DALMACIO DADURAL, JOSE RAGUDO AND CATALINA DOYANEN, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS AND ARMANDO LIM, RESPONDENTS.

As an aftermath of the judgment and resolution rendered and passed by
this Court on 31 October, and 18 November, 1960, respectively, in the
case of Joaquin Ulpiendo, Vicente Joves, Dalmacio Dadural, Catalina
Doyanen and Jose Ragudo, petitioners, vs. The Court of
Agrarian Relations, Armando Lim and Pedro de la Cruz, respondents, G.R.
No. L-18891, 31 October 1960, the petitioners in said case, together
with Jose Layno, filed with the respondent Court of Agrarian Relations
a “Motion for Issuance of a Supplemental Order and thereafter for a
Writ of Execution” dated 13 December 1960. In their motion the
petitioners prayed the respondent Court to order the respondent
landholder to deliver to them their respective shares in the
agricultural years from 19B6 to 1960 harvests stored in the warehouse
of the respondent landholder and that the agricultural year 1960-1961
crop of palay to be reaped or harvested be divided or liquidated at a
ratio of 70/30 for the petitioners and landholder, respectively.

On 24 January 1961, the respondent Court denied the motion for
execution in so far as the herein petitioners are concerned, for the
reason that the respondent Court had nothing to execute and that it had
no jurisdiction over the petitioners, because they were found by the
Supreme Court, in G.R. No. L-13891 referred to above, not to have any
tenancy relation with the respondent landholder, and for that reason
the determination and delivery of their respective shares in the
agricultural year 1956-1967 harvest is within the jurisdiction of the
courts of general jurisdiction. Jose Layno having been recognized as
tenant by the respondent landholder, and Joaquin Ulpiendo and Vicente
Joves and the respondent landholder having amicably settled their
dispute, were excluded from the respondent Court’s resolution. A motion
for reconsideration dated 3 February 1961 of the resolution just
mentioned filed by the petitioners was denied on 9 February, 1961.

On 20 February 1961, after their prayer that they be allowed to
litigate as paupers in this Court had been granted1, they filed a
petition for review of the resolutions of 24 January, and 9 February,
1961.

In brief, the herein petitioners contend that the respondent Court
erred and abused its discretion in refusing to order what they had
prayed for in their motion, claiming that part of the judgment rendered
by the respondent Court on 22 July 1957 ordering delivery of the shares
of the herein petitioners stored in the warehouse of the respondent
landholder had not been set aside and altered or modified by the
respondent Court’s resolutions of 26 November 3957 and 21 April 1958
and by the judgment and resolution of this Court of 31 October, and 18
November, 1960.

The delivery ordered by the respondent Court’s judgment rendered on 22
July 1957 was predicated on the finding that the herein petitioners
Dalmacio Dadural and Catalina Doyanen had been tenants of the
respondent landholder since 1953 and the petitioner Jose Ragudo since
1956. In the subsequent resolution of 26 November 1957, the respondent
Court found that the herein petitioners had had no agricultural tenancy
relationship with the respondent landholder. The existence of that
agricultural tenancy relationship upon which was predicated the
delivery ordered by the respondent Court in its judgment rendered on 22
July 1957 having been found by the respondent Court not to exist or not
to have existed1 in its resolution of 26 November 1957, the delivery
ordered by the judgment rendered on 22 July 1957 was a consequence set
aside.

The resolutions appealed from or under review may be harsh upon the
herein petitioners who should not be compelled to resort to the regular
courts of competent jurisdiction, but lack of jurisdiction of the
respondent Court to order what the herein petitioners had asked being
the ground of the denial of the herein petitioners’ motion, there seems
to be no other alternative but to affirm the resolutions under review.

The resolutions under review are affirmed. No special pronouncement as to costs.

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