G.R. No.

L-105586 December 15, 1993

REMIGIO ISIDRO, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. COURT O !""E!LS #SE$ENTH DI$ISION% !ND N!TI$ID!D
GUTIERRE&, respondents.
Joventino A. Cornista for petitioner.
Yolanda Quisumbing-Javellana & Associates for private respondent.

"!DILL!, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision ' of the respondent Court of Appeals dated 27
February 1992 in CA-.!. "# $o. 2%%71 orderin& petitioner to vacate the land in 'uestion and surrender possession thereof to the
private respondent( and its 21 )ay 1992 resolution denyin& petitioner*s +otion for reconsideration for lac, of +erit.
The facts which &ave rise to this petition are as follows-
#rivate respondent $atividad utierre. is the owner of a parcel of land with an area of /.0
hectares located in 1arrio "ta. Cru., apan, $ueva 2ci3a. 4n 1950, Aniceta arcia, sister of
private respondent and also the overseer of the latter, allowed petitioner !e+i&io 4sidro to
occupy the swa+py portion of the above+entioned land, consistin& of one 617 hectare, in
order to au&+ent his 6petitioner*s7 inco+e to +eet his fa+ily*s needs. The occupancy of a
portion of said land was sub3ect top the condition that petitioner would vacate the land upon
de+and. #etitioner occupied the land without paying any rental and converted the sa+e into
a fishpond.
4n 1998, private respondent throu&h the overseer de+anded fro+ petitioner the return of the
land, but the latter refused to vacate and return possession of said land, clai+in& that he had
spent effort and invested capital in convertin& the sa+e into a fishpond.
A co+plaint for unlawful detainer was filed by private respondent a&ainst petitioner before
the )unicipal Trial Court 6)TC7 of apan, $ueva 2ci3a which was doc,eted as Civil Case
$o. /128. #etitioner set up the followin& defenses- 6a7 that the co+plaint was tri&&ered by
his refusal to increase his lease rental( 6b7 the sub3ect land is a fishpond and therefore is
a&ricultural land( and 6c7 that lac, of for+al de+and to vacate e9poses the co+plaint to
dis+issal for insufficiency of cause of action.
1
1ased on an ocular inspection of the sub3ect land, the trial court found that the land in
'uestion is a fishpond
(
and, thus, in a decision dated :8 )ay 1991, the said trial court dis+issed
the co+plaint, rulin& that the land is a&ricultural and therefore the dispute over it is a&rarian which is
under the ori&inal and e9clusive 3urisdiction of the courts of a&rarian relations as provided in "ec.
126a7 of !epublic Act $o. 9/% 6now e+bodied in the !evised !ules of #rocedure of the ;epart+ent of
A&rarian !efor+ Ad3udication 1oard7.
3
An appeal was filed by private respondent before the !e&ional Trial Court 6!TC7 of apan,
$ueva 2ci3a, doc,eted as Civil Case $o. 559. 4n due course, the !TC rendered a decision
on 0 $ove+ber 1991 concurrin& with the findin&s of the )TC and affir+in& in toto the trial
court*s decision.
The !TC decision held that-
2ven concedin& for the sa,e of ar&u+ent that the defendant-appellee was
allowed by the plaintiff-appellant, throu&h her sister Aniceta arcia 6her
ad+inistratri9 over the land in 'uestion7 to occupy and use the landholdin& in
'uestion on condition that the defendant would vacate the sa+e upon
de+and of the owner or plaintiff herein, without payin& any rental either in
cash or produce, under these facts there was a tenurial arran&e+ent, within
the +eanin& of "ec. :6d7 of !A %%07, thereby placin& the dispute involved in
this case within the 3urisdiction of the ;A!A1. #erhaps, it would be different if
the defendant was +erely a trespasser, without any ri&ht whatsoever, when
he entered and occupied the sub3ect landholdin&. The defendant, as a +atter
of fact, was a le&al possessor of the land in 'uestion and therefore to
deter+ine his ri&hts and obli&ations over the said property, the ;A!A1 is the
proper foru+ for such issue.
)
$ot satisfied with the decision of the !TC, private respondent appealed to the respondent
Court of Appeals and the appeal was doc,eted as CA-.!. "# $o. 2%%71. <n 27 February
1992, as earlier stated, the respondent Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision
of the !TC, orderin& petitioner to vacate the parcel of land in 'uestion and surrender
possession thereof to private respondent, and to pay private respondent the su+ of
#0,888.88 as and for attorney*s fees and e9penses of liti&ation.
5
The respondent Court of Appeals ruled that-
The a&rarian dispute over which the ;A! +ay have 3urisdiction by virtue of its
'uasi-3udicial power is that which involves tenurial arran&e+ents, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
a&riculture. Tenurial arran&e+ent is concerned with the act or +anner of
puttin& into proper order the ri&hts of holdin& a piece of a&ricultural land
between the landowner and the far+er or far+wor,er.
4n the case at bar, there can be no dispute that between the parties herein
there is no tenurial arran&e+ent, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or
otherwise, over the land in dispute. <ther than his bare alle&ation in the
Answer with Counterclai+, and his affidavit, private respondent has not
shown prima facie that he is a tenant of the petitioner. The affidavits of his
witnesses Antonio "a+in and ;aniel =illareal attest to the fact that they acted
as +ediators in the dispute between the parties herein so+eti+e in <ctober
1998, but no settle+ent was arrived at, and that the sub3ect land is a
fishpond. To the sa+e effect is the affidavit of Feliciano arcia. Absent
any prima facie proof that private respondent has a tenancy relationship with
petitioner, the established fact is that private respondent is possessin& the
property in dispute by +ere tolerance, and when such possession ceased as
such upon de+and to vacate by the petitioner, private respondent beca+e a
s'uatter in said land. >e hold that the )unicipal Trial Court of apan, $ueva
2ci3a has 3urisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.
6
#etitioner +oved for reconsideration of the fore&oin& decision, but, also as earlier stated, it
was denied in a resolution dated 21 )ay 1992
*
for lac, of +erit.
?ence, this petition for review under !ule /0 of the !ules of Court.
#etitioner raises the followin& issue-
>?2T?2! <! $<T T?2 )@$4C4#AA C<@!T ?A" T?2 B@!4";4CT4<$ 4$
T?4" CA"2 A$; >?2T?2! T?2 #@1A4C !2"#<$;2$T C<@A;
A2AAAC 2B2CT T?2 #2T4T4<$2! C<$"4;2!4$ T?2 F<AA<>4$-
1. T?AT T?2 "@1B2CT 4" A F4"?#<$; A$; @$;2! T?2 AA> A$;
B@!4"#!@;2$C2 F4"?#<$;" A!2 CAA""4F42; A" A!4C@AT@!AA
AA$;"(
2. T?AT 124$ A$ A!4C@AT@!AA AA$; T?2 "A)2 4" <=2!$2; 1C
<@! T2$A$CC AA>" >?2!2 !@A2 78 <F T?2 !@A2" <F C<@!T
CA$$<T 12 "4)#AC A##A42;( A$;
:. T?AT @$;2! T?2 !@A2" <F T?2 ;2#A!T)2$T <F A!A!4A$
!2F<!) A;B@;4CAT4<$ 1<A!;, T?2 ;2T2!)4$AT4<$ <F >?2T?2!
A #2!"<$ ><!D4$ <$ A F4"?#<$; 4" A T2$A$T <! $<T 4"
CA2A!AC >4T?4$ T?2 2ECA@"4=2 B@!4";4CT4<$ <F T?2 ;A!A1.
8
The petition is devoid of +erit. >e hold for the private respondent.
4t is basic whether or not a court has 3urisdiction over the sub3ect +atter of an action is
deter+ined fro+ the alle&ations of the co+plaint. As held in Multinational illage
!omeowners* Association" #nc., vs. Court of Appeals" et al.-
9
Burisdiction over the sub3ect-+atter is deter+ined upon the alle&ations +ade
in the co+plaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon
the clai+ asserted therein F a +atter resolved only after and as a result of
the trial. $either can the 3urisdiction of the court be +ade to depend upon the
defenses +ade by the defendant in his answer or +otion to dis+iss. 4f such
were the rule, the 'uestion of 3urisdiction would depend al+ost entirely upon
the defendant.
4n her co+plaint before the court a $uo, private respondent stated that she is the owner of a
parcel of land situated in 1arrio "ta. Cru., apan, $ueva 2ci3a, which petitioner is ille&ally
occupyin&( that petitioner has ta,en advanta&e of the tolerance of her 6private respondent*s7
sister in allowin& hi+ to occupy the land on the condition that he 6petitioner7 would vacate
the land upon de+and. 1ecause of petitioner*s refusal to vacate the land, private
respondent*s re+edy, as owner of said land, was to file an action for unlawful detainer with
the )unicipal Trial Court.
4n his answer to the co+plainant, petitioner alle&ed that the land involved in the dispute is an
a&ricultural land and hence, the case +ust be filed with the Court of A&rarian !elations 6not
the )TC7. )oreover, petitioner contended that it was his refusal to increase his lease rental
6i+plyin& tenancy7 that pro+pted the private respondent to sue hi+ in court.
10
4t is well settled 3urisprudence that a court does not lose its 3urisdiction over an unlawful
detainer case by the si+ple e9pedient of a party raisin& as a defense therein the alle&ed
e9istence of a tenancy relationship between the parties.
11
The court continues to have the
authority to hear the evidence for the purpose precisely of deter+inin& whether or not it has
3urisdiction. And upon such hearin&, if tenancy is shown to be the real issue, the court should dis+iss
the case for lac, of 3urisdiction.
1(
The )TC dis+issed the unlawful detainer co+plaint pri+arily on the &round that the sub3ect
land is a&ricultural and therefore the 'uestion at issue is a&rarian. 4n this connection, it is
well to recall that "ection 1, !ule 44 of the !evised !ules of #rocedure,
13
provides that the
A&rarian !efor+ Ad3udication 1oard shall have pri+ary 3urisdiction, both ori&inal and appellate, to
deter+ine and ad3udicate all a&rarian disputes, cases, controversies, and +atters or incidents
involvin& the i+ple+entation of the Co+prehensive A&rarian !efor+ #ro&ra+ under !epublic Act $o.
%%07, 29ecutive <rder $os. 229, 225 and 129-A, !epublic Act $o. :5// as a+ended by !epublic Act
$o. %:59, #residential ;ecree $o. 27 and other a&rarian laws and their i+ple+entin& rules and
re&ulations.
An a&rarian dispute refers to any controversy relatin& to tenurial arran&e+ents, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to a&riculture, includin&
disputes concernin& far+wor,ers associations or representation of persons in ne&otiatin&,
fi9in&, +aintainin&, chan&in& or see,in& to arran&e ter+s and conditions of such tenurial
arran&e+ents. 4t includes any controversy relatin& to co+pensation of lands ac'uired under
!epublic Act $o. %%07 and other ter+s and conditions of transfer of ownership fro+
landowners to far+wor,ers, tenants and other a&rarian refor+ beneficiaries, whether the
disputants stand in the pro9i+ate relation of far+ operator and beneficiary, landowner and
tenant, or lessor or lessee.
1)
4t is irrefutable in the case at bar that the sub3ect land which used to be an idle, swa+py land
was converted by the petitioner into a fishpond. And it is settled that a fishpond is an
a&ricultural land. An a&ricultural land refers to the land devoted to a&ricultural activity as
defined in !epublic Act $o. %%07
15
and not classified as +ineral, forest, residential, co++ercial or
industrial land.
16
!epublic Act $o. %%07 defines a&ricultural activity as the cultivation of the soil,
plantin& of crops, &rowin& of fruit trees, raisin& of livestoc,, poultry or fish, includin& the harvestin& of
such far+ products, and other far+ activities, and practices perfor+ed by a far+er in con3unction with
such far+in& operations done by persons whether natural or 3udicial.
1*
1ut a case involvin& an a&ricultural land does not auto+atically +a,e such case an a&rarian
dispute upon which the ;A!A1 has 3urisdiction. The +ere fact that the land is a&ricultural
does not ipso facto +a,e the possessor an a&ricultural lessee of tenant. The law provides
for conditions or re'uisites before he can 'ualify as one and the land bein& a&ricultural is
only one of
the+.
18
The law states that an a&rarian dispute +ust be a controversy relating to a tenurial
arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. And as previously +entioned, such arran&e+ent +ay
be leasehold, tenancy or stewardship.
Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alle&ed tenant does upon
the land. 4t is also a le&al relationship. The intent of the parties, the understandin& when the
far+er is installed, and their written a&ree+ents, provided these are co+plied with and are
not contrary to law, are even +ore i+portant.
19
The essential re'uisites of a tenancy relationship are- 617 the parties are the landowner and
the tenant( 627 the sub3ect +atter is a&ricultural land( 6:7 there is consent( 6/7 the purpose is
a&ricultural production( 607 there is personal cultivation by the tenant( and 6%7 there is a
sharing of harvests between the parties. All these re'uisites +ust concur in order to create a
tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not +a,e an occupant of
a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de %ure tenant. @nless a
person establishes his status as a de %ure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is
he covered by the Aand !efor+ #ro&ra+ of the &overn+ent under e9istin& tenancy laws
6Caballes v. ;A!, et al., .!. $o. 7521/, ;ece+ber 0, 19557.
(0
Further+ore, an a&ricultural lessee as defined in "ec. 11%627 of !epublic Act $o. :5//, is a
person who, by hi+self and with the aid available fro+ within his i++ediate far+ household,
cultivates the land belon&in& to, or possessed by, another with the latter*s consent for
purposes of production, for a price certain in money or in produce or both. An a&ricultural
lessor, on the other hand, is a natural or 3udicial person who, either as owner, civil law
lessee, usufructuary, or le&al possessor lets or &rants to another the cultivation and use of
his land for a price certain.
(1
1ased on the statutory definitions of a tenant or a lessee, it is clear that there is no tenancy
or a&riculturalGleasehold relationship e9istin& between the petitioner and the private
respondent. &here was no contract or agreement entered into by the petitioner with the
private respondent nor with the overseer of the private respondent" for petitioner to cultivate
the land for a price certain or to share his harvests. #etitioner has failed to substantiate his
clai+ that he was payin& rent for the use of the land.
>hether or not private respondent ,new of the conversion by petitioner of the idle, swa+py
land into a fishpond is i++aterial in this case. The fact re+ains that the e9istence of all the
re'uisites of a tenancy relationship was not proven by the petitioner. And in the absence of a
tenancy relationship, the co+plaint for unlawful detainer is properly within the 3urisdiction of
the )unicipal Trial Court, as provided in "ec. :: of 1atas #a+bansa 1l&. 129.
?avin& established that the occupancy and possession by petitioner of the land in 'uestion
is by +ere tolerance, private respondent had the le&al ri&ht to de+and upon petitioner to
vacate the land. And as correctly ruled by the respondent appellate court-
. . . . ?is 6petitioner*s7 lawful possession beca+e ille&al when the petitioner
6now private respondent7 throu&h her sister +ade a de+and on hi+ to vacate
and he refused to co+ply with such de+and. "uch is the rulin& in 'angilinan
vs. Aguilar, /: "C!A 1:%, 1//, wherein it was held-
>hile in possession by tolerance is lawful, such possession
beco+es ille&al upon de+and to vacate is +ade by the owner
and the possessor by tolerance refuses to co+ply with such
de+and 6#rieto vs. !eyes, 1/ "C!A /:2( Cu vs. ;e Aara, %
"C!A 75%, 755( A+is vs. Ara&on, A-/%5/, April 25, 19077. A
person who occupies the land of another at the latter*s
tolerance or per+ission, without any contract between the+, is
necessarily bound by an i+plied pro+ise that he will vacate
upon de+and, failin& which a su++ary action for e3ect+ent is
the proper re+edy a&ainst hi+ 6Cu vs. ;e Aara, supra7.H
((
The present case should be distin&uished fro+ the recent case of (ernas vs. &he !onorable
Court of Appeals.
(3
4n the (ernas case, the land occupant 61ernas7 had a production-sharin&
a&ree+ent with the le&al possessor 61eni&no 1ito-on7 while the records in this case fail to show that
herein petitioner 64sidro7 was sharin& the harvest or payin& rent for his use of the land. )oreover, the
a&ree+ent between the overseer 6arcia7 and herein petitioner was for petitioner to occupy and use
the land by +ere tolerance of the owner. #etitioner 4sidro failed to refute that arcia allowed hi+ to
use the land sub3ect to the condition that petitioner would vacate it upon de+and. 4n the (ernas case,
the petitioner 61ernas7 was able to establish the e9istence of an a&ricultural tenancy or leasehold
relationship between hi+ and the le&al possessor. The evidence in this case, on the other hand, fails
to prove that petitioner 4sidro, was an a&ricultural tenant or lessee.
>?2!2F<!2, the petition is ;2$42;. The 'uestioned decision and resolution of the Court
of Appeals are hereby AFF4!)2;. Costs a&ainst the petitioner.
"< <!;2!2;.
G.R. No. 1(58)8 Se+,ember 6, 1999
EDMUNDO -EN!$IDE&, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O !""E!LS ./0 !RISTON MELENDRES re+re1e/,e0 b2 N!RCISO M.
MELENDRES 3r.,respondents.

-ELLOSILLO, J.:
The ;ecision of the Court of Appeals
1
in CA-.!. "# $o. :0/12 dated :8 April 199% which
reversed that of the !e&ional Trial Court, 1r. 58, Tanay, !i.al, in its Civil Case $o. :55-T, as well as
the !esolution of the appellate court dated % Au&ust 199% denyin& herein petitioner*s +otion for
reconsideration, is assailed in this petition for review.
<n 15 Buly 1998 private respondent Ariston )elendres, throu&h his nephew and
ad+inistrator $arciso ). )elendres Br., filed a co+plaint before the )unicipal Trial Court of
Tanay, !i.al, a&ainst petitioner 2d+undo 1enavide. for forcible entry and recovery of
da+a&es with prayer for preli+inary +andatory in3unction and restrainin& order.
(
<n 19 Buly
1998 the )unicipal Trial Court issued a restrainin& order.
#rivate respondent alle&ed in his co+plaint that for +ore than fifty 6087 years he was the
owner and actual possessor, by hi+self and throu&h his predecessors in interest, of a parcel
of land with an area of 1,%22 s'uare +eters located in 1r&y. #la.a Aldea, Tanay, !i.al. ?e
clai+ed that the sub3ect land was devoted to the plantin& of palay and wor,ed on and
cultivated by a&ricultural tenants the last of who+ was Felino )ende.. #rivate respondent
further alle&ed that on 29 $ove+ber 1959 petitioner 1enavide., usin& force, inti+idation,
strate&y and stealth, entered the property and destroyed the barbed-wire fence, filled the
property with soil and other fillin& +aterials, and constructed per+anent, concrete structures
thereon thereby convertin& its use fro+ a&ricultural to co++ercial without the necessary
clearance or per+it fro+ the ;epart+ent of A&rarian !efor+ 6;A!7.)*wphi ).n+t
4n his answer, petitioner alle&ed 6a7 that private respondent had no cause of action a&ainst
hi+ because he was the ri&htful owner of the land by virtue of a deed of sale dated 0
February 1998 e9ecuted by Alicia Cata+bay in his favor( 6b7 that Ta9 ;eclaration $o. 097
coverin& the sub3ect land had been cancelled and a new one already issued to hi+( and, 6c7
that the property clai+ed by private respondent was different fro+ that occupied by hi+.
4t was established in an ocular inspection on 11 <ctober 1998 that the lot where the #etron
&asoline station and so+e new structures were currently situated was the sa+e lot bein&
clai+ed by private respondent. Felino )ende. and the tenantsGfar+ers
3
of ad3oinin& and
ad3acent ricelands confir+ed this. The inferior court thereafter issued a writ of preli+inary in3unction.
<n 1/ Banuary 199/ the )unicipal Trial Court declared private respondent Ariston
)elendres as the ri&htful possessor of the land in controversy and orderin& petitioner
2d+undo 1enavide. to re+ove the i+prove+ents introduced on the property and to vacate
and restore private respondent to its physical possession. For the use of the land, petitioner
was ordered to pay private respondent #:,888.88 per +onth plus lawful interests fro+ 29
$ove+ber 1959 until finally vacated. ?e was further ordered to pay #0,888.88 as attorney*s
fees and the costs of the suit.
)
The )unicipal Trial Court considered the ad+ission of petitioner that he proceeded in fillin&
the sub3ect lot with soil and other fillin& +aterials and constructed a &asoline station thereon
without as,in& per+ission fro+ tenant Felino )ende.. The court a $uo disre&arded the clai+
of petitioner that he was the owner of the land as ownership of the property was not +aterial
in actions for recovery of possession. )oreover, such clai+ of ownership, even if valid, was
belied by the ;eed of "ale
5
petitioner presented in court as it was only e9ecuted on 0 February
1998 or +ore than two 627 +onths after the date of his unlawful entry on 29 $ove+ber 1959.
Certainly, even if petitioner was the lawful owner of the property, he could not resort to force to &ain
possession thereof as Hre&ardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in
peaceable 'uiet possession shall not be turned out by stron& hand, violence or terror.H
6
The
3ud&+ent
*
of the ;epart+ent of A&rarian !efor+ Ad3udicatory 1oard 6;A!A17 declarin& Felino
)ende. as the a&ricultural tenant of the sub3ect lot and orderin& petitioner 1enavide. to reinstate
)ende. to the possession of the property or in lieu thereof to pay hi+ #%1,570.88 as disturbance
co+pensation was considered by the )unicipal Trial Court as persuasive proof of possession by
private respondent throu&h his a&ricultural tenant Felino )ende..
<n appeal, the !e&ional Trial Court reversed the decision of the )unicipal Trial Court. 4t held
that the issue involved in the case was not +erely physical or de facto possession but one of
title to or ownership of the sub3ect property( conse'uently, the )unicipal Trial Court did not
ac'uire 3urisdiction over it.
#rivate respondent appealed the case to the Court of Appeals where the +ain issue raised
was whether the co+plaint for forcible entry could be decided without resolvin& the 'uestion
of ownership of the property. #rivate respondent +aintained that re&ardless of the property*s
ownership, prior possession was already established in his favor. #etitioner, on the other
hand, clai+ed the contrary. The appellate court sustained private respondent. 4t reversed the
decision of the !e&ional Trial Court and reinstated that of the )unicipal Trial Court.
<n 20 )ay 199% petitioner filed a +otion for reconsideration which was denied by the Court
of Appeals for lac, of +erit. ?ence, this petition for review on certiorari. #etitioner ar&ues
that the alle&ation in the co+plaint that the land in 'uestion was tilled by an a&ricultural
tenant clearly deprived the )unicipal Trial Court of its 3urisdiction because under !ule 78,
"ec. 1 of the !ules of Court H. . . . the provisions of !ule 78 shall not apply to cases covered
by the A&ricultural Tenancy Act.H
>e do not a&ree. The alle&ation that an a&ricultural tenant titled the land in 'uestion does
not auto+atically +a,e the case an a&rarian dispute which calls for the application of the
A&ricultural Tenancy Act and the assu+ption of 3urisdiction by the ;epart+ent of A&rarian
!efor+ Ad3udication 1oard 6;A!A17. 4t is necessary to first establish the e9istence of a
tenancy relationship between the party litigants. The followin& essential re'uisites +ust
concur in order to establish a tenancy relationship- 6a7 the parties are the landowner and the
tenant( 6b7 the sub3ect +atter is a&ricultural land( 6c7 there is consent( 6d7 the purpose is
a&ricultural production( 6e7 there is personal cultivation by the tenant( and 6f7 there is a
sharin& of harvests between the parties.
8
4n the instant case, there is no showin& that there e9ists any tenancy relationship between
petitioner and private respondent. Thus, the case falls outside the covera&e of the
A&ricultural Tenancy Act( conse'uently, it is the )unicipal Trial Court and not the ;A!A1
which has 3urisdiction over the controversy between petitioner and private respondent.
#etitioner also contends that since the issue of ownership is involved and only in resolvin& it
can the issue of possession be finally settled, the )unicipal Trial Court did not ac'uire
3urisdiction over the case. ?e invo,es the principle that Han inferior court loses its 3urisdiction
where the 'uestion of ownership is so necessarily involved that it would be i+possible to
decide the 'uestion of bare possession without first settlin& that of ownership.H
9
#etitioner*s
reliance on this rule
10
is erroneous as this was already +odified by 1.#. 1l&. 129. The )unicipal Trial
Court now retains 3urisdiction over e3ect+ent cases even if the 'uestion of possession cannot be
resolved without passin& upon the issue of ownership provided that such issue of ownership shall be
resolved only for the purpose of deter+inin& possession.
11
4n other words, the fact that the issues of
ownership and possession de facto are intricately interwoven will not cause the dis+issal of the
e3ect+ent case on 3urisdictional &rounds.
1(
Thus, the )unicipal Trial Court of Tanay, !i.al, retained
its 3urisdiction over the case.
#etitioner further +aintains that the forcible entry case is barred by the ;A!A1 decision
dated / )arch 1992. This contention has no +erit. Felino )ende., the plaintiff in the ;A!A1
case, is not a party in the forcible entry case filed before the )unicipal Trial Court. ?is status
as private respondent*s tenant and his alle&ed forcible e3ect+ent fro+ the sub3ect property is
not an issue raised in the forcible entry case. 4nstead, the 'uestion is the ri&ht of private
respondent to be restored to the physical possession of the sub3ect property. Thus, we see
no reason why the ;A!A1 decision should bar the instant case before us.
Finally, petitioner 'uestions the le&al personality of the counsel of private respondent for his
failure to infor+ the court of the death of his client Ariston )elendres on 1 Banuary 1991. ?e
contends that such failure results in the nullity of the decision rendered by the )unicipal Trial
Court, invo,in& !ule :, "ec. 1% of the !ules of Court which provides that-
"ec. 1%. ;uty of attorney upon death, incapacity, or inco+petency of party. F
>henever a party to a pendin& case dies, beco+es incapacitated or
inco+petent, it shall be the duty of his attorney to infor+ the court pro+ptly of
such death, incapacity or inco+petency, and to &ive the na+e and residence
of his e9ecutor, ad+inistrator, &uardian or other le&al representative . . . .
?e further ar&ues that substitution of parties +ust be +ade accordin& to !ule :, "ec. 17 of
the !ules of Court. Thus F
"ec. 17. ,eath of party. F After a party dies and the clai+ is not thereby
e9tin&uished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the le&al
representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the
deceased, within a period of thirty 6:87 days, or within such ti+e as +ay be
&ranted . . . .
<therwise, the continuance by the court with the proceedin&s a+ounts to lac, of
3urisdiction.
The !ules invo,ed by petitioner have been a+ended by the present !ules.
13
$evertheless,
even applyin& the old !ules, it is well settled that the failure of counsel to co+ply with his duty under
"ec. 1% to infor+ the court of the death of his client and no substitution of such party is effected, will
not invalidate the proceedin&s and the 3ud&+ent thereon if the action survives the death of such
party.
1)
)oreover, the decision rendered shall bind his successor in interest.
15
The instant action for
forcible entry, li,e any action for recovery of real property, is a real action and as such survives the
death of Ariston )elendres. Thus, the decision rendered by the inferior court is conclusive between
the parties and their successors in interest by title subse'uent to the co++ence+ent of the action
despite failure of private respondent*s counsel to infor+ the court of his client*s death and the
conse'uent failure of the court to effectuate a substitution of heirs before its rendition of 3ud&+ent. At
any rate, a contrary rule would nonetheless +a,e petitioner unsuccessful as the records show that the
)unicipal Trial Court was duly notified of Ariston )elendres* death.
16
>?2!2F<!2, the petition is ;2$42; and the ;ecision of the Court of Appeals dated :8
April 199% and its !esolution dated % Au&ust 199% in CA F .!. "# $o. :0/12 are
AFF4!)2;. Costs a&ainst petitioner.)*wphi ).n+t
"< <!;2!2;.
G.R. No. L-61093 M.2 (5, 1988
ELIGIO ". M!LL!RI ./0 M!RCELIN! I. M!LL!RI, petitioners,
vs.
HONOR!-LE COURT O !""E!LS, IGN!CIO !RCEG!, SIMEON -!C!NI,
NUMERI!NO -!C!NI, "ERC!SIO C!T!CUT!N, NICOL!S G!L!NG, -EN G!RCI!,
4UIRINO 3!CINTO, M!RIET! 3!CINTO, MELENCIO M!DL!NG-!5!N, CELESTINO
M!G!T, $ICENTE M!LL!RI, E6E4UIEL M!N!LO, GON&!LO M!N!LO, LOREN&O
M!N!R!NG, SEGUNDO M!R&!N, EMILIO DE MES!, 3U!N "!NGILIN!N, $ED!STO
"!NGILIN!N, TELESORO 4UI!M-!O, EMILI!NO SERR!NO, RIC!RDO SERR!NO,
TORI-I! SERR!NO, CELESTIN! TORNO, 3U!NITO $IT!L ./0 TOM!S
$IT!L, respondents.
-.'. Mallari & Associates for petitioners.
(ureau of Agrarian .egal Assistance and -rlich . (arra$uias for respondents.

5!", C.J.:
This is an appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
Appeals, pro+ul&ated on )ay :1, 1952, in CA-.!. $o. "#-1:587-CA!, reversin& the order
of the Court of A&rarian !elations, 1ranch 4, "an Fernando, #a+pan&a, which dis+issed the
petition for rede+ption, and re+andin& to the said court for further proceedin&s the case
entitled /#gnacio Arcega et al. versus 0oberto 1i%angco" et al./
The antecedent facts are-
#rivate respondents are a&ricultural tenants of a landholdin& F the property in 'uestion F
planted to su&arcane described as Aot ::%/ of the cadastral survey of "an Fernando,
#a+pan&a, situated at 1o. )ani+pis thereof, containin& an area of 1,:27,999 s'uare
+eters, and ori&inally owned by the spouses !oberto >i3an&co and Asuncion !obles under
T.C.T. $o. 27087-!. The said land was +ort&a&ed to the #hilippine $ational 1an, 6#$17 on
)arch 1%, 19%2. For failure of the spouses >i3an&cos to pay their +ort&a&e indebtedness,
the #$1 foreclosed the +ort&a&e, with the notice for the e9tra3udicial sale bein& published in
the H=<4C2,H a newspaper of &eneral circulation in the province of #a+pan&a on February
2%, )arch 0 and 12,1975. The #$1, bein& the hi&hest bidder in the e9tra-3udicial sale, was
awarded Ias the purchaser ofJ the said property and accordin&ly Iby virtue of which itJ was
issued a certificate of sale on )arch 17, 1975. "ubse'uently, T.C.T. $o. 10/01%-! was
issued to #$1 upon failure of the spouses >i3an&cos to e9ercise their ri&ht of rede+ption
within the one-year period as re'uired by law.
<n Buly 18, 1958, the #$1 e9ecuted a deed of conditional sale over the said land in favor of
the herein petitioners, the spouses )allari, without any indication that the sa+e is tenanted.
The condition of the sale was for the )allaris to pay by install+ent, with a down-pay+ent of
28K of the purchase price of #2,:%0,888.88 upon the e9ecution of the docu+ent, and to pay
the balance in three 6:7 e'ual annual install+ents.
<n Buly 22,1951, the private respondents filed a petition for rede+ption before the Court of
A&rarian !elations 6CA!7 at "an Fernando, #a+pan&a, clai+in& that it was only in April,
1951, that they were infor+ed by petitioner Atty. 2li&io )allari that he had purchased the
said land, whereupon private respondents si&nified their intention to redee+ the land at
#0,888.88 per hectare but by reason of Atty. )allaris refusal to a&ree to the rede+ption
price, they were co+pelled to file the petition for rede+ption a&ainst the spouses >i3an&cos
as for+er owners, the #$1 as the present re&istered owner and the spouses )allari*s as the
subse'uent purchasers under the deed of conditional sale e9ecuted by the #$1. The
records of the case show that on Bune 29, 1951, private respondents wrote the )inistry of
A&rarian !efor+ re'uestin& that the rede+ption be initiated by the )inistry and financed by
the Aand 1an,. A si+ilar re'uest was also sent to the ;istrict <fficer, #a+pan&a, A&rarian
;istrict <ffice on Bune 22, 1951.
<n $ove+ber 15, 1951, the private respondents filed a +otion prayin& that the CA! ordered
the Aand 1an, to issue a certification of availability of funds to finance the rede+ption of the
sub3ect landholdin&. <n ;ece+ber 2/, 1951, the said court issued an order denyin& the
+otion and re'uirin& the private respondents to show cause at the ne9t scheduled hearin& of
the case why the case should not be dis+issed for their failure to +a,e a tender of pay+ent
andGor consi&nation relative to the rede+ption price. #rivate respondents +oved for a
reconsideration of the said order on the &round that the re'uire+ent of tender of pay+ent
andGor consi&nation is not necessary as a certification of availability of funds fro+ the Aand
1an, is sufficient. At the start of the scheduled hearin&, counsel for private respondents
presented a certification fro+ the Aand 1an, dated Banuary 10, 1952 entitled HCertification to
Finance !ede+ption of 2state @nder !.A. :5//, As A+ended.H
<n Banuary 27,1952, the CA! issued an order dis+issin& the petition for rede+ption on the
&round that the certification to finance rede+ption issued by the Aand 1an, of the
#hilippines did not constitute a valid consi&nation of the rede+ption price and therefore there
was alle&edly a failure on the part of private respondents to co+ply with the 3urisdictional
re'uire+ents of "ection 12 of !.A. $o. :5// on the e9ercise of the ri&ht of rede+ption.
<n appeal to respondent Court of Appeals, the order of the dis+issin& the petition for
rede+ption was lower court reversed and the case was re+anded to the CA! for further
proceedin&s. The appellate court ruled that private respondents had properly e9ercised their
ri&ht of rede+ption a&ainst the petitioners within the 158-day period as re'uired by "ection
12, !.A. $o. :5//, as a+ended( that the ri&ht of rede+ption is e9ercised by +erely
petitionin& the court or re'uestin& the )inistry of A&rarian !efor+s to initiate and finance the
rede+ption( and that it is not necessary for the lessee to +a,e a tender of pay+ent andGor
consi&nation of the a+ount of the rede+ption price. ?ence, this appeal.
#etitioners raise the followin& issues-
1. #rivate respondents have no cause of action, since a7 rede+ption bein& a ri&ht e9ercised
a&ainst a vendee upon re&istration of the sale, the unre&istered ;eed of Conditional "ale in
favor of petitioners e9ecuted by the #$1 can not be the basis for the lessee*s ri&ht of
rede+ption( and the period of the ri&ht of rede+ption has already lapsed( and
2. #rivate respondents did not +a,e any valid tender of pay+ent or consi&nation of the
rede+ption price.
"ection 12 of !.A. $o. :5//, otherwise ,nown as the A&ricultural Aand !efor+ Code,
provides-
Aessee*s !i&ht of !ede+ption. F 4n case the landholdin& is sold to a third
person without the ,nowled&e of the a&ricultural lessee, the latter shall have
the ri&ht to redee+ the sa+e at a reasonable price and consideration- ... The
ri&ht of rede+ption under this "ection +ay be e9ercised within two years fro+
the re&istration of the sale and shall have priority over any other ri&ht of le&al
rede+ption.
"ubse'uently, this provision was a+ended by !.A. $o. %:59, otherwise ,nown as the Code
of A&rarian !efor+s of the #hilippines, and reads, thus-
Aessee*s !i&ht of !ede+ption- 4n case the land-holdin& is sold to a third
person without the ,nowled&e of the a&ricultural lessee, the latter shall have
the ri&ht to redee+ the sa+e at a reasonable price and consideration- ... The
ri&ht of rede+ption under this "ection +ay be e9ercisedwithin one hundred
eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all
lessees affected and the ,epartment Ashville olAgrarian 0eform upon the
registration of the sale. ...62+phasis supplied7
#residential ;ecree $o. 27 which e+ancipated the tenant fro+ the bonda&e of the soil has
&reatly 'ualified the provisions of the Code of A&rarian !efor+( however, no chan&es have
been effected on the above-+entioned section providin& for the lessee*s ri&ht of rede+ption.
4t is the contention of petitioners that insofar as they are concerned, since the deed of
conditional sale in their favor has not yet been re&istered, no rede+ption proceedin&s can
yet be instituted a&ainst the+ under !epublic Act $o. :5//, as a+ended( hence, private
respondents have no cause of action a&ainst the+. <n the other hand, if the ri&ht of
rede+ption by the tenants under the said law is to be rec,oned fro+ the re&istration of the
sale of the land, such ri&ht of rede+ption has already lapsed, since the #$1, as vendee of
the land in a foreclosure sale, had been issued a certificate of sale on )arch 17, 1975 and
subse'uently was issued T.C.T. $o. 10/01%-! upon failure of the +ort&a&ors to redee+ the
property within the one-year period as re'uired by law.
#etitioners* contention is without +erit. 4f the tenants 6the herein private respondents7 had
the ri&ht to redee+ the property under the law upon the sale of the property to the #$1 in
1975, such ri&ht of rede+ption has not yet prescribed because no notice in writin& of the
sale was ever &iven by the vendee upon the tenant as a&ricultural lessees of the land, as
re'uired by law. The #$1 was +ade a party defendant in the petition for rede+ption filed by
the private respondents with the Court of A&rarian !elations, and the #$1 has not appealed
the decision of the 4nter+ediate Appellate Court holdin& that the private respondents had the
ri&ht to redee+ the property as the a&ricultural lessees thereof 4nsofar as the petitioners are
concerned, bein& the transferee of the land in 'uestion by virtue of the unre&istered deed of
conditional sale, they can not clai+ that the tenants, as a&ricultural lessees of the land, have
no cause of action a&ainst the+ si+ply because the deed of conditional sale e9ecuted in
their favor by the #$1 has not yet been re&istered.
!epublic Act $o. :5//, as a+ended, prescribes the period within which the ri&ht of
rede+ption +ust be e9ercised by the a&ricultural lessees, which is one hundred ei&hty days
fro+ written notice fro+ the vendee of the property upon re&istration of the sale. 1ut
certainly there is nothin& in the law which provides that without such written notice, the
a&ricultural lessees can not e9ercise their ri&ht of rede+ption.
!e&ardin& the second assi&n+ent of error alle&ed by petitioners, na+ely, that the private
respondents did not validly e9ercise their ri&ht of rede+ption since there was no valid
consi&nation or tender of pay+ent, we find contention devoid of +erit.
The appellate court correctly ruled that it is not necessary for the lessee to +a,e a tender of
pay+ent andGor consi&nation of the a+ount of the rede+ption price, that a certification
issued by the Aand 1an, that it will finance the rede+ption of the property in 'uestion is
sufficient. #etitioners contend that "ection 12 of !.A. $o. :5//, as a+ended by !.A. $o.
%:59, will show that, unli,e "ection 11 thereof, there is no provision which dee+s the
presentation of a certification of the Aand 1an, that it shall +a,e pay+ent of the property
sou&ht to be redee+ed to be sufficient tender or consi&nation of the rede+ption price.
"ection 11 of !.A. $o. :5//, as a+ended, is a provision on the lessee*s ri&ht of pre-e+ption
and provides that- H... 4f the a&ricultural lessee a&rees with the ter+s and condition of the
sale ... IheJ +ust either tender payment of" or present a certificate from the .and (an2 that it
shall ma2e payment ... on the price of the landholding to the a&ricultural lessor. 4f the latter
refuses to accept such tender or presentment, he +ay consi&n it with the court ... H
62+phasis supplied7. True, said provision does not appear in "ection 12 thereof, which
refers to the lessee*s ri&ht of rede+ption. ?owever, there is no doubt that within the conte9t
of the Code and in line with this Court*s e9hortation that a liberal interpretation of the Code*s
provisions is i+perative, to &ive it full force and effect to its clear intent, the lessee-
pree+ptioner and the lessee-rede+ptioner have the sa+e ri&hts and are in the sa+e footin&
and cate&ory insofar as the avail+ent of the facilities of the Aand 1an, and the )inistry of
A&rarian !efor+ are concerned. )oreover, it is e9plicitly provided in "ection 12 that Hthe
;epart+ent of A&rarian !efor+ shall initiate while the Aand 1an, shall finance, said
rede+ption as in the case of pre-e+ption.H ?ence, it is not necessary for tenants-
rede+ptioners to +a,e a tender andGor consi&nation of the rede+ption price. A certification
of the Aand 1an, to finance the rede+ption when presented will suffice. As observed by the
appellate court-
... @nli,e the a&ricultural lessee whose financial capacity to pay the
rede+ption price +ay be doubtful so that in case of direct pay+ent of the
rede+ption price by hi+ to the owner of the land, he is obli&ated to +a,e an
actual tender of the reasonable price of the land, the Aand 1an, is a solvent
&overn+ent a&ency which is +andated to finance ac'uisition of far+ lots. 4ts
obli&ations are unconditional &uaranteed by the &overn+ent 6"ec. 7%, !.A.
:5//7.
Accordin&ly, findin& the petition without +erit, the sa+e is hereby ;4")4""2;, with costs
a&ainst petitioner.
"< <!;2!2;.