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 defendant—the 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.
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.1äwphï1.ñët

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 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.

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.