ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 139163. October 25, 1999]
ROMAN LUMBRES vs. CIPRIANO BARIT, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution if this Court dated OCT 25, 1999.
G.R. No. 139163 (Roman Lumbres vs. Cipriano Barit, et al.)
Petitioner Roman Lumbres would seek o annul the decision, dated 19 June 1999, of the Court of Appeals which upheld the decision, dated 20 August 1997, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 06, of Tanauan, Batangas which, in turn, reversed and set aside the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, dismissing the complaint filed by herein respondent Cipriano Barit for lack of jurisdiction.
The action before the Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, is a complaint for illegal detainer filed by herein respondent Cipriano Barit against petitioner Roman Lumbres. The Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action and/or jurisdiction thereby sustaining the claim of petitioner Lumbres that it had no jurisdiction to try and hear the case for being supposedly within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, reversed the dismissal order, it held:
"Although the instant case involves an agricultural land, it does not automatically make such case an agrarian dispute over which the DARAB has jurisdiction. The allegations in the Answer do not show the existence of an agrarian dispute. The law states that an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. Except for his allegations, the affidavit executed by three persons and a certification issued y the BARC Chairman, defendant-appellee did not have any other supporting documents to prove the existence of a tenancy relation between him and the plaintiff-appellant or between Maria Manaig, mother of defendant-appellee, and the plaintiff-appellant.
"x x x� x x x
"In this instant case, there is no allegation that defendant Roman Lumbres was even installed as a farmer-tenant of Cipriano Barit nor that he shared the produce of the land with the landowner. All he claims to present as stated in page 3 of his position paper are that ' the parties are landowner and tenant; subject is agricultural land; and the purpose is agricultural production; and there is personal cultivation.' As jurisprudence dictates the absence of even one of the requisites rules against a finding that the occupant of a parcel of land is a tenant thereof."
On the above basis, the Regional Trial Court decreed:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby reversed and set aside and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff-appellant Cipriano Barit and against defendant-appellee Roman Lumbres and all persons claiming title under him ordering Roman Lumbres: to vacate the leased premises located at Tanauan Branch, Province of Batangas and surrender peaceful possession of the same to Cipriano Barit; to pay Cipriano Barit the sum of P1,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the us eof said land starting January 1, 1996 until such time that the vacates the same; and to pay Cipriano Barit the sum of P10,000.00 as litigation expenses and attorney's fees."
Petitioner Lumbres moved for reconsideration but it was to no avail.
On 12 February 1998, petitioner filed with the appellate court a petition for review, docketed Court of Appeals-G.R. SP. No. 46807, with a prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order, alleging that the decision was void because the respondent Regional Trial Court had "no jurisdiction" over the subject-matter of the case. On 26 February 1998, the Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals denied the petition. No motion for reconsideration was filed, nor was an appeal to the Supreme Court taken from the adverse resolution.
Petitioner, instead, filed a petition for annulment to the Court of Appeals directed against the decision of the Regional Trial Court. In its now assailed decision, the appellate court denied the petition and upheld the questioned decision.
In the instant recourse, the following issues were raised by petitioner.
"I.������ THAT THE JURISDICTION TO TRY AGRARIAN CASE IS ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD AS VESTED BY STATUTORY LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE."
"II.����� THAT THERE EXISTS A TENANCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT."
The petition should be DENIED; in dismissing the petition for annulment, the appellate court correctly ratiocinated:
"Section 1, Rule 47, of the Revised Rules of Court, provides that the rule:
"x x x shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolution in civil actions f Regional Trial Court for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner."
"Under the aforequoted rule, petition for annulment of judgment is available where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of petitioner. Petitioner already availed of the petition for review in Court of Appeals-G.R. SP-46807. Due to his fault or inaction, the resolution dismissing his said petition became final and Entry of Judgment was entered on 21 March 1998.
"The fundamental principle in our judicial system is that every litigation must come to an end. While access to courts is guaranteed, that access has a limit because once the right of a litigant has been adjudicated in a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, he has no unbridled license to come back for another try, otherwise, the prevailing party can be harassed by subsequent suits. And if endless litigations were to be encouraged, unscrupulous litigants will multiply in number to the detriment of the administration of justice.
"The issue raised in this petition is a repeat of the same matter raised in Court of Appeals-G.R. SO No. 46807. Ibaba vs. intermediate Appellate Court, 16 SCRA 76, supports our view that a party 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 causes of action shall not be twice litigated.
"There is no ground to justify the annulment of the final judgment of respondent court. Petitioner's contention that the case involves agrarian matters, hence, respondent court lacks jurisdiction to try the same, deserves scant consideration. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a case is determined from the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein-a matter that is resolved after and as result of the trial. The question of jurisdiction cannot be made to depend on the defense in defendant's answer or in his motion to dismiss, otherwise, that question would depend almost entirely upon the defendant." 1 [Rollo, pp. 32-33.] (Emphasis supplied)
No reversible error having been committed by the Court of Appeals in rendering its now assailed decision, the instant petition for review must fail.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
