LUCIANO VALENCIA AND FRANCISCO OCAMPO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, AND RUFINA SUBASTIL, RESPONDENTS.

Original action for a writ of certiorari to annul a decision and an order
issued by respondent, Hon. Jose T. Surtida, as Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Camarines Sur, in Civil Case No. 4457 thereof, entitled “Rufina
Subastil vs. Luciano Valencia and Francisca Ocampo”.

In the complaint filed therein, on or about February 14, 1959, Rufina
Subastil, the main respondent herein, alleged that she is the owner and
possessor of a riceland situated in Sampaloc, Gainza, Camarines Sur, and more
particularly described in said pleading; that, at the inception of the
agricultural season, sometime in July, 1950, defendants therein, namely, Luciano
Valencia and Francisco Ocampo, husband and wife, who are petitioners herein,
entered into a verbal contract with her whereby they agreed to cultivate the
southern portion of said lot and pay her five (5) cavanes of clean palay, by way
of rental for each agricultural year; and that, after complying with this
obligation during the year 1950-1951, petitioners thereafter failed and refused
to do so, as well as to vacate the land, despite repeated demands, for which
reason Rufina Subastil prayed that petitioners be sentenced to vacate the land
and deliver the same to her, as well as to pay her the equivalent of the
unsatisfied rentals and those which may accrue until possession shall have been
given to her, in addition to P500 as moral, actual and consequential damages,
P200 as attorney’s fees and the costs.

Not having filed a responsive pleading, petitioners were declared in default
on August 24, 1959. Respondent Judge then received the evidence for Rufina
Subastil, and later on, rendered judgment, on or about October 27, 1959, finding
that petitioners were, since 1950, tenants of Rufina Subastil under a 70-30
sharing basis, representing five (5) cavanes of palay a year for her, which were
paid by petitioners during the agricultural yaar 1950-1951, but not subsequently
thereto, and sentencing petitioners to vacate the land and to pay P400.00, as
well as the costs, to Rufina Subastil.

Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of said decision upon the ground: (a)
that the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, the
same being exclusively cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations; (b) that
defendants’ failure to file their answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence because, when the papers, presumably consisting of the
summons and the complaint, were delivered to petitioner Luciano Valencia around
May, 1959, he was bed-ridden, suffering great pains due to a fallen log that had
rolled over his legs and broken the same—as attested to by a physician whose
certificate was appended to said motion—because of which, he and his wife forgot
all about said papers and were unable to answer the complaint; and (c) that
petitioners have a good and valid defense in that they have proof—consisting of
a document executed on August 11, 1892 in favor of their parents, as well as
several tax declarations and tax receipts from 1949 to 1953—showing that the
land in question is theirs.

This motion for reconsideration was denied, and, soon thereafter, respondent
Judge issued an order directing the execution of said decision, whereupon
petitioners instituted this action for certiorari upon the ground that the Court
of First Instance of Camarines Sur had no jurisdiction over said case No. 4457,
it appearing on the face of the complaint therein that its purpose was to eject
the petitioners as tenants of an agricultural land and respondent Judge having,
in his aforementioned decision, ordered the ejectment of petitioners herein as
such tenants of an agricultural land, which is within the exclusive competence
of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

In their answer, respondents herein alleged, inter alia, that there
could have been no tenancy relationship between petitioners herein and Rufina
Subastil because petitioners asserted in their motion for reconsideration that
the land in question belongs to them; that, assuming that said relationship had
existed, non-compliance with the conditions thereof terminated said
relationship; and that, in any event, Republic Act No. 1199, which took effect
on August 30, 1954, is inapplicable to the parties in said Case No. 4457, their
relationship as landlord and tenants having begun prior thereto.

Respondents’ pretense is clearly untenable for Civil Case No. 4457 was begun
on or about February 14, 1959, when Republic Act No. 1199 was already in force.
The application of this statute to said case would, therefore, be prospective in
nature, aside from the fact that it is already settled that laws enacted in the
exercise of the police power, to which said Act belongs, may constitutionally
affect tenancy relations created before the enactment or effectivity thereof
(Viuda de Ongsiako vs. Gamboa, 86 Phil., 50; 47 Off. Gaz., [11]
5613).

Again, respondent Judge having found that petitioners are tenants of an
agricultural land, it is clear that their ejectment is beyond the jurisdiction
of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Bakit vs. Asperin, 111
Phil., 923), for pursuant to section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199:

“All cases involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landholder or by a
third party and/or the settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the
relationship of landholder and tenant, as well as the violation of any of the
provisions of this Act, shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction
of such court as may now or hereafter be authorized by law to take cognizance of
tenancy relations and disputes.”

and Republic Act No. 1267, creating the Court of Agrarian Relations,
provides, in section 7 thereof, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409, that:

“The Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the entire
Philippines, 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: Provided,
however, That cases pending in the Court of Industrial Relations upon
approval of this Act which are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian
Relations, shall be transferred to, and the proceedings therein continued in,
the latter court.”

Wherefore, the decision complained of is hereby annulled, with costs against
respondent Rufina Subastil. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla,
Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and
Natividad, JJ., concur.