6.G.R. No.

L-20098 AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

16 SCRA 88 2015

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-20098 January 31, 1966

SILVERIO LATAG, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
MARCELO BANOG, defendant-appellee.

Endaya, Caleasal and Delgado for the plaintiff-appellant.

Suanes, Barbosa and Atienza for the defendant-appellee.

ZALDIVAR, J.:

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Batangas dismissing the complaint in
its Civil Case No. 1263, on the ground that said court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case.

On February 13, 1962 the plaintiff-appellant filed a complaint against the defendant-appellee alleging,
in substance: that the defendant is the absolute owner of two parcels of land situated in Barrio Quilib,
Rosario, Batangas; that on December 7, 1960, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written
contract whereby it was agreed that the former was to act as manager, cultivator and caretaker of the
two parcels of land owned by the latter, and of all the useful plants planted, and to be planted, on said
lands, with the understanding that all the products of the orange and the calamansi trees planted
thereon would be divided into three equal parts; two-thirds of which would be the share of the plaintiff
and one-third would be the share of the defendant, while the sharing in the other products like coffee,
bananas, mangoes, black pepper and others would be on the fifty-fifty basis; and it was further agreed
that said relationship and sharing would continue for a period of five years from December 7, 1960; that
pursuant to said agreement the plaintiff entered into the management, cultivation and care of the above-
mentioned properties, and had built a house costing P70.00 on one of the two parcels of land, that the
plaintiff had incurred actual expenses in the total amount of P2,286.80 aside from other miscellaneous
expenses for food and viand of his laborers; that on January 11, 1962, without any legal ground nor
justification whatsoever the defendant drove the plaintiff out of the lands and even destroyed the house
that the plaintiff had built thereon; that notwithstanding all efforts of the plaintiff to make the defendant
comply with his part of the agreement in their written contract, the defendant had adamantly refused.
The complaint prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff actual
damages in the amount of P2,656.80, unrealized profits in the amount that the court would fix after
hearing the evidence, moral damages in the amount of at least P5,000.00, exemplary damages in the
amount of at least P5,000.00, plus attorney's fees equivalent to 20% of the total amounts collected and
the costs of the suit. A copy of the written agreement in question was attached to the complaint as
Annex "A".

On March 2, 1962 the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court
has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and that the complaint did not state a cause of action.
It is contended by the defendant that, based on the allegations in the complaint and as stated in the
written agreement which was attached to the complaint as Annex "A", a relationship of landlord and
tenant had existed between the plaintiff and the defendantthe plaintiff being the tenant and the
defendant being the landlord, and the complaint being one that seeks to secure a decision or settlement
of differences or disputes in connection with the relationship of landlord and tenant involving the
cultivation and use of agricultural land, it is the Court of Agrarian Relations and not the Court of First
Instance that has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. The defendant points out that the complaint
of the plaintiff poses the question of whether the act of the defendant, as landlord, in dispossessing the
plaintiff, as tenant, of the two parcels of land was justified or not under the law.

1
6.G.R. No. L-20098 AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
16 SCRA 88 2015

On March 5, 1962, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss the complaint and at the
same time moved to amend the original complaint by striking out the words "cultivator" and "cultivation"
in paragraphs 3 & 4, of the original complaint, claiming that the one who drafted the original complaint
was not well versed in Tagalog such that the phrase "tagapamahala at tagapagalaga" was translated
into "manager, cultivator and caretaker" whereas that phrase "tagapamahala at tagapagalaga" ought to
be translated into English only as "manager and caretaker" without including any statement about
cultivation. In his opposition to the motion to dismiss the plaintiff contends that in the contract, Annex A
to the complaint, no tenancy relationship was agreed upon and the complaint was intended to recover
damages so that it is the court of general jurisdiction, which is the Court of First Instance, and not the
Court of Agrarian Relations, which is a court of limited jurisdiction, that has competence to hear and
decide the case. 1w ph1.t

On March 27, 1962 the Court of First Instance of Batangas, acting on the motion to dismiss the
complaint, issued an order dismissing the case. In its order of dismissal the court a quo stated:

This Court believes and so holds that the argument of the defendant is well-taken, and agrees
with him that the document, Annex "A", indicates the existence of tenancy relationship between
the plaintiff and the defendant, considering the ruling of our Supreme Court in the case
of Teodorico B. Santos vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-17196, prom. Dec.
28, 1961, "that any matter that may pertain to the relation of tenant and landlord comes under
the Agricultural Tenancy and any controversy that may arise between them as an incident of
their Act (Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263) and any controversy
that may arise between them as an incident of their relationship comes under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations created by Republic Act. No. 1267. It was created
for enforcement of all laws and regulations governing the relation of capital and labor on all
agricultural lands under any system of cultivation (Section 1, Rep. Act No. 1267, as amended
by Republic Act No. 1409) and was given exclusive jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to
consider, disputes established by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the
cultivation and use of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land", and so this
Court believes and so declares that it has no jurisdiction to pass upon the issues of the case at
bar, falling as they do, according to the above citation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Court of Agrarian Relations.

Before this Court, plaintiff-appellant insists that the contract (Annex A) does not establish any tenancy
relationship, or if it did, such relationship had already ceased inasmuch as he does not ask for
reinstatement as tenant. He claims that this case is a simple suit for damages which the Court of
Agrarian Relations cannot take cognizance of, it being a court of special and limited jurisdiction.

The contract (Annex A) contains the following pertinent stipulations:

Na si Silverio Latag, ganap sa gulang, Filipino, asawa ni Cipriana Alday at naninirahan sa

Tambo, Lipa City ay aking ginawang tagapamahala at tagapag-alaga sa naulit na lupa; na siya
rin ang mamomosession, mamamahala sa mga halamang nakatanim at itatanim sa lupang
naulit sa loob ng limang taon.

Na si Silverio Latag, ang mag-aalaga sa mga halaman ng lupang nabanggit; na ang lahat ng
kagastusang maaaring makamit o kailanganin sa pag-aalaga ay siyang lahat ang nakakaalam;
at walang PAKIALAM ang may-ari ng lupa.

Na ang kasunduan naming ito ay tatagal sa loob ng limang (5) taon simula ngayon; na ang
kasunduang ito ay nagpapatunay din na ang bahagi ay akong may-ari ng lupa ay sa ikatlo (1/3)
sa sinturis at kalamansing aanihin dito; at hati (50-50) parte sa bunga ng mga halamang
sumusunod, (1) kape; (2) saging; (3) mangga; (4) at paminta at sa mga ibang halamang
itatanim pa ng naulit na si Silverio Latag.

In the original complaint the plaintiff used the words "manager, cultivator and caretaker" of the two
parcels of land concerned, but on the excuse that the one who prepared the complaint was not well
versed in Tagalog, the complaint was subsequently amended whereby the word "cultivator" was deleted

2
6.G.R. No. L-20098 AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
16 SCRA 88 2015

in the allegations of the complaint. We note, however that in the contract, Annex "A" to the complaint, it
is clearly provided that the plaintiff would take care of the plants that are planted and those still to be
planted on the lands within a period of five years ("mamamahala sa mga halamang nakatanim at
itatanim sa lupang naulit sa loob ng limang taon").

This Court believes that the allegations of the complaint (even as amended) and the stipulations of the
contract (Annex A) unmistakably show that an agricultural tenancy of the kind called "share tenancy"
was established between the parties. It has been declared that "an agricultural tenancy classified as
`share tenancy' exists where a person has physical possession of another's land for the purpose of
cultivating it and giving the owner a share in the crop" (Marcelo vs. De Leon, L-12902, July 29, 1959).
This Court in the same case held:

x x x x He knows the caretaker must water the trees, even fertilize them for better production,
uproot weeds and turn the soil, sometimes fumigate to eliminate plant pests, etc. Those chores
obviously mean "working or cultivating" the land. x x x x

It may thus be stated that the "caretaker" of an agricultural land is also considered the "cultivator" of the
land.

As regards plaintiff-appellant's contention that the tenancy relationship, if any, had been terminated
because his claim was only for damages without reinstatement to his status as tenant, suffice it to say
that in the instant case the plaintiff-appellant's claim for damages was based on his having been
allegedly dispossessed unlawfully or unjustifiably by the defendant-appellee of the two parcels of land
under his care and management sometime on January 1, 1962. It is clear that the action relates to an
incident arising from the landlord and tenant relationship which existed shortly before the filing of the
complaint on February 13, 1962. Under the circumstance, the Court of Agrarian Relations has the
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case, even if the tenancy relationship no longer existed at
the time of the filing of the action. On this point this Court ruled as follows:

Indeed, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199, provides that "all cases involving the
dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or the settlement and
disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landlord and tenant . . . shall be under
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations." This jurisdiction does
not require the continuance of the relationship of landlord and
tenant at the time of the dispute. The same may have arisen, and often times arise, precisely
from the previous termination of such relationship. If the same existed immediately, or shortly
before the controversy and the subject-matter thereof is whether or not said relationship has
been lawfully terminated, or if the dispute otherwise springs or originates from the relationship
of landlord and tenant, the litigation is cognizable only by the Court of Agrarian Relations, . . .
(Basilio vs. De Guzman, et al., L-12762, April 22, 1959).

On the point that the present case comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian
Relations even if the action is only for the recovery of damages based on the unlawful dispossession of
the tenant, this Court held:

Section 7, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, vests in the Court of Agrarian Relations
exclusive and original jurisdiction to determine controversies arising from landlord-tenant
relationship. From this it may be inferred that it also has jurisdiction to hear and determine
actions for recovery of damages arising from the unlawful dismissal or dispossession of tenant
by the landlord, as provided in Act No. 4054 and Republic Act No. 1199, as amended. To hold
otherwise could result in multiplicity of suits and expensive litigations abhorred by the law . . . .
(Militar vs. Torcillero, et al., L-15065, April 28, 1961).

We hold, therefore, that the lower court did not commit error when it dismissed the complaint in the
present case.

Wherefore, the order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.

3
6.G.R. No. L-20098 AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
16 SCRA 88 2015

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and
Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur.
Sanchez, J., took no part.