Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16054 July 31, 1963
ROMAN TOLEDO, ET AL., petitioners-appellants,
vs.
COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS (8th Regional District) Bacolod City, et al., respondents-appellees.
J. S. Amadora, D. Virtucio and F. P. Isobal for petitioners-appellants.
N. G. Nostratis and F. T. Allado for respondent-appellee Court of Agrarian Relations.
F. P. Amante and R. M. Labayen for other respondent appellees.
PADILLA, J.:
This is a petition for review under section is 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 Lots Nos. 743 and 748 of the cadastral survey of Pontevedra situated in the municipality of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, in the crop year 1956-57 (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 refused 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 Gervasio 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 the time the action was pending Roman Toledo, Gervasio Hilario, Loreto Perez, Margarita Hilario, many others forcibly entered upon and occupied additional part of Lot No. 743, thereby dispossessing the tenants of Jose Rongo and Perpetuo Puerto 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 deliver to him (Mercurio) of Inc. share of 70 of the palay produced is 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 Mercurio. 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, Basillo de las Marias, Lorenzo Tuario, Aquilino Caballero, Felipe Ibañez, Nicolas Pisca, Bernardo Erillana, Loreto Perez, Alfredo Perez and Alfredo Manalo against Roman Toledo for the delivery to them its 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 the 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 the other intervenors, 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 petitioner against Bernardino Erillana, Salvador Cueva Valentin Galida, Arturo Dulana, Alfredo Manalo, Agaton Francisco and Roman Toledo as respondents;
CAR case No. 294 filed by Ceferino Quiatchon is petitioner against Felipe Ibañez, Emilio Osorio and Rom Toledo as respondents;
CAR case No. 295 filed by Tereso Teologo as petition, against Melencio Tenerife and Roman Toledo is respondents; and.
CAR case No. 296 filed by Eugenio Medina as petition against Porfirio Regalado and Roman Toledo as respondents.1äwphï1.ñët
All the petitioners in these list 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 a default and the petitioners allowed to present their evidence.
In CAR cases 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 an authority to appoint and place tenants on the lot in question;
(b) Declaring respondent Bernardino Erillana (in CAR Case No. 148) to be the tenant of 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 attorneys's fees are hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence;
(c) Dismissing the complaint of petitioners Loreto Perez, Bernardino Erillana, Gervacio 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 intervenor Felix P. Amante (in CAR Case No. 178) on the lot in question during the crop year 1956-1957; and ordering the 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 Tuario, Aquilino Caballero, Felipe Ibañez, Nicolas Pisca, 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-intervenors Daniel Mercurio, Tereso Teologo, Eugenio Medina, 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 respondents Loreto Perez, Porfirio Regalado, Nicolas Pisca, Lucio Balar, Bernardino Erillana, Salvador Cuevas, Valentin Galida, Arturo Dulana, Alfredo Manalo, Agaton Francisco, Felipe Ibañez, Emilio Osorio, Melecio (Hospicio) Tenerife, and Roman Toledo ( 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 No. 289, 239-296), tenants intervenors Daniel Mercurio, Carlos Ocido (in CAR Case No. 220), Jorge Rongo, Amado Salavia, Josefina 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 No. 148,178, 220) the lot in question during the crop years 1956-1957 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, 187, 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 2.0680 kilos, Tereso Teologo — 12.410 cavans and .63378 kilos, Bienvenido Eladier — 53.595 cavans and 2.73707 kilos, Jorge Rongo — 63.745 cavans and 3.25543 kilos, Amando Salavia — 18.395 cavans and .93344 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% shares (in CAR Cases 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 cavans and 1.5048 kilos during the crop year 1957-1958 on the lot in question;
(k) Ordering the delivery of the 30% shares (in CAR Cases No. 148, 172, 178, 220) of Felix P. 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 from the palay deposited in the Isabela 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 15.463043 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 — 13.536 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, Aquilino Caballero — 54.5887 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 and .37055 kilos, Alfredo Manalo — 41.731 cavans and .54321 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 Bernardino Erillana and Lorenzo Tuario who sided with Roman Toledo (in CAR Cases Nos. 172, 220) from the produce in the crop year 1956-1957 amounted to 845.302 cavans and 15.51340 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 No. 148, 172, 178, 220), and the balance of 569.302 cavan 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 due Jose Rongo, Felix P. Amante and their tenants (in CAR Cases No. 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 12.58043 kilos be paid in cash in the amount of P1,775.66 taken from the accountable cash proceeds;
(q) Ordering that the balance of 5269.302 cavans and 15.64940 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 Nos. 172, 178, 220) as security for the palay withdrawn by them from the Isabela and San Enrique FaCoMas; 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:
I. 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 parcel 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).
II. 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).
III. 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 Rongo 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).
IV. The respondent Court erred in not holding that Roman Toledo and Aquilino Caballero are in possession of the whole of 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.
V. 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 Jose Rongo and Perpetuo Puerto (pp. 30-31, Decision).
VI. 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.
VII. 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 latter's pretended tenants therein.
VIII. 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.
IX. The respondent Court erred in partly awarding some produce of the palay to Jose Rongo, 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.
X. The respondent Court erred in not giving all the palay raised in Lot No. 743 from all the harvests since 1956 and until now to Roman Toledo, Aquilino Caballero and their tenants, co-petitioners in CAR Cases Nos. 172, 178 and 220.
XI. 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 in CAR case No. 220, (and) as well as in allowing the admission of CAR cases Nos. 289, 293, 294, 295 296; 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 any order relative to their motion for reconsideration.
XII. The Court erred in not declaring that the evidence adduced during the hearing indicates that herein appellant 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 or title to the land in litigation. All it did was to determine the a possession of the land in controversy and ascertain who was the landholder. And in so doing, it could take in account the fact that respondent Jose Rongo and Perpetuo Puerto are the registered owners of Lot No. 7 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 predecessor-in-interest.
The respondent Court of Agrarian Relations is by law vested with the "original and exclusive jurisdiction 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 case 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 is avoided.
The other errors assigned by the appellants raise questions of fact. 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, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1Section 21, Republic Act No. 1199, and section 7, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409.
2Section 13, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
