[CA-G.R. SP-38548. March 26, 1996.]
BENIGNO MANANSALA, petitioner, vs. HON. CRISPIN LARON, Judge, RTC-Dagupan City, Br. 44, SPS. HILARION DE GUZMAN, JR. and HELEN DE GUZMAN, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
IBAY-SOMERA, C., J p:
This is a petition for review of the decision dated August 31, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Dagupan City dismissing petitioner's appeal of the decision dated July 18, 1994 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mangaldan, Pangasinan, in an ejectment case filed by spouses Hilarion de Guzman, Jr. and Helen de Guzman therein private respondents) against Benigno Manansala (herein petitioner). The dispositive portion of the RTC decision provides as follows:
WHEREFORE, defendant's appeal is dismissed.
In this connection, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiffs Hilario de Guzman, Jr. and Helen de Guzman and against defendant Benigno Manansala alias Regino Manansala, ordering the defendant or any person acting for and on his behalf to immediately vacate the premises in question and to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P3,000.00 as litigation expenses and P3,000.00 as attorney's fees plus costs.
SO ORDERED.
(p. 40, Rollo)
The issue in the ejectment case hinges on whether petitioner is a de jure tenant entitled to security of tenure and right to redeem tenanted property under Republic Act No. 3844 (otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code) as amended by Republic Act No. 6389 (otherwise known as the Code of Agrarian Reforms), hence, within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
The land in controversy, a 3,430-square meter parcel of coconut land situated in Landas, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, is originally owned by the late Vicente de Guzman with petitioner Benigno Manansala as tenant.
Sometime in 1944, petitioner married Basilisa de Guzman, daughter of Vicente de Guzman.
Nineteen (19) years later or sometime in 1963, Basilisa de Guzman became the owner of the subject property by virtue of a quitclaim executed by and among the heirs of the late Vicente de Guzman. Petitioner however continued to work on the said landholding.
Later, Basilisa de Guzman executed a deed of sale over said parcel of land in favor of her brother Hilarion de Guzman, Sr. who in turn sold the same in November 1992 to his son, herein private respondent Hilarion de Guzman, Jr.
On January 25, 1993, private respondents spouses Hilario de Guzman, Jr. and Helen de Guzman filed before the MTC of Mangaldan, Pangasinan an ejectment case docketed as Civil Case No. 1301 against petitioner alleging inter alia that they are the owners of the subject lot which is in actual possession by the petitioner by virtue of the tolerance of Basilisa de Guzman (Annex "A", Petition).
On February 3, 1993, petitioner filed with Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Lingayen, Pangasinan a petition for redemption of tenanted landholding involving the subject property against private respondents. This case was refiled on February 9, 1993 under a new docket number, DARAB Case No. 475-wp-93.
On February 4, 1993, petitioner filed his answer in the ejectment case stating that the alleged sales were executed and consummated without his knowledge and written notice and are subject to his tenancy or tenurial rights of redemption under Section 12, R.A. 3488, as amended, pending before the DARAB, Lingayen, Pangasinan. He admits his actual occupancy over the property but as a tenant (Annex "B", Petition).
Initially finding that the issue of possession becomes moot and academic should petitioner's right to redeem the property is upheld in DARAB Case No. 475-wp-93 and he becomes the owner of the subject property upon payment of the redemption price to be fixed by the said Adjudication Board, the MTC issued an order dated April 28, 1993 suspending Civil Case No. 1301 pending the decision of the DARAB Case No. 475-wp-93 (Annex "C", Petition).
On October 18, 1993, the DARAB of Lingayen, Pangasinan rendered a decision dismissing DARAB Case No. 475-wp-93 for lack of merit holding "that petitioner cannot exercise the right of legal redemption granted under Section 12 of RA No. 3844, as amended, to redeem the paraphernal property of his wife as he is not the real party in interest and that no tenancy relationship exist between petitioner and his wife, Basilisa de Guzman, the former landholder" (p. 56, Rollo, Annex "A", Answer to Petition).
Due to the decision of DARAB Case No. 475-wp-93, the MTC rendered a decision dated July 18, 1994, in favor of private respondents (the plaintiffs therein), the dispositive portion of which provides:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff HILARIO DE GUZMAN, JR. and HELEN DE GUZMAN and (Illegible Portion) defendant BENIGNO MANANSALA alias "Regino Manansala" ordering the latter or any and all persons acting for and in his behalf to immediately vacate the premises in controversy and to pay the plaintiff the amount of:
1. Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos as litigation expenses; and
2. Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos as and for attorney's fees in addition to costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
(p. 37, Rollo, Annex "E", Petition)
The appeal to the RTC having been dismissed in Civil Case No. 94-00298-D (Annex "F", Petition), petitioner filed the instant petition for review maintaining that —
1. The lower courts had no jurisdiction over the instant case; and
2. The lower courts questioned decisions are premature.
(p. 15, Rollo)
Private respondents invoke that the petition failed to certify that CV-95-00564-D (Annex "B", Answer to Petition) and Civil Case No. 1364 (Annex "C", Answer to Petition) both for annulment of documents involving the same parties and the same land are pending before the RTC, Branch 42, Dagupan City and MTC, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, respectively in violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 or the Anti-Forum Shopping Rule.
While it is settled that a court does not lose its jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case by the simple expedient of a party raising the existence of agricultural tenancy, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction if it is shown that tenancy is the real issue (Isidro vs. Court of Appeal, 228 SCRA 503 [1993]; De la Cruz vs. Bautista, 186 SCRA 517 [1990]; Ignacio vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, 42 SCRA 89 [1971]).
In the instant case, petitioner strongly maintained that his tenancy or tenurial rights commencing from the establishment of the tenancy relationship between the late Vicente de Guzman as landowner and he himself as tenant in 1944 was not erased or removed by the subsequent acquisition of the subject land by his wife Basilisa de Guzman in 1963 because he continued to be the tenant cultivator of the said landholding. Upon exhaustive review of the decision in DARAB Case No. 475-wp-93, it appears that although the case is for redemption of tenanted property, the basic issue resolved by the Provincial Adjudicator was in essence the question postulated above. Irrefutably, petitioner's continued physical possession of the landholding depends upon the decision in the redemption case.
The ruling in Endaya vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 109 [1992]), is pertinent, thus:
R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as amended by R.A. No. 6839 (1971), which is the relevant law governing the events at hand, abolished share tenancy throughout the Philippines from 1971 and established the agricultural leasehold system by operation of law. Section 7 of the said law gave agricultural lessees security of tenure by providing the following: "The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided.
xxx xxx xxx
Hence, transactions involving the agricultural land over which an agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change of ownership, e.g., sale, or transfer of legal possession, such as lease, will not terminate the rights of the agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by making such rights enforceable against the transferee or the landowner's successor in interest.
The case at bench clearly calls for the application of RA No. 3844, as amended by RA No. 6389 in relation to Section 12 thereof which provides that —
Sec. 12. Lessee's Right to Redemption. — In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration; Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale.
Upon the filing of the corresponding petition or request with the department or corresponding case in court by the agricultural lessee or lessees, the said period of one hundred and eighty days shall cease to run.
Any petition or request for redemption shall be resolved within sixty days from the filing thereof; otherwise, the said period shall start to run again.
The Department of Agrarian Reform shall initiate, while the Land Bank shall finance, said redemption as in the case of predemption. (Emphasis supplied)
If the real issue in the ejectment case involves actual tenancy, it has to be referred to the Department of Agrarian Reform (Ocier vs. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 510 [1992]) pursuant to Section 1, Rule II of the Revised Rules of Procedure which provides:
Section 1. Original And Exclusive Jurisdiction. — Except as provided in Section 2 of this Rule, the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act 6657, Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.
xxx xxx xxx
e) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, preemption and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws;
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
To decide the ejectment case on the allegation that petitioner's actual possession is merely tolerated by his wife Basilisa de Guzman is to disregard at all the question under resolution in the case for redemption of tenanted property (DARAB Case No. 475-wp-93) which is still pending appeal before this Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 38224 entitled "Benigno Manansala vs. Spouses Hilarion de Guzman, Sr. and Jacinta de Guzman and Spouses Hilario de Guzman, Jr. and Belen de Guzman and Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Diliman, Question City."
Thus, the MTC did not therefore have jurisdiction in the ejectment case filed by private respondents, the new owners of the subject property, by virtue of the clear mandate of the pertinent laws above-cited. Consequently, the RTC could not have acquired the appellate jurisdiction.
Anent the issue of forum-shopping, We are not however convinced that petitioner's failure to inform this Court of the two civil cases which are both for annulment of documents (the deeds of sale) pending before the MTC, Mangaldan, Pangasinan and RTC, Branch 42, Dagupan City violated Administrative Circular No. 04-94; thus, the summary dismissal of the petition. Petitioner Benigno Manansala is "joined as plaintiff being the lawfully wedded husband and for the further reason that Basilisa de Guzman is bed-ridden on account of old age" (p. 58, Rollo). Basilisa de Guzman is the real-party-in interest, she being the seller of her paraphernal property. The annulment of the deeds of sale covering the same subject property is principally between Basilisa de Guzman, (plaintiff) and spouses Hilario de Guzman, Sr. and Jacinta de Guzman and herein private respondents spouses (defendants).
The recent case of Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 108251, January 31, 1996, elaborates the rule that the mere filing of several cases based on the same incident does not necessarily constitute forum-shopping.
The test is whether the several actions filed involved the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances. Here, although several cases were filed by the same complainant against the same defendant and the subject matter of the actions of two of the cases was the same incident . . ., the fact is that the several cases involve essentially different facts, circumstances and causes of action.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned decision dated August 31, 1995 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan City is SET ASIDE. Judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the case for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Benipayo and Lipana-Reyes, JJ., concur.