Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

109 Phil 957:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13875. October 31, 1960.]

DANIEL EVANGELISTA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, COMMISSIONERS JUAN TERUEL, and MARIANO GUSTILO, Respondents.

Tirol & Tirol for Petitioner.

Porferio Parian for Respondent.

N.G. Nostratis and T.T. Allada for respondent CAR.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER; WHEN JURISDICTION DEPENDS UPON QUESTIONS OF FACT; TO BE RAISED IN COURT WHERE JURISDICTION IS QUESTIONED. — The question of jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court in the unlawful detainer case, which is dependent upon the factual question of whether or not there is tenancy relationship between the parties, having actually been raised and overruled in said unlawful detainer case now on appeal in the Court of First Instance, the parties should await the decision of that court and abide by it subject to any appeal by either of them (Roces v. Gonzales, 102 Phil., 420; 54 Off. Gaz. [5] 1377; Nipay, Et. Al. v. Manguiat, 108 Phil., 297; 58 Off. Gaz. [15] 3115).

2. ID.; ID.; IDENTITY OF CAUSES OF ACTION NOT DEPENDENT UPON SIMILARITY OR DIFFERENCE IN THE FORM OF THE ACTIONS. — The identity of causes of action does not depend upon the similarity or difference in the forms of the two actions. The rules is well-settled that a judgment upon the merits bars a subsequent suit upon the same cause, brought in a different form of action and a party, because one cannot be varying the form of action or adopting a different form of presenting his case escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated (Francisco v. Blas, 93 Phil., 1; Roa v. De la Cruz, Et Al., L-10877, Feb. 28, 1958).

3. PROHIBITION; WHEN CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION WILL LIE DESPITE INTERLOCUTORY NATURE OF ORDER. — While it is true that the orders complained of are interlocutory in nature and for this reason it may be contended that the present remedy of prohibition would lie since it would be useless and a waste of time to go ahead with the proceedings. (Philippine International Fair, Inc., Et. Al. v. Ibañez, Et Al., 94 Phil., 424; Off. Gaz., p. 1036; Enrique v. Macadaeg, Et Al., 84 Phil., 674; 47 Off. Gaz., p. 1207; see also San Beda College v. C.I.R. 97 Phil., 787; 51 Off. Gaz., p. 5636; and U.S.T. v. Villanueva, etc., Et Al., 106 Phil., 439; 57 Off. Gaz. [11] 1966).


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to annul certain order of the respondent commission of the Court of Agrarian Relations and to restrain respondents from further proceeding in Cases Nos. 527 and 528 of the same court.

The record shows and it is not disputed that on June 10, 1957, herein petitioner Daniel Evangelista filed against the respondent Mariano Gustilo a complaint for unlawful detainer in the Justice of the Peace Court of Dumangas, Iloilo (Civil Case No. 21) for failure to pay rentals as stipulated in a contract of lease between them.

Instead of answering the complaint, the respondent Mariano Gustilo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, alleging that he was a "leasehold-tenant" under the tenancy law, but the justice of the peace court denied the motion holding that the case fell within its jurisdiction since it was a simple case of ejectment. From this denial, the respondent Gustilo on July 26, 1957 filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of the province (Civil Case No. 4489) to prohibit the inferior court from continuing with the case. The petition having been dismissed after hearing for lack of merit, the respondent then filed his answer in the justice of the peace court, admitting the stipulation of the contract of lease but alleging, among his defenses, that the land was "susceptible of personal cultivation of the contract of lease but alleging, among his defenses, that the land was "susceptible of personal cultivation by him together with his three hard-working sons and two male helpers" ; that he was given an extension of time for payment of rentals due; and that there was no demand made upon him for the payment of the same.

On September 10, 1957, respondent Gustilo also filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations an action against herein petitioner "to impugn the contract of lease with recovery of excess rentals (Case No. 527) alleging, among other things, that he was a tenant-lessee of the petitioner and that the year rentals provided in the contract were contrary to law, morals and public policy. As defendant therein, petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground of pendency of another action but the same was denied. After excepting to said denial, petitioner filed an answer stating that the respondent Gustilo was not a "tenant-lessee" but an ordinary lessee under a civil law contract of lease; that the 23 hectares of land subject of the lease do not constitute a leasehold under the tenancy law; and that the respondent did not personally cultivate the land. As special defenses, petitioner invoked the pendency of the action in the inferior court, it being alleged in addition that the Court of Agrarian Relations had no jurisdiction over the case.

On November 4, 1957, the Justice of the Peace Court of Dumangas, after trial, rendered judgment in the unlawful detainer case sustaining the validity of the lease contract and ordering the respondent Mariano Gustilo to vacate the leased premises and to pay the unpaid rentals therein mentioned, plus attorney’s fees and costs. Two weeks later, as respondent Gustilo failed to file a supersedeas bond, the justice of the peace court issued a writ of execution for the delivery of the premises to petitioner and for the collection of the unpaid rentals. Thereafter, the respondent appealed to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 4639.

In view of the issuance of the writ of execution and the filing of the appeal in the unlawful detainer case, petitioner filed with the respondent court a "motion for preliminary hearing on the ground of pendency of action in another court." This was granted and hearing therefor was set for January 20, 1958.

In the meantime, after being ejected by the provincial sheriff on the authority of the writ of execution issued by the inferior court in the unlawful detainer case, the respondent Gustilo filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations Case No. 584 for "illegal dispossession and reinstatement." Whereupon, petitioner moved for the dismissal of the case, on the grounds of multiplicity of suits and pendency of action between the same parties and for the same cause.

The "motion for preliminary hearing on the ground of pendency of action in another court" in Case No. 527 as well as the motion to dismiss in Case No. 584 were, however, both denied by the respondent commissioner of the court below. A joint motion for reconsideration having been also denied — the respondent commissioner holding that the lease contract "is one of leasehold" and that the inferior court had no jurisdiction over Case No. 21 — petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition. As prayed for, this Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction upon petitioner putting up the corresponding bond.

There is, we think, merit in the petition.

It will be observed that in the unlawful detainer case, which was filed long before Cases Nos. 527 and 584 of the Agrarian Court were instituted, herein petitioner prayed for recovery of possession because of respondent’s failure to pay the rentals stipulated in the contract of lease. The facts pleaded in the complaint therein admittedly tend to negative any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Respondent Gustilo averred, among other defenses, that there was such tenancy relationship and for that reason the justice of the peace court had no jurisdiction over the case. By such defense, however, the court did not lose nor was it deprived of its jurisdiction over the case. (See Basilio v. David, Et Al., 89 Phil., 955; 52 Off. Gaz., [7] 3556.) Said court had the authority to hear evidence for the purpose of determining whether or not it has jurisdiction.

"When the jurisdiction of the court depends upon a question of fact it must be raised and determined in the court whose jurisdiction is questioned." (Gala v. Gui, 25 Phil., 523.)

"Where the jurisdiction of the court once attaches, the general rule is that it is exclusive, and the courts of other countries must abide the determination of that court, which is reviewable only upon appeal." (Ongsingco Vda. de Borja v. Tan, G.R. NO. L-7792, July 27, 1955.)

The question of jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court in the unlawful detainer case, which is dependent upon the factual question of whether or not there is tenancy relationship between the parties, having actually been raised and overruled in said unlawful detainer case now on appeal in the Court of First Instance, the parties should await the decision of that court and abide by it subject to any appeal by either of the. (Rocas v. Gonzales, 102 Phil., 420; 54 Off. Gaz., [5] 1377; see also Nipay, Et. Al. v. Manguiat, etc., 108 Phil., 297; 58 Off. Gaz., [15] 3115.) This view is demanded not only by the proper and orderly administration of justice, but also, by considerations of expediency and convenience.

It is significant to note that it was only after the dismissal of respondent Gustilo’s petition to prohibit the inferior court from continuing with the trial of the unlawful detainer case that he filed Case No. 527 with the Court of Agrarian Relations "to impugn the contract of lease with recovery of excess rentals," claiming that he was a tenant-lessee of the petitioner and that the yearly rentals and advance rentals provided in the contract were contrary to law, morals and public policy. On the other hand, Case No. 584 of the same Agrarian court for alleged "illegal dispossession and reinstatement" was filed by him after he was judicially ousted from lands under the lease contract by the provincial sheriff pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the justice of the peace court. Upon the facts on record, we are inclined to rule that the filing of these cases violates the time-honored policy of prohibiting multiplicity of suits. There is, obviously, not only identity of parties but also identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for between said cases and the ejectment case now on appeal before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, the relief being founded on the same facts. The real issue between the parties is whether or not respondent Gustilo should be allowed to continue occupying the land under the terms of the lease contract. This is the subject matter of the action for unlawful detainer filed by petitioner and it is also the main or principal purpose of respondent’s action in Cases Nos. 527 and 584 of the respondent court. The identity of causes of actions does not depend upon the similarity or differences in the forms of the two actions. As was held by this Court, "a judgment upon the merits bars a subsequent suit upon the same cause, brought in a different form of action and a party, therefore, cannot by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated." (Francisco v. Blas, 93 Phil., 1; Roa v. de la Cruz, Et Al., 103 Phil., 116; 55 Off. Gaz., [3] 438.) Needless to say, assuming that the inferior court has jurisdiction, the decision in the unlawful detainer case has jurisdiction, the decision in the unlawful detainer case would necessarily dispose of the issues in Cases Nos. 527 and 584 of the respondent court and conclude the controversy between the parties.

Respondents advance the theory that the ejectment case now on appeal in the Court of First Instance and Cases Nos. 527 and 584 of the respondent Court of Agrarian Relations may proceed to their conclusion simultaneously. This theory cannot be sanctioned. One need not stretch his imagination to see that to allow such simultaneously. This theory cannot be sanctioned. One need not stretch his imagination to see that to allow such simultaneous proceedings would only lead to confusion and might seriously hinder the administration of justice.

It is true that the orders complained of are interlocutory in nature and for this reason respondents contend that the present remedy sought by petitioner is premature. This Court, however, has already held similar cases that where it clearly appears that the trial judge or court is proceeding in excess or outside of its jurisdiction, the remedy of prohibition would lie since it would be useless and a waste of time to go ahead with the proceedings. (Philippines International Fair, Inc., Et. Al. v. Ibañez, Et Al., 94 Phil., 424; 50 Off. Gaz., 1036; Enrique v. Macadaeg, Et Al., 84 Phil., 674; 47 Off. Gaz., 1207; see also San Beda College v. C.I.R. 97 Phil., 787; 51 Off. Gaz., 5636; and University of Santo Tomas v. Villanueva, etc. Et. Al., 106 Phil., 439; 57 Off. Gaz., [11] 1966.

In view of the foregoing, the orders of the respondent commissioner of the Court of Agrarian Relations are set aside. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued made permanent. So ordered without costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152