Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > August 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4827 August 27, 1953 - JACINTO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO UNGSON, ET AL.

093 Phil 645:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4827. August 27, 1953.]

JACINTO DE GUZMAN, ET AL., Petitioners, v. VICTORIANO UNGSON, ET AL., Respondents.

Onofre P. Guevara, for Petitioners.

Pedro Villamor in his own behalf.

Fernando M. Braganza for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. JURISDICTION; EJECTMENT; TENANCY LAW. — It appearing from the evidence that occupants of the lands in question were mere lessees paying fixed rentals for the lots respectively held by them, and that they actually did not work and cultivate the land but on the contrary sublet the same to others who actually worked and cultivated said lots, — it is the justice of the peace court, not the Department of Justice which had jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


In 1948 Victoriano Ungson and others, hereafter to be referred to as the respondents, filed several complaints for unlawful detainer against Jacinto de Guzman and others, hereafter to be referred to as the petitioners, covering various parcels of land situated in Alaminos, Pangasinan. Failing to appear and answer, the petitioners were declared in default by the justice of the peace of Alaminos, and corresponding judgments were entered against them on different dates in 1948. The petitioners appealed to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan but, upon motion of the respondents, the appeals were dismissed on the ground that, having previously defaulted, the petitioners had lost their standing in court. The justice of the peace of Alaminos subsequently not only refused to execute the final judgments in the detainer cases but, at the instance of the petitioners, proceeded to convert into and hear them as tenancy cases for ejectment, for the alleged reason that the relation between the petitioners and the respondents was one of tenancy under Commonwealth Act No. 461 as amended by Republic Act No. 44. This led to the filing by the respondents in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan of a special civil action for mandamus against the justice of the peace of Alaminos and the petitioners, to compel the former to execute his final judgments. After the issues had been joined, the trial was set for February 24, 1950, but as the petitioners failed to appear, it was postponed to March 14, 1950, when the petitioners again did not show up notwithstanding due notice. After receiving the evidence for the respondents, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan still allowed the petitioners to present their evidence on July 7, 1950, which they also failed to do. The court, thus considering the case submitted, rendered its decision dated September 27, 1950, directing the justice of the peace of Alaminos to order the execution of the judgments in the detainer cases; and as the petitioners were unable to perfect any appeal, this decision had become final.

Under date of May 29, 1951, however, the petitioners instituted the present petition for certiorari, to annul all the judicial proceedings above mentioned on the ground that both the justice of the peace of Alaminos and the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan had no jurisdiction, as the relation between the petitioners and the respondents was one of tenancy falling within the province of the Department of Justice.

It appearing from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in the mandamus case that no evidence whatsoever was presented by the petitioners to prove that their contract with the respondents was one of tenancy, we have absolutely no basis for finding, as the petitioners would want this Court to do, that they are tenants of the respondents under Commonwealth Act No. 461 as amended by Republic Act No. 44. Upon the other hand, the respondents had proved in the lower courts that the petitioners were mere lessees of the respondents, paying fixed rentals for the lots respectively held by the petitioners; that the latter actually did not work and cultivate the land, but on the contrary sublet the same to others who have joined as co-petitioners and who actually worked and cultivated said lots. Under the law, the tenant is required to work and cultivate the land. The petitioners could have availed themselves of the ample remedy of appealing from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in the mandamus case which directly involved the question whether there was a tenancy relation between the petitioners and the respondents. As the judgments in the detainer cases and the mandamus proceedings had become final and in fact had already been executed, the facts established therein should now be conclusive.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is dismissed, and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioners.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, 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






August-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5968 August 5, 1953 - CLARO RIVERA, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO OCAMPO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-4933 August 6, 1953 - PLACIDO NACUA v. ZACARIAS ALO

    093 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-6056 August 11, 1953 - TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    093 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. L-4842 August 20, 1953 - YU GOAT v. RESTITUTO HUGO

    093 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-5214 August 21, 1953 - INOCENCIO SIPIN, ET AL. v. FILADELFO S. ROJAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. L-5275 August 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO DASIG

    093 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-6096 August 25, 1953 - NICANOR JACINTO v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-5588 August 26, 1953 - SALVADOR E. BIMEDA v. ARCADIO PEREZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. L-3607 August 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO E. BERNARDINO

    093 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-4371 August 27, 1953 - MARIA GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4827 August 27, 1953 - JACINTO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO UNGSON, ET AL.

    093 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. L-5793 August 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ESTOISTA

    093 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-5197 August 28, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO GAMMUAC

    093 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-4083 August 31, 1953 - L. F. LANG v. ACTING PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF SURIGAO

    093 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-4689 August 31, 1953 - JOSE T. VALENZUELA v. JOSE I. BAKANI

    093 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-4900 August 31, 1953 - FINANCING CORPORATION OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-5054 August 31, 1953 - ENRIQUE A. GARCIA v. NATIVIDAD DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-5113 August 31, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPINO TANGBAOAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-5180 August 31, 1953 - CONSEJO INFANTE v. JOSE CUNANAN

    093 Phil 691

  • G.R. Nos. L-6355-56 August 31, 1953 - PASTOR M. ENDENCIA, ET AL. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    093 Phil 696