Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

There are before us for review the following: (1) the decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch 3, in Civil Case No. 13823; and (2) the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, 11th Judicial District, in CAR Case No. 76. Both of these decisions dismissed the petitioners’ complaints for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioners Ramona R. Locsin, Teresita R. Guanzon, Celina R. Sibug, Ma. Lusia R. Perez, Editha R. Ylanan and Ana Marie R. Benedicto were co-owners of a large tract of agricultural land known as "Hacienda Villa Regalado" located in Barrio Panubigan, Canlaon City, Negros Occidental. The tract of land was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-494 and there more particularly described in the following terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

NO. T-494

A parcel of land (Lot 2-G of the subdivision plan Psd-28446, Sheet 2, being a portion of Lot 2 (remaining portion) described in plan II-6992, G.L.R.O. Record No. 133), situated in the Barrio of Panubigan, Municipality of Canlaon, Province of Negros Occidental, Bounded on the N., by Lot 2-A of the subdivision plan; on the E., and S., by Binalbagan River; on the W., by Lot 2-E of the subdivision plan; on the NW., by Lots 2-F and 2-A of the subdivision plan. . . . containing an area of THREE MILLION THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND AND FORTY EIGHT (3,033,048) square meters, more or less." 1

A portion of this land, known as Lot No. 2-C-A-3 and consisting of an area of 60.07464 hectares, was subject to the lifetime usufructuary rights of respondent Helen Schon. The bulk of this lot was cultivated by the following lessees-tenants who customarily delivered the rentals to Helen Schon:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"TENANTS

1. Carlos Panaligan 2.00 Ha.

2. Amado Marquez 1.50 Ha.

3. Herbert Pedros 1.50 Ha.

4. Antonio Feliciano, Jr. 2.00 Ha.

5. Hugo Aguilos 3.50 Ha.

6. Alberto Gubaton 8.90 Ha.

7. Hulo Aguilos 1.32 Ha.

8. Julia Vda. de Esquelito 2.25 Ha.

9. Carlos Panaligan 1.25 Ha.

10. Serafin Jandoquele 5.35 Ha.

11. Seferias Esquesida 2.00 Ha.

12. Carlos de la Cruz 4.70 Ha.

13. Elesio Gelongos 3.00 Ha.

14. Espindion Jocson 5.55 Ha.

15. Salvador Muñon 1.5884 Ha.

16. Ulfiano Alegria 1.85 Ha.

17. Ireneo Balera 8.30 Ha.

[TOTAL 56.555 Ha." 2

==========

On 22 October 1972, after the onset of the martial law administration of former President Marcos, Presidential Decree No. 27 was promulgated, decreeing the "Emancipation of Tenants." The tract of land owned in common by the petitioners, including the portion thereof subject to Helen Schon’s usufructuary rights, fell within the scope of "Operation Land Transfer." In consequence, staff members of the Department of Agrarian Relations identified the tenant-tillers of said land, and the necessary parcellary map sketch was made and submitted to the Bureau of Lands Office in Dumaguete City. 3 Petitioners through counsel sought the opinion of the DAR as to who (petitioners or respondent Helen Schon) should be entitled to receive the rental payments which continued to be made by the respondent tenants to Helen Schon. The DAR District Officer rendered an opinion on 30 May 1977 that the rental payments as of 22 October 1972 were properly considered as amortization payments for the land and as such should pertain to the land-owners and not to the usufructuary. 4

1. Civil Case No. 13828, Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.

On 22 May 1978, petitioners filed against the spouses Joseph and Helen Schon Civil Case No. 13828 in the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, for collection of rentals plus damages with prayer for preliminary injunction. There petitioners claimed that since the land subject to Helen Schon’s usufructuary rights was among the parcels of land which collectively had been declared by the DAR as a land reform area pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, the rental payments which the respondent spouses had been collecting from the tenants really pertained and should be delivered to petitioners, beginning from 21 October 1972, as constituting or forming part of the amortization payments for the land to be made by the tenants. Petitioners sought in that case to recover from the Schons all such previous rentals or the money value thereof, and prayed for injunction to prevent the respondents from collecting any further rental payments from the tenants of the land involved.

Upon the other hand, in their Answer filed on 12 July 1978, the respondents Schon contended that under the provisions of Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946 dated 17 June 1976, and given the facts involved in Civil Case No. 13823, the Court of First Instance was bereft of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. That jurisdiction, the Schon spouses urged, was vested in the CAR instead. Respondents further argued that, upon the assumption arguendo that the Court of First Instance did have jurisdiction, Article 609 of the Civil Code must in any case be applied by that court in resolving the case. 5

2. CAR Case No. 76, Court of Agrarian Relations.

Approximately five (5) months after filing their complaint before the Negros Occidental Court of First Instance, petitioners filed a second complaint on 13 October 1978, this time with the Court of Agrarian Relations, 11th Judicial District, San Carlos City. In this complaint before the Agrarian Court, petitioners impleaded as co-respondents of the spouses Schon the tenants who were cultivating the land burdened with the usufruct of Helen Schon. Petitioners prayed that the respondent tenants be required to pay to petitioners (rather than to the spouses Schon) all future rentals beginning with the crop year of 1978 and every year thereafter, until full payment of the amortization payments computed by the DAR. In their Answer, the respondents Schon once again asserted lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, this time on the part of the Court of Agrarian Relations. Respondents contended that the dispute between petitioners and respondents Schon related to the continued existence or termination of the usufructuary rights of Helen Schon, which issue did not constitute an agrarian dispute and therefore had to be litigated elsewhere, i.e., before the regular courts of first instance.

The respondent tenants, for their part, agreed with the Schons that there was no tenancy relationship existing in respect of the land cultivated by them, since such land had already been brought within the ambit of "Operation Land Transfer", and prayed that the petitioners and the usufructuary be required to litigate among themselves their respective rights before the proper court.

3. Dismissal of Civil Case No. 13823 and CAR Case No. 76.

On 15 February 1979, the Agrarian Court rendered a decision dismissing petitioners’ complaint in CAR Case No. 76. The Court of Agrarian Relations held that it had no jurisdiction to decide the case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . it is crystal clear that the contending parties are actually Ramona R. Locsin, Et Al., and the naked owners of 101 hectares of subject agricultural land, on one hand, and Helen Bennett-Schon, who is the usufructuary of the same land, on the other.

For all legal intents and purposes, Helen Bennett-Schon belongs to the category of a landowner, since she is the recipient of any and all fruits derived from the land of which the plaintiffs are the naked owners. The usufruct lasts for as long as Helen Bennett-Schon lives. Therefore, this case actually is a dispute between two landowners — one, the naked owners, the other, the beneficial owner — whose controversy revolves on who of them should receive the rentals being paid by the tenants or lessees on the land in question. Consequently, there is as between the two contending parties, no agrarian dispute which this Court may take cognizance of . Under the circumstances, it is the considered stand of this Court that it is not the proper forum both with respect to the second amended complaint and with respect to the petition for appointment of a receiver.

WHEREFORE, RESOLVING BOTH THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, THE LATTER BEING ONLY A REPLAY OF THE FORMER, BOTH ARE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (pp. 7-8 Decision)." 6

Petitioners appealed the decision of the Agrarian Court to the Court of Appeals, the appeal being there docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP No. 09-440. In a Decision dated 27 November 1979, however, the Court of Appeals ruled that since the only issue presented in the appeal was whether or not the Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction to try and decide CAR Case No. 76, the appeal raised "a pure question of law" and certified the case to the Supreme Court for the latter’s disposition.

We turn to Civil Case No. 13823. On 16 March 1979, the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental issued an order also dismissing the complaint of petitioners on the same ground of lack of jurisdiction to hear and decide that case. The Court of First Instance held that it was the Court of Agrarian Relations that had jurisdiction over the case, and rationalized this position in the following manner:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"In determining whether this Court has jurisdiction, necessarily, a determination should first be made as to the nature of the lease rentals that were being paid to the defendants by the tenants-lessees. There is no question that on May 30, 1977, the Provincial Chairman of Operation Land Transfer rendered an opinion that the rentals as of October 21, 1972 was to be considered as amortization payment to the land and as such should pertain to the land owners and not to the usufructuary, the defendants herein (Annex ‘B’ of the Complaint). Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946 enumerates the case that falls under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(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 . . . .

It could be seen from the above that the jurisdiction given to the Court of Agrarian Relations is so broad and sweeping as to cover the issue involved in the present case. . . . the agricultural leasehold relation is not limited to that of a purely landlord and tenant relationship. The agricultural leasehold relationship is established also with respect to the person who furnished the landholding either as owner, civil lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor and the person who cultivates the same. It might as well be asked whether the opinion of the Provincial Chairman of Operation Land Transfer previously adverted to and which is now one of the issues in this incident would involve the determination of the rights granted and obligations imposed in relation to the agrarian reform program. The search for an answer need not be deferred as reference to Par. (b) of Presidential Decree No. 49 provides such answer —

‘x       x       x

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

Clearly, the determination of the nature of the payment made by the tenants to the defendants herein is a question which involved the right of the tenants in relation to the land reform program of the government." 7

The above order of the Negros Occidental Court of First Instance was brought directly to us by petitioners on a Petition for Review in G.R. No. 51333.

G.R. No. 51333 and G.R. No. 52289 were consolidated by a Resolution of this Court dated 16 June 1982.chanrobles law library

The consolidated cases present the question of which court had jurisdiction to decide one and the other case. Both the Court of First Instance and the Agrarian Court were persuaded by the adroit and disingenuous pleading of respondent Schon’s counsel. Beyond the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter, is, of course, the substantive question of whether the petitioners as naked owners of the land subjected to the beneficial owner’s rights of Helen Schon, became entitled to the payments made by the tenants or lessees of such land from and after the property was declared part of a land reform area.

The issue of which court is vested with jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 13823 and CAR Case No. 76 is, happily, no longer a live one. Jurisdiction over both cases is clearly vested in the appropriate Regional Trial Court in view of the provisions of Section 19 (7) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which was enacted by the Batasang Pambansa on 10 August 1981 and fully implemented on 14 February 1983. 8

"Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.



(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of juvenile and domestic relations courts and of the courts of agrarian relations as now provided by law;

x       x       x."cralaw virtua1aw library

"(Emphasis supplied)

The Regional Trial Courts have full authority and jurisdiction to interpret and apply both the mass of statutes and rules and regulations relating to land reform and the general civil law, including the law on usufruct. Unlike a regional trial court sitting as a probate court, a regional trial court seized of an agrarian dispute and interpreting and applying statutes and administrative rules and regulations concerning land reform and the elimination of agricultural tenancy relationships, continues to act as a court of general and plenary jurisdiction. Section 44 of B.P. Blg. 129 abolished the Courts of Agrarian Relations and did not re-create them.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

We note that resolution of the underlying substantive issues here raised requires examination of both land reform statutes and related rules and regulations (and as well the practice of the relevant administrative agency or executive department) and the Civil Code provisions on usufruct.

Mindful of the length of time which has gone by since the first of the consolidated cases reached this Court, and in the effort to render expeditious justice, we have considered whether we should now confront and resolve the issue relating to the legal character of the payments made by the respondent tenants-lessees since 21 October 1972 to respondent Helen Schon, as well as the issue relating to the possible application of Article 609 of the Civil Code. Because, however, of the nature and importance of the first issue, and considering that the pleadings and the records of these two (2) cases are bare of any substantial discussion by the parties on both issues, the Court feels it would not be prudent to resolve those issues without further proceedings. We are convinced, however, that those issues are primarily, if not wholly, issues of law rather than of fact and that hence there appears no need to remand these cases to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings there. Instead, we shall require the parties to file memoranda on the issues above indicated, and direct the Solicitor General to intervene in these cases and to file a memorandum addressing the same issues.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to: (1) REQUIRE the petitioners and private respondents in G.R. Nos. 51333 and 52289 to file simultaneous memoranda addressing the substantive issues identified above, within thirty (30) days from notice hereof, and to FURNISH the Solicitor General a copy each of their respective memoranda; and (2) to DIRECT the Solicitor General to file a motion for intervention on behalf of the Government and a memorandum on the same substantive questions within thirty (30) days from receipt of petitioners’ and private respondents’ memoranda.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (C.J.), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

1. Rollo of G.R. No. 52289, p. 31.

2. Rollo of G.R. No. 51333, p. 4.

3. Rollo of G.R. No. 51333, Annex "A" of Petition, pp. 19-20.

4. Id., p. 5.

5. "Article 609. Should the thing in usufruct be expropriated for public use, the owner shall be obliged either to replace it with another thing of the same value and of similar conditions, or to pay the usufructuary the legal interest on the amount of the indemnity for the whole period of the usufruct. If the owner chooses the later alternative, he shall give security for the payment of the interest."cralaw virtua1aw library

6. Rollo of G.R. No. 51333, pp. 72-73; Emphasis supplied.

7. Rollo of G.R. No. 51333, p. 34; Emphasis supplied.

8. Enriquez v. Fortuna Mariculture Corporation, 158 SCRA 651 (1988).