Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > July 1981 Decisions > [G.R. No. 52488 : July 25, 1981.] ORTIGAS & COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO F. BELMONTE, Respondents.:




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 52488 : July 25, 1981.]

ORTIGAS & COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO F. BELMONTE, Respondents.

 

D E C I S I O N

 

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

 

Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 12, 1979, in CA-G.R. No. 08609-SP, which set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dated September 22, 1978, in Civil Case No. 28389, which had affirmed in toto the judgment on the pleadings rendered by the Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal, dated December 19, 1976, in Civil Case No. 3773.

On March 25, 1974, Ortigas and Company, Limited Partnership, hereinafter referred to as Ortigas, filed with the Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal, a complaint for unlawful detainer against Maximo F. Belmonte, praying that after hearing, judgment be rendered — cranad(1) ordering the defendant, his heirs, assigns or successors-in-interests to vacate the subject lot and surrender full control thereof to the plaintiff; cranad(2) declaring the residential building constructed on the lot by the defendant as forfeited in plaintiff's favor; and cranad(3) condemning the defendant to pay a monthly rent of P5,000.00 from July 18, 1971, up to the time he vacates the premises; attorney's fees in the amount of P7,000.00; exemplary damages in such amount as the court may fix; and the costs. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 3773.

After the defendant had filed his answer, the Municipal Court of San Juan, upon motion of the plaintiff, rendered a judgment on the pleadings dated December 19, 1976, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby grants plaintiff-partnership's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings dated January 31, 1975, as follows:

(1) Ordering the defendant and all persons claiming right under him to vacate the premises designated as Lot 6, Block 31, Psd-66759 with an area of 840 square meters, more or less, situated at Greenhills Subdivision 4, San Juan, Rizal and surrender possession of the same to the plaintiff-partnership;

(2) Declaring all the improvements constructed in the said premises forfeited in favor of the plaintiff-partnership;

(3) Ordering the defendant to pay the monthly rental of P2,500.00 a month starting from July 18, 1971 up to the time defendant actually vacates said premises; and

(4) Ordering the defendant to pay attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00 and to pay the costs of suit.

"SO ORDERED."

After a motion for reconsideration was denied, Belmonte appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal which docketed the same as Civil Case No. 28389. Instead of filing a memorandum in support of his appeal, Belmonte filed on February 13, 1978, a motion to dismiss under Sec. 11, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court which provides:

"SECTION 11. Lack of Jurisdiction. — A case tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be dismissed on appeal by the Court of First Instance. But instead of dismissing the case, the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, may try the case on the merits if the parties therein file their pleadings and go to the trial without any objection to such jurisdiction."

Alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of San Juan and manifesting his objection to the exercise by the Court of First Instance of Rizal of its original jurisdiction, Belmonte sought the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3773. The Court of First Instance of Rizal, however, denied the motion to dismiss and subsequently rendered a decision dated September 22, 1978, affirming in toto the judgment of the Municipal Court of San Juan. Said Court of First Instance of Rizal likewise issued a writ of execution dated November 7, 1978.

On December 1, 1978, Belmonte simultaneously filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal a notice of appeal and with the Court of Appeals a motion to extend time to file petition for review. In a resolution dated December 7, 1978, the Court of Appeals granted Belmonte an extension of twenty cranad(20) days from December 4, 1978, within which to file a petition for review. On December 20, 1978, Belmonte filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for Certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, assailing: cranad(a) the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of San Juan and the Court of First Instance of Rizal; cranad(b) the propriety or validity of the judgment on the pleadings rendered by the Municipal Court of San Juan; and cranad(c) the propriety or validity of the Writ of Execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

Docketed as CA-G.R. No. 08609-SP, the petition was given due course by the Court of Appeals which subsequently rendered a decision dated October 12, 1979, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the municipal court of San Juan, Metro Manila, as well as the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal aforesaid, are hereby SET ASIDE. No costs."

The Court of Appeals held that the Municipal Court of San Juan had no jurisdiction over the case nor the power to resolve controverted issues on the pleadings.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by Ortigas but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated January 15, 1980. Hence, Ortigas filed with this Court the present petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

After analyzing the issues raised by Belmonte before the Court of Appeals and resolved by said court in the decision under review, namely: cranad(a) the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of San Juan and of the Court of First Instance of Rizal; cranad(b) the propriety or validity of the judgment on the pleadings rendered by the Municipal Court of Rizal; and cranad(c) the propriety or validity of the Writ of Execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, We find that the same are purely legal in nature. Since appellate jurisdiction over cases involving purely legal questions is exclusively vested in this Court by Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act cranad(R.A. No. 296), it is readily apparent that the decision under review was rendered by the Court of Appeals without jurisdiction and should, therefore, be set aside. It is for this reason that We resolved on June 8, 1981, to give due course to the petition for review and to consider the same as submitted for decision.

But as We set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 12, 1979, for having been rendered without jurisdiction, We proceed with the review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dated September 22, 1978, and the judgment of the Municipal Court of San Juan dated December 19, 1976, which said decision affirmed in toto, considering that the appeal therefrom was perfected on time, albeit erroneously brought to the Court of Appeals. This is in consonance with the spirit of Sec. 31 of the Judiciary Act cranad(R.A. No. 296, as amended) which provides that "(a)ll cases which may be erroneously brought to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals shall be sent to the proper court which shall hear the same as if it has originally been brought before it."

In support of his contention that the Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal, did not have jurisdiction over the case filed by Ortigas, Maximo F. Belmonte cited in his comment to Ortigas' petition for review cranad(which We considered as his answer to the petition) the case of FUENTES AND GO TEK vs. HON. MUÑOZ PALMA, ETC., AND AYALA SECURITIES, INC. cranad(G.R. No. L-15074, May 31, 1960, 108 Phil. 640). We have reviewed Our decision in said case and We find the material facts thereof to be almost identical to those of the case at bar, namely: cranad(1) both cases involved complaints for unlawful detainer filed against defendants who acquired possession of the subject lots by virtue of agreements whereby the plaintiffs had contracted to sell the subject lots and the defendants had in turn bound themselves to pay the downpayments and the subsequent monthly installments on the purchase prices of said lots; cranad(2) the agreements in both cases allowed the purchasers to take possession of the subject lots and to construct thereon buildings and/or other permanent improvements but specified that before full payment of the purchase prices, the purchasers would be considered as mere tenants or lessees of the subject lots; cranad(3) the agreements in both cases further provided that should the purchasers fail to pay any of the monthly installments within ninety cranad(90) days from its due date, the contracts shall automatically be cancelled and all sums of money paid under the same shall be considered as rentals on the property and the purchasers may be ejected therefrom by the means provided for by law for trespassers or unlawful detainers; cranad(4) in both cases, the purchasers took possession of the subject lots after having made the downpayment and constructed thereon buildings and/or other permanent improvements; cranad(5) in both cases, the purchasers failed to pay the monthly installments which became due, prompting the plaintiffs to file the complaints for unlawful detainer which sought to eject the purchasers-defendants from the subject lots; and cranad(6) the complaints for unlawful detainer in both cases contained prayers affecting the property rights of the parties in the permanent improvements constructed on the subject lots — in the cited case, Ayala Securities, Inc. prayed for the removal of the warehouses, garages and other permanent improvements constructed by defendant Fuentes on the subject lots while in the case at bar, Ortigas prayed that the residential building constructed by defendant Belmonte on the subject lot be declared forfeited in its favor.

After noting that "(a)n action for unlawful detainer, which is a summary proceeding to wrest possession from one who has no right thereto, is applicable only when the issue is that of possession; but rights of property in the land created by the Agreements, especially the relative rights and obligations of the parties to the improvements are directly involved", this Court held in the cited case that the Justice of the Peace Court cranad(now Municipal Court) of Makati did not have jurisdiction over the action filed by Ayala Securities, Inc., as the same involved rights over the real property, other than mere right of possession. Thus, this Court declared null and void the proceedings in the court below and dismissed the unlawful detainer case filed by Ayala Securities, Inc.

We find the above ruling applicable to the case at bar.

As stated, the complaint for unlawful detainer filed with the Municipal Court of San Juan sought not only the ejectment of the defendant from the subject lot, but likewise prayed that the residential building constructed by him on the same lot be declared forfeited in plaintiff's favor. Clearly, the issues raised before said inferior court did not only involve possession of the lot but also the rights and obligations of the parties to the residential building which under Art. 415(1) of the Civil Code is considered real property. Plaintiff's prayer that said building be declared forfeited in its favor directly puts in issue the ownership of said real property.

Since the issues raised by Ortigas before the Municipal Court of San Juan in Civil Case No. 3773 exceeded the allowable scope of an unlawful detainer suit which should be limited to the issue of possession of real property, the case could not qualify as an exception to the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance under Sec. 44(b) of the Judiciary Act which provides:

"SECTION 44. Original Jurisdiction. — Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction:

x x x

(b) In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, or the legality of any tax, impost or assessment, except actions of forcible entry into and detainer on lands or buildings, original jurisdiction of which is conferred by this Act upon city and municipal courts;"

Consequently, the Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal, did not have jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 3773. Its judgment dated December 19, 1976, should therefore be set aside.

Since Civil Case No. 3773 was decided by the Municipal Court of San Juan without jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof, said case should have been dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Rizal when the same was brought before it on appeal. Section 11, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which We have heretofore quoted, provides for an instance when the Court of First Instance of Rizal cranad(to which original jurisdiction over the case filed by Ortigas properly belonged) could have validly assumed original jurisdiction over the case. But that provision is inapplicable to the case at bar since Belmonte expressly objected to assumption of jurisdiction by the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of First Instance dated September 22, 1978, should likewise be set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, without prejudice to the right of Ortigas to file the proper action with the proper court, the following are hereby set aside for lack of jurisdiction: cranad(1) the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 12, 1979, in CA-G.R. No. 08609-SP; cranad(2) the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dated September 22, 1978, in Civil Case No. 28389; and cranad(3) the judgment on the pleadings rendered by the Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal in Civil Case No. 3773. No pronouncement as to costs.

 

SO ORDERED.

Barredo , Aquino, Concepcion, Jr. and De Castro, JJ., concur.

 




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





July-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.M. No. 2440-CFI : July 25, 1981.] IGLESIA NI CRISTO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE LEOPOLDO B. GIRONELLA, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ABRA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-27402 : July 25, 1981.] GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT LEONORA NAVARRO AND THE MINORS ADOLFO YUSON AND OTHERS, ELDEGARDES YUSON DE PUA, Judicial Guardian-Appellant, vs. JUSTINIANO SAN AGUSTIN, Movant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-37425 : July 25, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LITO REVOTOC y BELARMINO, SATURNINO DIAZ y RESQUED and FREDDIE DE VERA y SEBASTIAN, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-49028 : July 25, 1981.] FRANCISCA ALCAIDE, TITO VICERA and IGNACIO PALCON, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE EUFROCINIO S. DELA MERCED, MUNICIPAL JUDGE PEDRO J. CALLEJO JR. and CESARIO BENEDITO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 49634-36 : July 25, 1981.] BENJAMIN V. GUIANG and NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG; AURELIO B. HIQUIANA and PASTORA O. HIQUIANA, Petitioners, vs. FILOMENO C. KINTANAR and CORAZON B. KINTANAR; CORA ANN B. KINTANAR, CORA LOU B. KINTANAR, FIL ROGER B. KINTANAR, Private Respondents, and Hon. Judge SERGIO APOSTOL, Quezon City Court of First Instance, Branch XVI, Quezon City, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 49634-36 : July 25, 1981.] BENJAMIN V. GUIANG and NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG; AURELIO B. HIQUIANA and PASTORA O. HIQUIANA, Petitioners, vs. FILOMENO C. KINTANAR and CORAZON B. KINTANAR; CORA ANN B. KINTANAR, CORA LOU B. KINTANAR, FIL ROGER B. KINTANAR, Private Respondents, and Hon. Judge SERGIO APOSTOL, Quezon City Court of First Instance, Branch XVI, Quezon City, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-51363 : July 25, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FEDERICO CUISON Y PRESTOZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-51785 : July 25, 1981.] THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IX, QUEZON CITY, and ELENA ONG ESCUTIN, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and FELIX ONG, Respondents. GAN HENG, Intervenor.

  • [G.R. No. 52488 : July 25, 1981.] ORTIGAS & COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO F. BELMONTE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-31705 : July 27, 1981.] MARCELO D. MENDIOLA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MAXIMO VITUG, PRAGMACIO VITUG, CONCORDIA KABILING and MARIA FAJARDO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-50031-32 : July 27, 1981.] CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ISIDRO E. FERNANDEZ, and JESUS R. JAYME, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-27331 : July 30, 1981.] ELISEO ALIMPOOS, CIRIACA ALIMPOOS, SGT. MILLARDO M. PATES, PEDRO BACLAY, CATALINO YAMILO, RAFAEL CAPANGPANGAN, DALMACIO YGOT and EUFROCINA ESTORES, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE JUDGE MONTANO A. ORTIZ, REYNALDO MOSQUITO and MATILDE ABASTILLAS MOSQUITO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-28373 : July 30, 1981.] JOSEFINA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband RAMON DE LA RAMA, and LETICIA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband PORFIRIO BLANCAFLOR, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ANITA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband ROSENDO DE LA RAMA; CAROLINA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband ISIDRO LACSON and MARIA VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband EUSEBIO LOPEZ, Respondents. [G.R. No. L-30252 : July 30, 1981.] ANITA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband ROSENDO DE LA RAMA; CAROLINA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband ISIDRO LACSON; and MARIA VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband EUSEBIO LOPEZ, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JOSEFINA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband RAMON DE LA RAMA; and LETICIA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband PORFIRIO BLANCAFLOR, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-45640 : July 30, 1981.] FELOMINO RAMIREZ and RUSTICO VALDEZ, Petitioners, vs. HON. ILDEFONSO BLEZA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, HON. ZACARIAS V. GARCIA, Municipal Judge of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, PABLO QUIJOL, ABEDIANO GAANAN, and DR. CONSTANCIO BONDAL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-50065 : July 30, 1981.] PERSHING TAN QUETO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. CARMELITO, RUFO, HERACLEO and ELENA, all surnamed CANDONGO, and VICENTE CALIMPONG, representing deceased wife, BENITA CANDONGO, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-52431 : July 30, 1981.] RODOLFO FARIÑAS, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANTONIO F. LAZO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-55398 : July 30, 1981.] REGINA STA. ROMANA VDA. DE ALCANTARA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE CORONA IBAY SOMERA in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of La Union cranad(Balaoan), JOAQUIN STA. ROMANA and JOSE DELA PEÑA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-55629 : July 30, 1981.] MAGDALENA RAMO, NARCISO ALBARRACIN, ANTONIO DUMLAO and NORMA RICAFORT, Petitioners, vs. INOCENCIA ELEFAÑO and HON. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch IV, Court of First Instance of Leyte, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-56028 : July 30, 1981.] NILO A. MALANYAON, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. HON. ESTEBAN M. LISING, as Judge of the CFI of Camarines Sur, Br. VI, and CESARIO GOLETA, as Municipal Treasurer of Bula, Camarines Sur, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [A.M. No. P-1176 : July 31, 1981.] DR. SY TIAN TIN, Complainant, vs. ROLANDO MACAPUGAY, Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Malolos, Bulacan, Respondent.

  • [A.C. No. 1377 : July 31, 1981.] DORIS R. RADAZA, Complainant, vs. ROBERTO T. TEJANO, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. 2040-MJ : July 31, 1981.] ALEJANDRA G. LEGASPI, Complainant, vs. HON. GIDEON DE PEDRO, Circuit Municipal Judge of Ibajay-Nabas, Ibajay, Aklan, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. P-2108 : July 31, 1981.] BENJAMIN BARRERA, Petitioner, vs. MARTY DESACADA, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. 2380-CFI : July 31, 1981.] ROMULADO BAYLEN, Complainant, vs. HON. SANCHO INSERTO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch I, Iloilo City, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. 2428-CFI : July 31, 1981.] JESUS O. TUAZON, Petitioner, vs. HON. ELVIRO L. PERALTA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-26274 : July 31, 1981.] ALPHA INSURANCE AND SURETY CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ESPERANZA C. REYES, ARTURO R. REYES and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-30051 : July 31, 1981.] NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-30722-25 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CONRADO SAN MIGUEL, JESUS BUENAVENTURA, GONZALO PEREZ, ALIPIO PEREZ, RICARDO PEREZ and RAUL MENDOZA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-31605 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PANFILO BLAS, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-36162 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PAULITO GARCIA and PABLO CANONIGO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-37641 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTONIO AGBOT, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-37836 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CLAUDIO BULAONG and FONSO LAURECIO, Accused-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-38652 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRISTITUTO LARIOSA alias “Totot”, Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-44371 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VITALIANO CIRIA @ Mano, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-46558 : July 31, 1981.] PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and JESUS V. SAMSON, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-47847 : July 31, 1981.] DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MANUELA PASTOR, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 50044 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO PEREZ y LANA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-50320 : July 31, 1981.] PHILIPPINE APPAREL WORKERS UNION, Petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE APPAREL, INC., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-51218 : July 31, 1981.] MARY DE V. FRAUENDORFF, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE JOSE R. CASTRO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IX, ZODIAC PHARMACEUTICAL CO., INC. & SAMTOP INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-51414 : July 31, 1981.] PAQUITO G. BALASABAS, Petitioner, vs. HON. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN, Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Cotabato City, Respondent.