Abbain v. Chua

facts

March 12, 1958. Chua commenced suit  for"forcible entry and illegal, detainer" against HatibAbbain at the Peace Court of Bongao, Sulu. He averred that he is the owner of a piece of land (4 ha) located in Bongao, Sulu. That his tenant (defendant) and have been always dividing the fruits or copra harvested therefrom on fifty-fifty basis. But the defendant "by means of force, strategy and stealth unlawfully entered and still occupies the land in question after I have repeatedly demanded of him to vacate the premises due to his failure to give the 50% share of the harvest.

Peace court ruled in favor of the plaintiff claiming that the action was an ejectment proceeding and not based on a tenancy agreement.

issue/ruling

WON the Court of Agrarian Relations (not Peace Court of Sulu) has jurisdiction.

Yes, Chua's complaint positively avers that Abbain is his tenant and that he seeks ejectment of HatibAbbain "due to his non-compliance of our agreement of giving his share of the harvests he made."

The Justice of the Peace Court had no jurisdiction over the The case should have been dismissed when it became all the more evident that a landlord-tenant relationship existed.

Section 21 of RA 1199 "Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines", which reads:

 Sec. 21. Ejectment; violation; jurisdiction. — All cases involving the dispossession of a tenant by the land-holder or by a third party and/or the settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of land-holder and tenant… shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Court of Agrarian Relations.

RA 1267 (creating the first Court of Agrarian Relations):

Sec. 7. Jurisdiction of the Court. — The Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle all questions, matters, controversies or disputes involving all those relationships 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: . . . .

Such exclusive authority is not divested by a mere averment on the part of the tenant that he asserts ownership over the land, "since the law does not exclude from the jurisdiction" of the Court of Agrarian Relations, "cases in which a tenant claims ownership over the land given to him for cultivation by the landlord." 

effects of lack of jurisdiction

The judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court is not merely a voidable judgment. It is void on its face.

Even after the time for appeal or review had elapsed, appellant could bringsuch an action. Such a judgment is held to be "a dead limb on the judicial tree, which should be lopped off or wholly disregarded as the circumstances require." 

Mr. Justice Street:  "Where a judgment or judicial order is void in this sense it may be said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head."

Gomez vs. Concepcion: "A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one. All acts performed under it and all claims flowing out of it are void. The parties attempting to enforce it may be responsible as trespassers. The purchaser at a sale by virtue of its authority finds himself without title and without redress."

Since the judgment here on its face is void ab initio, the limited periods for relief from judgment in Rule 38 are inapplicable. That judgment is vulnerable to attack "in any way and at any time, even when no appeal has been taken." 

dispositive

Decision of the Justice of the Peace Court of Bongao, Suluis annulled.