilos, Emilio
Osorio—28.603 cavans and 34232 kilos, Lucio Balar -38.602 cavans and
50248 kilos, Aqulino Caballero—54.587 cavans and 71005 kilos, Felipe
Ibañez—51.288 cavans and 66762 kilos, Nicolas Pisca (& Roman
Toledo)—67.341 cavans and 87658 kilos, Lorenzo Tuario—71.208 cavans and
92691 kilos, Conrado Gelogo
—32.990 cavans and 42943 kilos, Arturo Dulana—28.466 cavans 37055
kilos, Alfredo Manalo—41.733 cavans and .54391 kilos Agaton
Francisco—53.329 cavans and 69418 kilos, Roman Toledo— 56.659 cavans
and 2.89355 kilos, and Aquilino Caballero—61.878 cavans and 3.16007
kilos;

(n) Declaring that the total quantity of palay due Roman
Toledo, Aquilino Caballero, and their men including Bernardind
Erillana and Lorenzo Tuario sided with Roman Toledo (in CAR
Cases Nos. 172, 220) from the produce in the crop year 1956-195
amounted to 845.302 cavans and 15.1340 kilos, standard measurement, of which they had already withdrawn 275 cavans and 45,64
kilos, thereby leaving a balance of 569.302 cavans and 15.64940
kilos still due; ‘

(o) Ordering that the balance of 490.926 cavans and 15.46043
kilos still due Jose Rongo, Felix P. Amante and their tenants (in
CAR Cases Nos. 148, 172, 178, 220), and the balance of 569.30
cavans and 15.64940 kilos still due Roman Toledo, Aquilino
Caballero and their men (in CAR Cases Nos. 172, 220) be partly

satisfied in palay to be taken from the produce left deposited in
the Isabela and San Enrique FACOMAS and partly in cash to
be charged against the accountable proceeds of P4.315.46;

(p) Ordering that the balance of 490.926 cavans and 15.46043
kilos of palay still dee Jore Kongo, Felix P. Amante and their
tenants (in CAR Cases Nos. 148, 172, 178, 220) be satisfied with
the delivery of 319 cavans and 2.580 kilos taken from the palay
left deposited, and the deficiency of 172.926 cavans” and 12.5804
kilos be paid in cash in the amount of P1,775.66 taken from the
accountable cash proceeds;

(q) Ordering that the balance of 569.302 cavans and 15.64945 kilos
of palay still due Roman Toledo, Aquilino Caballero and their men (in
CAR Cases Nos. 172, 220) be satisfied with the delivery of 320 cavans
and 2.580 kilos taken from the produce left deposited, and the
deficiency of 249.302 cavans and 13.06940 kilos be paid in cash in the
amount of P2,539.80 taken from the accountable cash proceeds;

(r) Ordering the discharge of the surety bonds executed by the
parties (in CAR Cases Ncs. 172, 178, 220) as security for the
palay withdrawn by them from Isabela and San Enrique FACO-
MAS; and

(s) Ordering the dismissal of the claims of the parties against
each other for damages and attorney’s fees (in CAR Cases Nos,
148, 172, 178, 220, 289, 293-296) for lack of sufficient evidence,

SO ORDERED.

Hence, this appeal.

On 19 February 1960 by resolution of this Court the
petitioners were allowed to litigate as paupers and the
appeal given due course.

The petitioners in their appeal assign twelve errors!
allegedly committed by the respondent Court of Agrarian
Relations, to wit:

1. The respondent Court erred in assuming jurisdiction over former civil case (8806) and declaring boldly that on October 20;
   1936, Silvestra Lubrico and her husband Gregorio Armenio sold all
   their 9 parcels of land aforementioned to Jose Rongo and Perpetuo
   Puerto and making conclusion therein that the balance unpaid
   amounting to P28,000 was made subsequently, thereby making a
   new decision over the ownership of the parcels of land in question,

   specially that this matter is sub judice in Civil Case No. 3801,
   now pending before the Court of Appeals, (Pp. 7-10, Decision)

2. The respondent court (CAR) erred in declaring that civil
   case No. 8806 was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of
   Negros Occidental on February 14, 1947, when said incident is
   now one of the subjects in Civil Case No. 3801, pending before
   the Court of Appeals, and in not holding that the case is sub
   judice, and that the respondent Court has no jurisdiction to pass
   judgment on the legality or finality of the decision of the ordinary
   court over the titles of the land including Lot No. 743, from where
   the palay in question has been raised, (p. 15, Decision).

3. The respondent Court (CAR) erred in holding that Roman
   Toledo and Aquilino Caballero in May, 1955, occupied and took
   possession of a portion of four (4) hectares of Lot No. 743, in
   knowingly open contradiction of the complaint for forcible entry
   Case No. 3564 (Exh. 1—Toledo) filed by respondents Jose Kongo
   and Perpetuo Puerto, while same respondent Court admitted that
   said forcible entry case was dismissed by the Court of First
   Instance on July 3, 1959 (Exh. 2—Toledo, pp. 15-16, Decision).

4. The respondent Court erred in not holding that Roman Toledo
   and Aquilino Caballero are in possession of the whole Lot No.
   743 in question, for purposes of the tenancy law and in not holding
   that the tenants of Roman Toledo and Aquilino Caballero, co-petitioners herein, are the tenants of the Lot No. 743 in question
   and that this situation must be maintained in status quo until
   the issues of possession and of ownership in forcible entry case
   No. 3564 and civil case No. 3801, respectively, shall have been
   determined by the appellate court.

5. The respondent Court erred in holding that sections 7 and
   21 of R. A. No. 1409 work against petitioners, Roman Toledo
   and Aquilino Caballero, including their tenants, when in fact these
   sections work in favor of said petitioners and should be valid
   grounds in not entertaining the claim of Joce Rongo and Porpetuo
   Puerto (pp. 30-31, Decision).

6. The respondent Court erred in holding that the pendency
   of forcible entry Case No. 3564, involving the possession of Lot
   No. 743, does not preclude any claim of adverse possession of
   Jose Rongo and Perpetuo Puerto, and in not dismissing their
   respective complaints and interventions for want of jurisdiction.

7. The respondent Court erred in not recognizing Roman
   Toledo and Aquilino Caballero, as the landlords and the co-petitioners
   herein as their tenants in Lot No. 743, and in not dismissing the

   claims of Jose Rongo and Perpetuo Puerto and the latters pretended
   tenants therein.

8. The Court erred in allowing the admission of the intervention of Jose Rongo, Felix P. Amante, in Case No. 220 and in
   not dismissing Cases Nos. 289, 293, 294, 295 and 296 for want
   of jurisdiction.

9. The respondent Court erred in partly awarding some produce
   of the palay to Jose Kongo, Perpetuo Puerto and Felix P. Amante
   and their pretended tenants (petitioners in CAR Cases Nos. 148,
   178, 289, 293, 294, 295 and 296) and partly to Roman Toledo and
   Aquilino Caballero and the latter tenants, when the evidence,
   discloses that the latter are and have been in possession of the
   land in question (Lot No. 743) even assuming only, from 1955,
   when the forcible entry case was filed.

10. The respondent Court erred in not giving all the palay
    raised in Lot No. 743 from all the harvest since 1956 and until
    now to Roman Toledo, Aquilino Caballero and their tenants, co-petitioners in CAR Cases Nos. 172, 178 and 220.

11. The respondent Court erred in not declaring that it had no
    jurisdiction in entertaining the intervention filed by Jose Rongo,
    Perpetuo Puerto, Felix P. Amante and their pretended tenants
    CAR Case No. 220, (and) as weli as in allowing the admission
    of CAR Cases Nos. 289, 293, 294, 295 and 296; in denying the
    motions for dismissal filed by Roman Toledo, Aquilino Caballero
    and their tenants, and in declaring the petitioners in these cases
    in default in spite of non-receipt of any order relative to their
    motion for reconsideration.

12. The Court erred in not declaring that the evidence adduced
    during the hearing indicates that herein appellants have proven
    their case with preponderance in their favor.

Aware of its limited jurisdiction, the respondent court
did not pass upon the matter of ownership of title to
the land in litigation. All it did was to determine the
legal possession of the land in controversy and ascertain
who was the landholder. And in so doing, it could take into account the fact that respondents Jose Rongo and
Perpetuo Puerto are the registered owners of Lot No. 743,
as evidenced by transfer certificate of title No. RT-8334

(31039) issued in their names (Exhibit A-Rongo), in
lieu of original certificate of title No. 30617 issued in
the name of Silvestra Lubrico (Exhibit B-Rongo), their
predecesspr-in-interest.

The respondent Court of Agrarian Relations is by law
vested with the “original and exclusive jurisdiction to
consider, investigate, decide and settle all questions,
matters, controversies or disputes involving all those
relationships established by law * * *” which, of course,
include dispossession of the tenanted agricultural land
committed by third parties. ^[1] Hence, as all these cases
are about tenancy the respondent court is the only court
that can take cognizance of them, regardless of the fact
that there is an action of forcible entry brought involving
controversy on possession of the land subject of the
action.

The respondent court committed no reversible error
in allowing the intervention of certain parties and ordering the dismissal of the other cases, it appearing
that the intervenors have an interest in the subject-matter
of the litigation and that the claims dismissed by the
respondent court were untenable. By allowing parties to
intervene, multiplicity of suits are avoided.

The other errors assigned by the appellants raise questions of
facts. The review by this Court of such questions “shall be limited to
* * * findings of fact when the decision is not supported by
substantial evidence.” ^[2] Such is not
the review asked by the appellants.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, without
pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Section 21, Republic Act No. 1199, and Section 7, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409.

^[2] Section 13, Republic Act. No. 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409.