SEGUNDINO DIMITUI, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF PAMPANGA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petition to prohibit the respondent Court of Agrarian Relations of
Pampanga from proceeding with its Tenancy Cases Nos.
894 and 1095, entitled, “Ernesto Dimitui, et al.
vs. Segundino Dimitui, et
al.” and “Ernesto Dimitui vs. Rosendo
Diaz, et al.”, respectively, and to declare as null and void, the court’s
order of 16 August 1962, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioners Francisco Bondoc, Andres Mandap and Placido Simon
work as tenants in two sugar cane
and rice landholdings located in barrio
San Pablo Libutad, San Simon, Pampanga, and more
particularly described as Lots Nos. 269-D and 269-C of the subdivision plan (LRC)
Psd-7140.

On 1 December 1960, herein respondents Ernesto Dimitui and Mamerta Bondoc Vda. de Dimitui filed with the
respondent Agrarian Court a
petition to order the above-named tenants to recognize and deal with them as their lawful
landlords, instead of herein petitioner Segundino Dimitui and to stop him from molesting and interfering in
the landholdings.  The petition was
docketed as Tenancy Case No. 894.

The respondents in the
said case moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that title of claimants Dimitui and Bondoc
to the land in question was disputed in Civil Case No. 1832 of the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga; but the court, on 10
January 1961, denied the motion for the reason that until the purchase by Dimitui and Bondoc was
invalidated, it was to be presumed good and should be recognized (Annex E,
petition).  Answer was then filed by
defendants and trial proceeded.  One witness, Emiliano Dimitui,
son of Mamerta Bondoc Vda. de Dimitui and brother of Ernesto Dimitui, testified that there was a pending case in
the Court of First Instance of Pampanga regarding the
ownership of Lot 269-D. 
Forthwith, the court pronounced itself without jurisdiction
regarding lot 269-D.  The petitioners in
Case 894 moved for reconsideration; the respondents filed their opposition, and
the court set aside its previous order of dismissal.

On 27 November 1961, Ernesto Dimitui filed
another petition (Tenancy Case No. 1095-P-61) this time, to eject the tenants
of Lot 269-D, namely, Rosendo Diaz, Leoncio Diaz, Numeriano Dantes, Claro Palma, Bienvenido Magpayo, and Aquilino Palasigui for failing,
allegedly, to notify him of the date of reaping and threshing and not giving
him his landholder’s share in the harvest.  Segundino Dimitui was impleaded as a party
respondent to prevent him, as in the
earlier case, from exercising the
rights of a landholder in the landholding (Annex L).  The respondents filed their answer, once more pleading lack of tenancy relationship, since the tenants were
those of Segundino Dimitui,
and contesting again the jurisdiction of
the Agrarian Court.

On 18 June 1962,
claimants Ernesto Dimitui and Mamerta
Bondoc Vda. de Dimitui moved
to suspend the proceedings in the two tenancy cases, pending the final determination by the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga
of the right of ownership and possession of Lot 269-D in its Civil Case No.
1832, entitled, “Segundino Dimitui,
et al. vs. Ernesto Dimitui, et al.” The complaint in the latter
civil case alleges that the defendants Ernesto Dimitui and Mamerta Bondoc
Vda. de Dimitui secured Torrens
titles to portions of Lot 269 thru a fictitious and fraudulent sale at public auction, and prays that the sale
be voided and Lot 269-D be reconveyed
to the plaintiffs-spouses Segundino Dimitui and Consolacion Pineda.

On
26 June 1962,
the respondents in the two tenancy cases (petitioners herein) moved to dismiss the cases.  The petitioners (respondents herein) opposed,
and on 18 July 1962,
the court denied both the motion to suspend proceedings and the motion to dismiss.

On 13 August, the petitioners Ernesto Dimitui and Bondoc
(respondents herein) filed a motion in CAR Case 894-P-60 to implement the
resolution of 10 January 1961 (Annex E), and for the order to the tenants to recognize them as landholders for
the crop year ’62-’63 (Annex T).

And on 16
August 1962, the
court issued, in said Agrarian case 894, the order that herein petitioners seek
to nullify, on certiorari, in this Court (Annex W).  Its dispositive portion states as follows:

“WHEREFORE, interlocutory order is hereby issued requiring and
directing respondents Francisco Bondoc, Andres Mandap and Placido Simon, who are
alleged to be tenants on the landholding in question, to recognize and consider petitioners herein, Ernesto de Dimitui and Mamerta Bondoc Vda. de
Dimitui, as their landholders.  The lifetime of this inter­locutory order
lasts during the pendency of this case or until such
time as another order shall be otherwise issued by this Court.

“During the lifetime of this interlocutory order, the
relationship of agricultural tenancy must be between the said three respondents
above-mentioned and the herein petitioners over the landholding in question and
that they should treat each other as such tenants and landholders in accordance
with law.

“Atty. Santiago Sunga, of this
Court, is hereby directed to implement this order by furnishing copies hereto
to each of the three tenants and the
petitioners, as well as to their respective counsel.  Atty. Sunga will
advise the three respondent-tenants accordingly.  He may secure the assistance of the
Philippine Consta­bulary, if necessary, in the implementation of this order.

“SO ORDERED.”

The
petitioners’ objection to the Agrarian Court‘s jurisdiction in the two tenancy cases is the absence, in their opinion, of a
tenancy relationship between them and the respondents.  This
view is untenable.  It is true that the tenants never had a
contract of tenancy, express or
implied, with Ernesto Dimitui and Mamerta
Bondoc Vda. de Dimitui and that prior to 1959,
petitioner Segundino Dimitui
was, admittedly, the landholder; however, it is also admitted that Ernesto Dimitui purchased Lot 269-D in
a sheriff’s sale at public auction on 29 May 1959.

Now, Section 9 of the
Agricultural Tenancy Act provides:

“Sec. 9, x x x
x x the sale, alienation or transfer of legal possession does
not of itself 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 x x x x x.  (Rep. Act 1199, as amended
by Sec. 3, Rep. Act 2263)”

The
law, therefore, created a tenancy relationship between the tenants and Ernesto Dimitui where there was none by contract.  As the lower court correctly pointed out, the
auction sale of the lands here involved to Ernesto Dimitui
and Mamerta Bondoc Vda. de Dimitui are to be
presumed valid, until annulled or set aside by the regular courts; and the mere
pendency of a suit to that invalidate said sale does
not, until final judgment of nullification, deprive the contested sale of its
legal effect.  The tenants, of course,
may not arrogate unto themselves the
right to decide the validity of their landholders’ ownership.

But Segundino
Dimitui insists that certainly he is not a tenant,
and, there being no tenancy relationship between him and the respondents Dimitui and Bondoc, it follows
that the Court of Agrarian Relations has no jurisdiction to order him not to
interfere in the landholding.  This argument
is equally in vain.  The
Court’s order to the tenants to recognize the respondents Ernesto Dimitui and Mamerta Bondoc Vda. de Dimitui as their landholders
could not be fully and adequately operative if petitioner Segundino
Dimitui were allowed to remain free to interfere with
the landholding and to insist that the tenants recognize him instead as
landholder.  The Court of Agrarian
Relations, like any other court, has the inherent power to do all things
reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction;^[1] hence it may, in the words of Sec. 5, Rule
135 of the Revised Rules of Court, “compel obedience to its judgments,
orders and processes” (subpar. C) and “control, in further­ance of justice, the conduct x
x x of all other persons in any manner
connected with a case before it” so that its orders and decrees will not
be rendered nugatory.  No abuse of
discretion was committed by the Court in so doing.

FOR THE REASONS
AFORESTATED, the writs of
certiorari and prohibition applied for are denied.  Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Shioji vs. Harvey,
43 Phil. 333, 344.