6/27/2014

G.R. No. 51333

TodayisFriday,June27,2014

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.L51333May18,1989
RAMONAR.LOCSIN,accompaniedbyherhusbandRENATOL.LOCSINTERESITAR.GUANZON,
accompaniedbyherhusbandROMEOG.GUANZONCELINAR.SIBUGaccompaniedbyherhusband
CARLOSV.SIBUGMA.LUISAR.PEREZ,accompaniedbyherhusbandJOSEV.PEREZEDITHAR.
YLANAN,accompaniedbyherhusbandCARLOSW.YLANANandANAMARIER.BENEDICTO,
accompaniedbyherhusbandJOSELUISU.BENEDICTO,petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLEJUDGEVICENTEP.VALENZUELA,JudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofNegros
Occidental,BranchIIIandSPOUSESJOSEPHSCHON,andHELENBENNETTSCHON,respondents.
G.R.No.52289May19,1989
RAMONAR.LOCSIN,accompaniedbyherhusbandRENATOL.LOCSINTERESITAR.GUANZON,
accompaniedbyherhusbandROMEOG.GUANZONCELINAR.SIBUGaccompaniedbyherhusband
CARLOSV.SIBUGMA.LUISAR.PEREZ,accompaniedbyherhusbandJOSEV.PEREZEDITHAR.
YLANAN,accompaniedbyherhusbandCARLOSW.YLANANandANAMARIER.BENEDICTO,
accompaniedbyherhusbandJOSELUISU.BENEDICTO,petitioners,
vs.
CARLOSPANALIGAN,AMADOMARQUEZ,HERBERTPEDROS,ANTONIOFELICIANO,JR.,HUGO
AGUILOS,ALBERTOGUBATON,JULIAVDA.DEESQUELITO,SERAFINJANDOQUELE,SEFERIAS
ESQUESIDA,CARLOSDELACRUZ,ELISEOGELONGOS,ESPINDIONJOCSON,SALVADORMUNUN,
ULFIANOALEGRIA,andIRENEOBALERA,andSpousesJOSEPHSCHON,andHELENBENNETTESCHON,
respondents.
G.R.No.L51333May18,1989
RAMONAR.LOCSIN,accompaniedbyherhusbandRENATOL.LOCSINTERESITAR.GUANZON,
accompaniedbyherhusbandROMEOG.GUANZONCELINAR.SIBUGaccompaniedbyherhusband
CARLOSV.SIBUGMA.LUISAR.PEREZ,accompaniedbyherhusbandJOSEV.PEREZEDITHAR.
YLANAN,accompaniedbyherhusbandCARLOSW.YLANANandANAMARIER.BENEDICTO,
accompaniedbyherhusbandJOSELUISU.BENEDICTO,petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLEJUDGEVICENTEP.VALENZUELA,JudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofNegros
Occidental,BranchIIIandSPOUSESJOSEPHSCHON,andHELENBENNETTSCHON,respondents.
Mirano,Mirano&Associatesforpetitionersinbothcases.
JoseV.Valmayor&SamuelSM.LezamaforprivaterespondentsinG.R.No.51333.BonifacioR.Cruzforprivate
respondentsinG.R.No.52289.
RESOLUTION

FELICIANO,J.:
Therearebeforeusforreviewthefollowing:(1)thedecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofNegrosOccidental,
Branch3,inCivilCaseNo.13823and(2)thedecisionoftheCourtofAgrarianRelations,11thJudicialDistrict,in
CARCaseNo.76.Bothofthesedecisionsdismissedthepetitioners'complaintsforlackofjurisdiction.
PetitionersRamonaR.Locsin,TeresitaR.Guanzon,CelinaR.Sibug,Ma.LusiaR.Perez,EdithaR.Ylananand
AnaMarieR.Benedictowerecoownersofalargetractofagriculturallandknownas"HaciendaVillaRegalado"
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/may1989/gr_51333_1989.html

1/6

6/27/2014

G.R. No. 51333

located in Barrio Panubigan, Canlaon City, Negros Occidental. The tract of land was covered by Transfer
CertificateofTitleNo.T494andtheremoreparticularlydescribedinthefollowingterms:
TRANSFERCERTIFICATEOFTITLE
NO.T494
A parcel of land (Lot 2G) of the subdivision plan Psd28446, Sheet 2, being a portion of Lot 2
(remaining portion) described in plan II6992, G.L.R.O. Record No. 133), situated in the Barrio of
Panubigan,MunicipalityofCanlaonProvinceofNegrosOccidental,BoundedontheN.,byLot2Aof
thesubdivisionplanontheE.,andS.,byBinalbaganRiverontheW.,byLot2Eofthesubdivision
plan on the NW., by Lots 2F and 2A of the subdivision plan. ...containing an area of THREE
MILLION THIRTYTHREE THOUSAND AND FORTY EIGHT (3,033,048) square meters, more or
less.1
Aportionofthisland,knownasLotNo.2CA3andconsistingofanareaof60.07464hectares,wassubjectto
the lifetime usufructuary rights of respondent Helen Schon:. The bulk of this lot was cultivated by the following
lesseestenantswhocustomarilydeliveredtherentaltoHelenSchon:
TENANTS
1.CarlosPanaligan

2.00Ha.

2.AmadoMarquez

1.50Ha.

3.HerbertPedros

1.50Ha.

4.AntonioFeliciano,Jr.

2.00Ha.

5.HugoAguilos

3.50Ha.

6.AlbertoGubaton

8.90Ha.

7.HuloAguilos

1.32Ha.

8.JuliaVda.deEsquelito

2.25Ha.

9.CarlosPanaligan

1.25Ha.

10.SerafinJandoquele

5.35Ha.

11.SeferiasEsquesida

2.00Ha.

12.CarlosdelaCruz

4.70Ha.

13EliseoGelongos

3.00Ha.

14.EspindionJocson

5.55Ha.

15.SalvadorMunon

1.5884Ha.

16.UlfianoAlegria

1.85Ha.

17.IreneoBalera

8.30Ha.

TOTAL

56.555Ha.2

On 22 October 1972, after the onset of the martial law administration of former President Marcos, Presidential
DecreeNo.27waspromulgated,decreeingthe"EmancipationofTenants."Thetractoflandownedincommon
bythepetitioners,includingtheportionthereofsubjecttoHelenSchon'susufructuaryrights,fellwithinthescope
of"OperationLandTransfer."Inconsequence,staffmembersoftheDepartmentofAgrarianRelationsIdentified
thetenanttillersofsaidland,andthenecessaryparcellarymapsketchwasmadeandsubmittedtotheBureauof
LandsOfficeinDumagueteCity. 3 Petitioners through counsel sought the opinion of the DAR as to who (petitioners or
respondentHelenSchon)shouldbeentitledtoreceivetherentalpaymentswhichcontinuedtobemadebytherespondent
tenants to Helen Schon. The DAR District Officer rendered an opinion on 30 May 1977 that the rental payments as of 22
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/may1989/gr_51333_1989.html

2/6

6/27/2014

G.R. No. 51333

October 1972 were properly considered as amortization payments for the land and as such should pertain to the land
ownersandnottotheusufructuary.4

1.CivilCaseNo.13828,CourtofFirstInstanceofNegrosOccidental
On22May1978,petitionersfiledagainstthespousesJosephandHelenSchonCivilCaseNo.13828inthethen
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, for collection of rentals plus damages with prayer for preliminary
injunction.TherepetitionersclaimedthatsincethelandsubjecttoHelenSchon'susufructuaryrightswasamong
theparcelsoflandwhichcolectivelyhadbeendeclaredbytheDARasalandreformareapursuanttoPresidential
Decree No. 27, the rental payments which the respondent spouses had been colecting from the tenants really
pertainedandshouldbedeliveredtopetitioners,beginningfrom21October1972,asconstitutingorformingpart
oftheamortizationpaymentsforthelandtobemadebythetenants.Petitionerssoughtinthatcasetorecover
from the Schons all such previous rentals or the money value thereof, and prayed for injunction to prevent the
respondentsfromcollectinganyfurtherrentalpaymentsfromthetenantsofthelandinvolved.
Upon the other hand, in their Answer filed on 12 July 1978, the respondents Schon contended that under the
provisionsofSection12ofPresidentialDecreeNo.946dated17June1976,andgiventhefactsinvolvedinCivil
Case No. 13823, the Court of First Instance was bereft of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. That
jurisdiction,theSchonspousesurged,wasvestedintheCARinstead.Respondentsfurtherarguedthat,uponthe
assumptionarguendothattheCourtofFirstInstancedidhavejurisdiction,Article609oftheCivilCodemustin
anycasebeappliedbythatcourtinresolvingthecase.5
2.CARCaseNo.76,CourtofAgrarianRelations
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
respondentsofthespousesSchonthetenantswhowerecultivatingthelandburdenedwiththeusufructofHelen
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
paymentoftheamortizationpaymentscomputedbytheDAR.IntheirAnswer,therespondentsSchononceagain
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
agrariandisputeandthereforehadtobelitigatedelsewhere,i.e.,beforetheregularcourtsoffirstinstance.
Therespondenttenants,fortheirpart,agreedwiththeSchonsthattherewasnotenancyrelationshipexistingin
respectofthelandcultivatedbythem,sincesuchlandhadalreadybeenbroughtwithintheambitof"Operation
Land Transfer", and prayed that the petitioners and the usufructuary be required to litigate among themselves
theirrespectiverightsbeforethepropercourt.
3.DismissalofCivilCaseNo.13823andCARCaseNo.76
On15February1979,theAgrarianCourtrenderedadecisiondismissingpetitioners'complaintinCARCaseNo.
76.TheCourtofAgrarianRelationsheldthatithadnojurisdictiontodecidethecase:
...itiscrystalclearthatthecontendingpartiesareactuallyRamonaR.Locsin,etal.,andthenaked
ownersof101hectaresofsubjectagriculturalland,ononehand,andHelenBennettSchon,whois
theusufructuaryofthesameland,ontheother.
For all legal intents and purposes, Helen BennettSchon belongs to the category of a landowner,
sincesheistherecipientofanyandallfruitderivedfromthelandofwhichtheplaintiffsarethenaked
owners.TheusufructlastsforaslongasHelenBennettSchonlives.Therefore,thiscaseactuallyis
adisputebetweentwolandownersone,thenakedowners,theother,thebeneficialownerhose
controversyrevolvesonwhoofthemshouldreceivetherentalsbeingpaidbythetenantsorlessees
onthelandinquestion.Consequently,thereisasbetweenthetwocontendingparties,noagrarian
disputewhichthisCourtmaytakecognizanceof.Underthecircumstances,itistheconsideredstand
ofthisCourtthatitisnottheproperforumbothwithrespecttothesecondamendedcomplaintand
withrespecttothepetitionforappointmentofareceiver.
WHEREFORE, RESOLVING BOTH THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE PETITION
FORAPPOINTMENTOFARECEIVER,THELATTERBEINGONLYAREPLAYOFTHEFORMER,
BOTHAREDISMISSEDFORLACKOFJURISDICTION(pp.78Decision)6
PetitionersappealedthedecisionoftheAgrarianCourttotheCourtofAppeals,theappealbeingtheredocketed
asC.A.G.R.SPNo.09440.InaDecisiondated27November1979,however,theCourtofAppealsruledthat
sincetheonlyissuepresentedintheappealwaswhetherornottheCourtofAgrarianRelationshadjurisdictionto
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/may1989/gr_51333_1989.html

3/6

6/27/2014

G.R. No. 51333

tryanddecideCARCaseNo.76,theappealraised"apurequestionoflaw"andcertifiedthecasetotheSupreme
Courtforthelatter'sdisposition.
WeturntoCivilCaseNo.13823.On16March1979,thethenCourtofFirstInstanceofNegrosOccidentalissued
anorderalsodismissingthecomplaintofpetitionersonthesamegroundoflackofjurisdictiontohearanddecide
thatcase.TheCourtofFirstInstanceheldthatitwastheCourtofAgrarianRelationsthathadjurisdictionoverthe
case,andrationalizedthispositioninthefollowingmanner:
IndeterminingwhetherthisCourthasjurisdiction,necessarily,adeterminationshouldfirstbemade
astothenatureoftheleaserentalsthatwerebeingpaidtothedefendantsbythetenantslessees.
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
paymenttothelandandassuchshouldpertaintothelandownersandnottotheusufructuary,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,asfollows:
(a)Casesinvolvingtherightsandobligationofpersonsincultivationanduseofagriculturalland...
(b)Questionsinvolvingrightsgrantedandobligationsimposedbylaw,presidentialdecrees,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
DecreeNo.27asamended...
Itcould be seen from the above that the jurisdiction given to the Court of Agrarian Relations is so
broadandsweepingastocovertheissueinvolvedinthepresentcase....theagriculturalleasehold
relationisnotlimitedtothatofapurelylandlordandtenantrelationship.The agricultural leasehold
relationship is established also with respect to the person who furnished the landholding either as
owner,civillessee,usufructuaryorlegalpossessorandthepersonwhocultivatesthesame.Itmight
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
DecreeNo.49providessuchanswer
xxxxxxxxx
Questionsinvolvingrightsgrantedandobligationsimposedbythelaw,presidentialdecrees,orders,
instructions, rules and regulations issued and promulgations in relation to the agrarian reform
program.
Clearly,thedeterminationofthenatureofthepaymentmadebythetenantstothedefendantsherein
is a question which involved the right of the tenants in relation to the land reform program of the
government.7
TheaboveorderoftheNegrosOccidentalCourtofFirstInstancewasbroughtdirectlytousbypetitionersona
PetitionforReviewinG.R.No.51333.
G.R.No.51333andG.R.No.52289wereconsolidatedbyaResolutionofthisCourtdated16June1982.
The consolidated cases present the question of which court had jurisdiction to decide one and the other case.
BoththeCourtofFirstInstanceandtheagrarianCourtwerepersuadedbytheadroitanddisingenuouspleading
of respondent Schon's counsel. Beyond the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter, is, of course, the
substantive question of twhether the peitioner as naked owners of the land subjected to the beneficial owner's
right of Helen Schon, became entitled to the payment's made by the tenants or lessees of such land from and
afterthepropertywasdeclaredpartofalandreformarea.
TheissueofwhichcourtisvestedwithjurisdictionoverCivilCaseno.13823andCARCaseNo.76is,happily,no
longeraliveone.JurisdictionoverbothcasesisclearlyvestedintheappropiateRegionalTrialCourt in view of
theprovisionsofSection19(7)ofBatasPambansaBlg.129whichwasenactedbytheBatasangPambansaon10
August1981andfullyimplementedon14February1983.8
Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/may1989/gr_51333_1989.html

4/6

6/27/2014

G.R. No. 51333

xxxxxxxxx
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive origin al jurisdiction of
juvenileanddomesticrelationscourtsandofthecourtsofagrarianrelationsasnowprovidedbylaw
xxxxxxxxx
(Emphasissupplied)
TheRegionalTrialCourtshavefullauthorityandjurisdictiontointerpretandapplyboththemassofstatutesand
rules and regulations relating to land reform and the general civil law, including the law on usufruct. Unlike a
regionaltrialcourtsittingasaprobatecourt,aregionaltrialcourtseizedofanagrariandisputeandinterpreting
and applying statutes and administrative rules and regulations concerning land reform and the sliminations of
agricultural tenancy relationships, continues to act as a court of general and plenary jurisdiction. Section 44 of
b.P.Blg.129abolishedtheCourtsofAgrarianRelationsanddidnotrecreatethem.
Wenotethatresolutionoftheunderlyingsubstantiveissueshereraisedrequiresexaminationofbothlandreform
statutes and related rules and regulations (and as well the practice of the relevant administrative agency or
executivedepartment)andtheCivilCodeprovisionsonusufruct.
MindfulofthelengthoftimewhichhasgonebysincethefirstoftheconsolidatedcasesrechedthisCourt,andin
the effort to render expeditious justice, we have considered whether we should now confront and resolve the
issuerelatingtothelegalcharacterofthepaymentsmadebytherespondentstenantslesseessince21October
1972torespondentHelenSchon,aswellastheissuerelatingtothepossibleapplicationofArticle609oftheCivil
Code.Because,however,ofthenatureandimportanceofthefirstissue,andconsideringthatthepleadingsand
therecordsofthesestwo(2)casesarebareofanysubstantialdiscussionbythepartiesonbothissues,theCourt
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
needtoremandthesecasestotheRegionalTrialCourtforfurtherproceedingsthere.Instead,weshallrequire
thepartiestofilememorandaontheissuesaboveindicated,andthedirecttheSolicitorGeneraltointervenein
thesecasesandtofileamemorandumaddressingthesameissues.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to: (1) REQUIRE the petition and private respondents in G.R. Nos. 51333
and52289tofilesimultaneousmemorandaaddressingthesubstantiveissuesidentifiedabove,withinthirty(30)
daysfromnoticehereof,andtoFURNISHtheSolicitorGeneralacopyoftheirrespectivememorandaand(2)to
DIRECTtheSolicitorGeneraltofileamotionforinterventiononbehalfofthegovernmentandamemorandumon
the same substantive questions within thirty (30) days from receipt of petitioners' and private respondents'
memoranda.
SOORDERED.
Fernan,C,J.,Gutierrez,Jr.,BidinandCortes,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1RolloofG.R.No.52289,p.31.
2RolloofG.R.No.51333,p.4.
3RolloofG.R.No.51333,Annex"A"ofPetition,pp.1920.
4Id.,p.5.
5Article609.Shouldthethinginusufructbeexpropriatedforpublicuse,theownershallbeobliged
eithertoreplaceitwithanotherthingofthesamevalueandofsimilarconditions,ortopaythe
usufructuarythelegalinterestontheamountoftheindemnityforthewholeperiodoftheusufruct.If
theownerchoosesthelateralternative,heshallgivesecurityforthepaymentoftheinterest.
6RolloofG.R.No.51333,pp.7273underscoringsupplied.
7RolloofG.R.No.51333,p.34Emphasissupplied.
8Enriquezvs.FortunaMaricultureCorporation,158SCRA651(1988).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/may1989/gr_51333_1989.html

5/6

6/27/2014

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/may1989/gr_51333_1989.html

G.R. No. 51333

6/6