G.R. No.

80040 September 30, 1988

ISMAEL AMORGANDA and TRINIDAD G. AMORGANDA, petitioners,
vs.
ONORA!LE "O#RT O$ A%%EALS, ESTANISLAO SA&"ON and "LARA SA&"ON, respondents.
%ADILLA, J.:
Review on certiorari of the decision ' rendered by the respondent appellate court on 17 July 1987, in CA-.R. !" #o.
$9%1&, entitled' (Estanislao Saycon, et al., petitioners, versus Hon. Eleuterio E. Chiu, etc. et al., respondents,( which
set aside, for bein) null and void, the order issued by Jud)e *leuterio *. Chill on +, April 198% in Civil Case #o. 879& of
the Re)ional -rial Court of #e)ros .riental, restrainin) the defendants therein, now private respondents, fro/
cultivatin), ta0in) possession of, )atherin) the 1shes and shri/ps or other products thereon, or co//ittin) acts of
interference or disturbance in the plainti2s3 possession of the 1shpond in 4uestion, and directed the dis/issal of said
Civil Case #o. 879&.
-he facts of the case, in brief, are as follows'
.n ,$ July 1977, herein private respondents, spouses *stanislao and Clara !aycon, leased to herein petitioners,
spouses 5s/ael and -rinidad A/or)anda, a 1shpond located at Cabalulan 6anipis, -an7ay #e)ros .riental, which (land
is a part or portion of "8A #o. +$8% containin) an area of !*9*# :7; hectares, /ore or less, 3in the na/e of "edro
!aycon, lessors3 deceased father,3 ( for a period of ten :1$; years fro/ said date. Rentals in the a/ount of ",,$$$,$$ a
year for the entire lease period were duly paid to and received by the lessors. .n ,$ January 1981, the lease period
was e<tended for two :+; years, to e<pire on ,$ July 1989. A)ain, rentals for the e<tended period were paid to and
received by the lessors. -hen, on +$ =ece/ber 198+, the lessors, in consideration of another advance rental on the
1shpond, a)ain a)reed to e<tend the lease period for another ei)ht :8; years fro/ ,$ July 1989 and ter/inatin) on ,1,
July 1997.
1
.n > January 198%, however, the lessors, herein private respondents *stanislao and Clara !aycon, harvested ban)us
and shri/ps fro/ the 1shpond without the 0nowled)e and consent of the lessees, herein petitioners 5s/ael and
-rinidad A/or)anda. Conse4uently, the petitioners 1led a cri/inal co/plaint for 4uali1ed theft a)ainst the private
respondents before the "rovincial ?iscal of #e)ros .riental. -he co/plaint was doc0eted as 5.!. Case #o. 8%-? and is
still pendin) preli/inary investi)ation therein.
(
-hen, on +7 ?ebruary 198%, the private respondents, alle)edly with the aid of ar/ed /en, forcibly entered the leased
1shpond and prevented the petitioners and their wor0ers fro/ enterin) the pre/ises. As a result, the petitioners 1led a
co/plaint a)ainst the private respondents before the Re)ional -rial Court of #e)ros .riental, doc0eted therein as Civil
Case #o. 879&, to co/pel the private respondents to return the leased pre/ises to the/ and for da/a)es in the
a/ounts of. :1; "+>,$$$. $$ every three :,; /onths or "1$$,$$$.$$ a year, until possession of the 1shpond is restored
to the lessees@ :b; "+$,$$$.$$, as /oral da/a)es and "1$,$$$.$$, as e<e/plary da/a)es@ :c; "1$,$$$.$$, as
attorney3s fees and ">$$.$$ per appearance in court of counsel@ and :d; such other actual e<penses and da/a)es as
/ay be proved durin) the trial. -he petitioners further prayed that a writ of preli/inary in7unction be i//ediately
issued restrainin) the private respondents, their a)ents or persons actin) in their behalf, fro/ cultivatin), ta0in)
possession of, or co//ittin) acts which would disturb or interfere with petitioners3 possession of said 1shpond.
3
?indin) the application for the issuance of a writ of preli/inary in7unction to be suAcient in for/ and substance, the
trial court issued a te/porary restrainin) order on & 6arch 198%, directin) the private respondents, defendants
therein, to refrain fro/ cultivatin), ta0in) possession of, )atherin) 1shes, shri/ps and other products fro/ the land in
4uestion until further orders, and set the application for preli/inary in7unction for hearin) on 1, 6arch 198%.
4
.n +% 6arch 198%, the private respondents 1led their Answer to the co/plaint, alle)in) that the private respondent
*stanislao !aycon is not the true owner of the property which he had leased to the petitioners, but the )overn/ent of
the "hilippines, because it reverted to the )overn/ent after the license of "edro !aycon, late father of private
respondents *stanislao !aycon, was cancelled and all i/prove/ents e<istin) in the area forfeited in favor of the
)overn/ent@ that the petitioners have no ri)ht whatsoever to the 1shpond because their earlier ri)hts were lost upon
the cancellation of the license of said "edro !aycon and the area declared open for disposition to any interested party
and 4uali1ed applicant@ that the trial court has no 7urisdiction to ta0e co)niBance of disputes relative to possessory
ri)hts over the 1shpond in 4uestion, which belon)s to the Cureau of ?isheries and A4uatic Resources :C?AR;@ that the
herein petitioners failed to e<haust all ad/inistrative re/edies before resort was /ade to the courts@ and that the
petitioners have no cause of action since the 1shpond in 4uestion had been forfeited in favor of the )overn/ent and
petitioners are not applicants for per/it to operate or lease the sa/e fro/ the )overn/ent.
)
.n +, April 198%, the trial court )ranted the application for issuance of a writ of preli/inary in7unction (restrainin),
en7oinin), and prohibitin) the defendants, their a)ents, servants, andDor any person actin) in their behalves fro/
cultivatin), ta0in) possession of, )atherin) the 1shes and shri/ps or other products thereon, or co//ittin) acts of
interference or disturbance in the plainti2s3 possession( of the 1shpond in 4uestion upon the 1lin) of an in7unction
bond in the a/ount of ">$,$$$.$$.
*
-he private respondents 1led a /otion for reconsideration of the order, but their
/otion was denied on 11 June 198%.
+
Conse4uently, the private respondents 1led a petition with the 5nter/ediate Appellate Court :now Court of Appeals; to
annul and set aside the order of +, April 198% on the )rounds that' :1; the trial court has no 7urisdiction over the case
since the co/plaint 1led is in the nature of recovery of possession and should have been 1led in the 6unicipal Court of
-an7ay #e)ros .riental, where the land is situated, in accordance with Rule 7$ of the Rules of Court@ :+; there is no
cause of action because (:w;hen the C?AR issued an .rder con1scatin) the 1shpond in favor of the overn/ent and
declarin) the contract of lease between !aycon and the A/or)andas to be null and void, the ri)hts of the A/or)andas
for :to; possession over the 1shpond was :were; not any/ore e<istin)@ they /i)ht have so/e ri)hts for su/ of /oney
fro/ the !aycons. -he respondents have no ri)ht whatsoever to step in the shoes of the )overn/ent@ and :,; non-
e<haustion of ad/inistrative re/edies in that the action should have been 1led with the C?AR before resort was /ade
to the courts.
8
-he herein petitioners in due course 1led their co//ent with the Court of Appeals
9
and on 17 July 1987, the
respondent appellate court issued the decision in 4uestion, declarin) null and void the order of the re)ional trial court
of +, April 198%, for the reason that the co/plaint is one for recovery of possession over which the re)ional trial court
has no 7urisdiction, and directin) the trial court to dis/iss Civil Case #o. 879& of the Re)ional -rial Court of #e)ros
.riental.
10
.n 1$, Au)ust 1987, the petitioners 1led, by re)istered /ail, a /otion for reconsideration of the decision,
11
but the
respondent appellate court denied the /otion for havin) been 1led beyond the re)le/entary period.
1(
Eence, the
present recourse. -he Court )ave due course to the petition.
13
-he petitioners raise two :+; issues, to wit'
:1; whether or not the petitioners3 /otion for reconsideration of the decision of the respondent
appellate court had been 1led out of ti/e and the said decision, is already 1nal and e<ecutory@ and
:+; whether or not the Re)ional -rial Court of #e)ros .riental has 7urisdiction over the case.
.n the procedural issue, it appears that counsel for the herein petitioners received a copy of the decision of the Court
of Appeals on +& July 1987. "ursuant to the rules,
14
he had 1fteen :1>; days fro/ said date, or up to 8 Au)ust 1987,
within which to appeal therefro/ or 1le a /otion for its reconsideration. Counsel for the petitioners, however, 1led the
/otion for reconsideration only on 1$ Au)ust 1987, or two :+; days after the e<piration of the re)le/entary period.
Counsel for the petitioners, in e<plainin) the delay, clai/ed that the last day for 1lin) the /otion for reconsideration, 8
Au)ust 1987, fell on a holiday, a !aturday, so that he 1led the /otion for reconsideration on 6onday, 1$ Au)ust 1987,
the day followin) a holiday and !unday.
!aturday, 8 Au)ust 1987, however, was not an oAcial holiday so that the petitioners3 /otion for reconsideration was
1led beyond the re)le/entary period. Cut a stron) co/pellin) reason, i.e., the prevention of a )rave /iscarria)e of
7ustice e<ists in this case that would warrant a suspension of the Rules and e<cuse the delay of two :+; calendar days
in the 1lin) of said /otion for reconsideration.
-he private respondents have ad/itted to have unilaterally ter/inated the lease contract e<ecuted between the/ and
the petitioners, and prevented the latter fro/ enterin) the 1shpond, sub7ect /atter of the lease contract, despite the
fact that the lease between the/ is to e<pire only on ,1 July 1997, and that rentals have been paid to private
respondents by the petitioners up to said date. -heir :private respondents; e<cuse is that they have lost their ri)ht
over the land since said land, which had been previously leased to their late father, "edro !aycon, had been forfeited
in favor of the )overn/ent.
5ndeed, the private respondents have lost whatever ri)ht they /ay have had over the 1shpond in 4uestion after said
land had been forfeited in favor of the )overn/ent. 5n his .rder, dated 11 April 198>, the =irector of the Cureau of
?isheries and A4uatic Resources :C?AR; cate)orically stated that the heirs of "edro !aycon, a/on) the/ the private
respondent *stanislao !aycon, (have no /ore le) to stand on, /uch less any/ore personality to assert any ri)ht over
the area under .?" #o. ?-+,&-C.
1)
-hat bein) the case, what ri)ht had the private respondents to enter the 1shpond
and e<clude the petitioners there fro/F -he fact that the =irector of the C?AR, in his .rder of 11 April 198>, had
ordered that any occupant thereon should vacate the pre/ises did not )ive the private respondents license to rene)e
on their obli)ation under the contract %f lease and e7ect the petitioners fro/ the land. As correctly stated by the trial
court in its order dated +, April 198%, (:t;he .rder of the C?AR :*<hibit (8(; relied upon by the defendant :private
respondent herein; is of no /o/ent, for the )overn/ent is not a party in this case. -he said .rder would beco/e
/aterial and relevant only when the )overn/ent ta0es le)al action a)ainst any possessor of the 1shpond in
4uestion.
1*
Cesides, the private respondents who appear to be )uilty of coercion, stand to un7ustly pro1t fro/ their fraudulent and
deceitful act at the e<pense of the petitioners who /ay not be able to recover the rentals advanced by the/ to the
private respondents.
.ne other reason for suspendin) the Rules and allowin) the petitioners to appeal is that there is no indication that, in
1lin) the /otion for reconsideration on 6onday, 1$ Au)ust 1987, instead of !aturday, 8 Au)ust 1987, counsel for the
petitioners was /otivated by a desire to delay the proceedin)s or obstruct the ad/inistration of 7ustice. Eis /ista0en
belief that !aturday is a le)al holiday appears to be pardonable since the courts of 7ustice do not hold oAce on
!aturdays. Anyway, the delay of two :+; calendar daysGone of which was a !undayGin the 1lin) of the /otion for
reconsideration did not pre7udice the cause of the private respondents, or that said private respondents su2ered
/aterial in7ury by reason of the delay.
5n Lagunzad vs. Court of Appeals,
1+
the Court said, and we 4uote.
He cannot 7ust /ore petitioner3s plea for a review of his case in this instance. -here is not the sli)htest
indication of /alice on his part or of a desire to delay the proceedin)s and to trans)ress the rules on
procedure. 5f at all, his was an honest /ista0e or /iscalculation worsened by so/e fortuitous
occurrence which we dee/ condonable under the circu/stances. ?or we have, in /any cases )ranted
relief where a strin)ent application of the re4uire/ent of ti/eliness of pleadin)s would have denied a
liti)ant substantial 7ustice and e4uity. !uAce it to note that the rules on technicality were pro/ul)ated
to secure not to override substantial 7ustice. As it should be in this case especially because the petition
appears also to be i/pressed with /erit.
-he other issue raised by the petitioners is' whether or not the Re)ional -rial Court of #e)ros .riental has 7urisdiction
over the case.
-he respondent appellate court, in its decision under review, found that the re)ional trial court has no 7urisdiction over
the case since the ob7ect of the co/plaint was to recover possession of the land which the herein private respondents
had secured by /eans of force, threats and inti/idation. !aid the appellate court'
... 5t is 4uite obvious fro/ the fore)oin) that the ob7ect of the co/plaint is to recover possession of the
property in 4uestion which private respondents ac4uired as lessees thereof, but of which they were
deprived by petitioners by /eans of (force, threats and inti/idation.( -he co/plaint thus alle)es the
facts which confer e<clusive 7urisdiction in the 6unicipal -rial Court to try the case. :!ec. ,,:+;, C"
1+9;. -he Eonorable respondent Court bein) devoid of 7urisdiction over the /ain case, it was, li0ewise,
without 7urisdiction to issue the writ of preli/inary in7unction dated +, April 198%.
18
He do not a)ree. Hhile the herein petitioners3 co/plaint in the trial court alle)es that they were dispossessed of the
leased 1shpond by the lessors, herein private respondents, by /eans of force, stealth and inti/idation, so that the
co/plaint would appear, at 1rst blush, to be one for forcible entry and da/a)es, the action is, in reality, one for
speci1c perfor/ance, i.e., to co/pel the private respondents, as lessors, to co/ply with their obli)ations under the
lease contract and return the possession of the leased pre/ises to the/, and for da/a)es due to their :private
respondents3; un7ust occupation of the land. !uch action is one not capable of pecuniary esti/ation and co/es within
the e<clusive ori)inal 7urisdiction of re)ional trial courts. -hus, Article 1%>& of the Civil Code provides'
Art. 1%>&. -he lessor is obli)ed'
:a; -o deliver the thin) which is the ob7ect of the contract in such a condition as to render it 1t for the
use intended@
:+; -o /a0e on the sa/e durin) the lease all the necessary repairs in order to 0eep it suitable for the
use it has been devoted, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary@
:,; -o /aintain the lessee in the peaceful and ade4uate en7oy/ent of the lease for the entire duration
of the contract.
5n De Rivera vs. Halili,
19
the Court said that the action to co/pel the lessor to co/ply with his obli)ation (to /aintain
the lessee in the peaceful and ade4uate en7oy/ent of the lease for the entire duration of the contract( is within the
e<clusive ori)inal 7urisdiction of the court of 1rst instance, now the re)ional trial court.
5n Lapitan vs. Scandia Inc.,
(0
the Court, spea0in) throu)h the e/inent 6r. Justice Jose C.8. Reyes, also said'
A review of the 7urisprudence of this Court indicates that in deter/inin) whether an action is one not
capable of peculliary esti/ation, this Court has adopted the criterion of 1rst ascertainin) the nature of
the principal action or re/edy sou)ht. 5f it is pri/arily for the recovery of a su/ of /oney, the clai/ is
considered capable of pecuniary esti/ation, and whether 7urisdiction is in the /unicipal courts or in
the courts of 1rst instance would depend on the a/ount of the clai/. Eowever, where the basic issue
is so/ethin) other than the ri)ht to recover a su/ of /oney, or where the /oney clai/ is purely
incidental to, or a conse4uence of, the principal relief sou)ht li0e in the suits to have the defendant
perfor/ his paint of the contract :speci1c perfor/ance; and in actions for support, or for annul/ent of
a 7ud)/ent or to foreclose a /ort)a)e, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the
sub7ect of the liti)ation /ay not be esti/ated in ter/s of /oney, and are co)niBable e<clusively by
courts of 1rst instance. ...
!ince the present action is to co/pel the private respondents to perfor/ their part of the contract of lease (to
/aintain the lessee in the peaceful and ade4uate en7oy/ent of the lease for the entire duration of the contract,( the
action is within the e<clusive ori)inal 7urisdiction of the re)ional trial court.
(1
-he respondent Court of Appeals, therefore, erroneously classi1ed the present action as one for forcible entry and
da/a)es which is co)niBable e<clusively by the /unicipal trial court. Accordin)ly, the decision appealed fro/ should
be reversed and set aside.
He also 1nd no /erit in the clai/ of the private respondents that the Cureau of ?isheries and A4uatic Resources :C?AR;
has e<clusive 7urisdiction over the case. 5n itargue vs. Sorilla
((
the Court ruled'
... -he vestin) of the 8ands =epart/ent with authority to ad/inister, dispose, and alienate public
lands, ... /ust not be understood as deprivin) the other branches of the overn/ent of the e<ercise of
their respective functions or powers thereon, such as the authority to stop disorders and 4uell
breaches of the peace by the police, and the authority on the part of the courts to ta0e 7urisdiction
over possessory actions arisin) therefro/ not involvin), directly or indirectly, alienation and
disposition.
HE*R*?.R*, the 7ud)/ent appealed fro/ is hereby R*9*R!*= and !*- A!5=* and another one entered aAr/in) the
order issued by the trial court on +, April 198% in Civil Case #o. 879& of the Re)ional -rial Court of #e)ros .riental.
Hith costs a)ainst the private respondents.
!. .R=*R*=.