Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > November 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 52740 November 12, 1991 - SPS. EUSEBIO ABRIN, ET AL. v. VICENTE R. CAMPOS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 52740. November 12, 1991.]

SPOUSES EUSEBIO ABRIN and JULIANA ABRIN, Petitioners, v. HON. VICENTE R. CAMPOS, and SPOUSES GONZALO GUEVARRA and CLARA LONTOK-GUEVARRA, Respondents.

Public Attorney’s Office, for Petitioners.

Quirico L. Pilotin for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PLEADINGS; COMPLAINT; ALLEGATIONS THEREIN DETERMINES THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND THE COURT WHICH HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. — Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action, as well as the Court which has jurisdiction over the case, is the allegation made by the plaintiff in his complaint (Ching v. Malaya, 153 SCRA 412; Ganadin v. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613; Republic v. Sebastian, 72 SCRA 227; Magay v. Estandian, 69 SCRA 456; Time, Inc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303). To resolve the issue of jurisdiction, the Court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction vis-a-vis the averments of the complaint (Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation v. Judge Mendoza, 154 SCRA 548 [1987]). The defenses asserted in the answer or motion to dismiss are not to be considered in resolving the issue of jurisdiction, otherwise the question of jurisdiction could depend entirely upon the defendant (Magay v. Estandian, 69 SCRA 456 [1976]).

2. ID.; ID.; COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (now REGIONAL TRIAL COURT); JURISDICTION OVER ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE; CASE AT BAR. — A perusal of the allegations in the complaint which, for purposes of resolving the motion to dismiss must be hypothetically admitted (De Dios v. Bristol Laboratories, Inc., L-25530, January 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 349), will show that the Abrin spouses are seeking the reconveyance of the land in dispute on the theory that it was encumbered only as security for the amount advanced by the Guevarras in connection with the prosecution of the action to recover its possession and that they have the right to redeem the land in accordance with paragraph 11(8) of the document denominated as "Farm Partnership with Promise to Reconvey," and the Abrin spouses have already paid the redemption price. Otherwise stated, the complaint is an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land which had been fraudulently titled in the name of defendants. Such averments, the truth of which is hypothetically admitted for the purpose of resolving the motion to dismiss filed by the GUEVARRA spouses, certainly falls within the jurisdiction of the then Court of First Instance pursuant to Section 44(b) of the Judiciary Act of 1940 as it is an action which involves the title to or possession of the property subject matter of the controversy. The defense interposed by the GUEVARRA spouses to the effect that the Abrin spouses are their tenants and the dispute is within the jurisdiction of the then Court of Agrarian Relations should have been disregarded by the trial court. Said defense of tenancy could be properly considered only if the trial court conducted a preliminary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction raised in the answer and reiterated in the motion to dismiss or after the trial on the merits.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER AGRARIAN DISPUTES; RULE. — With the abolition of the Court of Agrarian Relations pursuant to Section 44 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 dated August 10, 1981, and fully implemented on February 14, 1983 (Enriquez v. Fortuna Mariculture Corporation, 158 SCRA 651 [1988]), even agrarian disputes or those cases falling within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the then Court of Agrarian Relations pursuant to Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946 are now within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under Section 19(7) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Locsin v. Valenzuela, 173 SCRA 454 [1989]). However, under Section 23 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Regional Trial Courts which may be designated by the Supreme Court to try agrarian cases are required under Section 24 thereof to apply the special rules of procedure applicable under present laws until such time that said rules are amended by law or by the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.


D E C I S I O N


BIDIN, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the order dated January 3, 1979 of the then Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch III, First Judicial District, Bayombong which dismissed petitioner’s complaint for Reconveyance (Civil Case No. 2547) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The land subject matter of the controversy is a four and one-half (4-1/2) hectares farmland located in Bone South, Aristao, Nueva Vizcaya.chanrobles law library

On April 24, 1978, spouses Eusebio Abrin and Juliana Agni (Abrin, for brevity) filed an action for reconveyance with damages against the spouses Gonzalo Gueverra, Sr. and Clara Lontok (Guevarra, for short). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 2547 assigned to Branch III of the then CFI of Nueva Vizcaya, Bayombong. In their complaint, petitioners alleged, among others, that they are the owners of the land subject matter of the controversy; that in connection with CAR Case No. 205-NV 66 entitled "Eusebio Abrin v. Telesforo Ellorenco", they hired the services of defendant Guevarras’ son, who is a lawyer, to recover the aforesaid land from Telesforo Ellorenco and Angel Opinia; that in connection with the said case, they needed the sum of P10,000.00 and incurred expenses totalling P21,200.00 which amount was advanced by the GUEVARRA spouses; that because of the amount advanced by the Guevarras, a contract denominated as "Farm Partnership with Promise to Reconvey" (Annex "A" to the complaint) was executed by the parties, providing, among others, that the Abrins shall personally till and cultivate the land in question which was also used as security for the payment of the money advanced by the Guevarras with the understanding that the Abrins can redeem the land and that a portion of the harvest and/or other crops produced in the land shall be applied as part of the redemption price; that the document Annex "A" was written in the English language and prepared by the son of the Guevarras who is a lawyer; that the signatures of the Abrin spouses on the document were fraudulently obtained because they are ignorant and could hardly read or write and Notary Public Rufo Paras did not translate and explain its contents to the Abrin spouses so that they entered into a voidable contract with unconscionable provisions; that in an effort to redeem the land, the Abrin spouses paid the amount of P4,140.00 in cash and delivered to the Guevarras for the crop years 1970 to 1977 a total of 966 cavans of palay valued at P19,320.00, thereby paying the sum of P23,460.00 which is more than the amount of the redemption price stipulated in Annex "A" ; that despite repeated demands by the Abrin spouses for the execution of the deed of reconveyance, the GUEVARRA spouses who secured TCT No. 31747 over the subject parcel of land in their names, refused to execute the said document. By way of relief, the Abrin spouses prayed, among others, that the GUEVARRA spouses be ordered to execute the deed of reconveyance and to pay to the former exemplary and moral damages in the sum of P5,000.00, plus costs.

In their answer dated May 15, 1978, the GUEVARRA spouses, controverted the complaint and maintained, inter alia, that they bought the land in question from the Abrin spouses for a total consideration of P21,200.00; that after the sale was consummated, they constituted the Abrin spouses as tenants so they freely and voluntarily executed the document Annex "A" to the complaint which set forth the conditions governing their landlord-tenant relationship; that they received 45 cavans of palay in 1975 and 88 cavans of palay in 1976-77 as their share in the produce of the land, they being the landowner and not as part of the redemption price; that the dispute arising from the tenant-landlord relationship between the parties is not within the jurisdiction of the regular court; that the Abrin spouses have no sufficient cause of action against the GUEVARRA spouses and assuming that they have a cause of action, the same had prescribed or barred by estoppel or laches. As counterclaim, the GUEVARRA spouses pray for the value of the fruits of the land starting from 1977 to the present, payment of attorney’s fees of P5,000.00, moral and exemplary damages, plus costs.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On July 11, 1978, the GUEVARRA spouses filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the issues allegedly raised in the complaint is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

Despite the opposition filed by the Abrin spouses, the trial court in its order dated January 23, 1979, dismissed the case without prejudice. The motion for reconsideration of the Abrin spouses was likewise denied in the trial court’s order dated February 22, 1979. Hence, the instant petition.

The only issue for resolution is whether or not the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 2547 for lack of jurisdiction.

Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action, as well as the Court which has jurisdiction over the case, is the allegation made by the plaintiff in his complaint (Ching v. Malaya, 153 SCRA 412; Ganadin v. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613; Republic v. Sebastian, 72 SCRA 227; Magay v. Estandian, 69 SCRA 456; Time, Inc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303). To resolve the issue of jurisdiction, the Court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction vis-a-vis the averments of the complaint (Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation v. Judge Mendoza, 154 SCRA 548 [1987]). The defenses asserted in the answer or motion to dismiss are not to be considered in resolving the issue of jurisdiction, otherwise the question of jurisdiction could depend entirely upon the defendant (Magay v. Estandian, 69 SCRA 456 [1976]).

A perusal of the allegations in the complaint which, for purposes of resolving the motion to dismiss must be hypothetically admitted (De Dios v. Bristol Laboratories, Inc., L-25530, January 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 349), will show that the Abrin spouses are seeking the reconveyance of the land in dispute on the theory that it was encumbered only as security for the amount advanced by the Guevarras in connection with the prosecution of the action to recover its possession and that they have the right to redeem the land in accordance with paragraph 11(8) of the document denominated as "Farm Partnership with Promise to Reconvey," and the Abrin spouses have already paid the redemption price. Otherwise stated, the complaint is an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land which had been fraudulently titled in the name of defendants. Such averments, the truth of which is hypothetically admitted for the purpose of resolving the motion to dismiss filed by the GUEVARRA spouses, certainly falls within the jurisdiction of the then Court of First Instance pursuant to Section 44(b) of the Judiciary Act of 1940 as it is an action which involves the title to or possession of the property subject matter of the controversy. The defense interposed by the GUEVARRA spouses to the effect that the Abrin spouses are their tenants and the dispute is within the jurisdiction of the then Court of Agrarian Relations should have been disregarded by the trial court. Said defense of tenancy could be properly considered only if the trial court conducted a preliminary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction raised in the answer and reiterated in the motion to dismiss or after the trial on the merits.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

While it is true that Annex "A" was incorporated as an integral part of the complaint and should be considered in the determination of the issue of jurisdiction, a preliminary consideration thereof in its entirety will reveal that although the Abrin spouses were considered as "tenants" in paragraph 11(1) of the so-called document denominated as "Farm Partnership with Promise to Reconvey", however, they can exercise the right of redemption within ten (10) years from July 2, 1970 pursuant to paragraph 11(8) of the said agreement. The exercise of the right of redemption is not a right emanating from a tenancy contract but a right granted to the Abrin spouses who are the previous registered owners of the land in dispute.

At any rate, with the abolition of the Court of Agrarian Relations pursuant to Section 44 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 dated August 10, 1981, and fully implemented on February 14, 1983 (Enriquez v. Fortuna Mariculture Corporation, 158 SCRA 651 [1988]), even agrarian disputes or those cases ** falling within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the then Court of Agrarian Relations pursuant to Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946 are now within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under Section 19(7) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Locsin v. Valenzuela, 173 SCRA 454 [1989]). However, under Section 23 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Regional Trial Courts which may be designated by the Supreme Court to try agrarian cases are required under Section 24 thereof to apply the special rules of procedure applicable under present laws until such time that said rules are amended by law or by the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.

WHEREFORE, the Order dated January 3, 1979 dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 2547 is hereby Set Aside and the case is Remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Nueva Vizcaya for further proceedings.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



** (a) Cases involving the rights and obligation of persons in cultivation and use of agricultural land . . .;

(b) Questions involving rights granted and obligations imposed by law, presidential decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations issued and promulgations in relation to the agrarian reform program . . .;

(c) Cases involving the collection of amortization on payment for lands acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended, . . . . (Sec. 12, PD 946).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





November-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 32982 November 5, 1991 - CONRADO A. ZARAGOSA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90667 November 5, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • Adm.Matter No. RTJ-90-446 November 7, 1991 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JOSE T. BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 75968 November 7, 1991 - ANTONIO BENOLIRAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75028 November 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIOQUINTO C. DE JOYA

  • G.R. No. 78853 November 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROEL PUNZALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86784 November 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CAVITE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93252 November 8, 1991 - RODOLFO T. GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45107 November 11, 1991 - BENEDICTO RAMOS v. ELVIRO L. PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52740 November 12, 1991 - SPS. EUSEBIO ABRIN, ET AL. v. VICENTE R. CAMPOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87590 November 12, 1991 - PURIFICATION R. QUIZON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50433 November 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO BARBA

  • G.R. No. 55346 November 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS SALDIVIA

  • G.R. No. 58281 November 13, 1991 - DIONISIO GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MARCELO GEALONE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60887 November 13, 1991 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72275 November 13, 1991 - PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86738 November 13, 1991 - NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92541 November 13, 1991 - MA. CARMEN G. AQUINO-SARMIENTO v. MANUEL L. MORATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96094-95 November 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSIE MAYORAL

  • G.R. No. 101041 November 13, 1991 - JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58879 November 14, 1991 - EXPEDITA LIBREA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62359 November 14, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BRAGAES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73992 November 14, 1991 - ERNESTO MABAYLAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 93847-48 November 14, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO TORREVILLAS

  • G.R. No. 75420 November 15, 1991 - KABUSHI KAISHA ISETAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94716 November 15, 1991 - ASSOCIATION OF COURT OF APPEALS EMPLOYEES v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 27923 November 18, 1991 - MARCELA N. GONZALES v. GUMERSINDO ARCILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 37404 November 18, 1991 - EDUARDO COJUANGCO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57256 November 18, 1991 - RODOLFO B. INALDO, ET AL. v. CECILIO F. BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 64129-31 November 18, 1991 - FERMINA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95850 November 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENEE PAROJINOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101844 November 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 79496 November 19, 1991 - SOLID ENGINEERING & MACHINE WORKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85771 November 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BAYANI DE LOS REYES

  • G.R. No. 91729 November 19, 1991 - MERCEDES ANICETA GARCIA, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR G. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 94787 November 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO URQUIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991 - EDUARDO ARROYO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97793 November 19, 1991 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991 - JOSE F.S. BENGZON JR., ET AL. v. SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39120 November 21, 1991 - APOLONIO MADRONA, SR. v. AVELINO S. ROSAL

  • G.R. No. 39519 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL PINTO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 45037 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE VS. CASTRO-BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 49576 November 21, 1991 - JOSEFINA B. CENAS v. ANTONIO P. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 53476 November 21, 1991 - G & P COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 54135 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO RAFANAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 60388 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTITO BACUS

  • G.R. No. 65021 November 21, 1991 - BENGUET CORP. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE

  • G.R. No. 66497 November 21, 1991 - JUANITO GONZALES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 71145 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. CAPONPON

  • G.R. No. 72990 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BADEO

  • G.R. No. 73747 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DENNIS SONG

  • G.R. No. 75111 November 21, 1991 - MARGARITO ALMENDRA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 82789 November 21, 1991 - NARCISO KHO v. MANUEL CAMACHO

  • G.R. No. 84272 November 21, 1991 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84966 November 21, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86785 November 21, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88381-82 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL E. TAPONG

  • G.R. No. 88555 November 21, 1991 - EDUARDO N. ASWAT v. ALEJANDRO GALIDO

  • G.R. No. 90478 November 21, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 91013 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TIAD

  • G.R. No. 91896 November 21, 1991 - AURORA T. AQUINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 93310-12 November 21, 1991 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 93732 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON CARSON

  • G.R. No. 94050 November 21, 1991 - SYLVIA H. BEDIA v. EMILY A. WHITE

  • G.R. No. 94642 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO C. ATILANO

  • G.R. No. 96397 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELENCIO "BAROC" MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 63025 November 29, 1991 - RAMON C. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 74697 November 29, 1991 - LINO ALABANZAS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 85714 November 29, 1991 - HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORP. v. COURT ON APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89113 November 29, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO LARDIZABAL

  • G.R. No. 89362 November 29, 1991 - JOSE BARITUA v. SEC. OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 90627 November 29, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON R. LAO

  • G.R. No. 93262 November 29, 1991 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96302 November 29, 1991 - AMBROCIO MUYCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100626 November 29, 1991 - CITY OF MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS