G.R. No. L-11567; July 17, 1958
ARSENIO FERRERIA, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. MANUELA IBARRA VDA. DE GONZALES, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Manuela Ibarra Vda. de Gonzales owned land in Umingan, Pangasinan, cultivated by tenants. After the 1946-47 harvest, several tenants, including Arsenio Ferreria, filed complaints with the Tenancy Division of the Department of Justice, contesting the 60-40 sharing and claiming a 70% share. Only Ferreria’s complaint proceeded against Manuela and her overseer, Luis Tecson. Manuela died on November 27, 1948. Counsel for Ferreria filed a petition for substitution, granted by order dated December 9, 1948, which set the case for hearing. The order mentioned Manolita Gonzales (Manuela’s heir) at an address in Rizal City. Service of this order was made by leaving a copy with Aurora Gonzales, Manolita’s niece, at that address. Hearings proceeded in Manolita’s absence, and a decision was rendered on May 18, 1951, ordering the “respondent landlord and/or her duly authorized representative” to deliver 20.6 cavans of palay (or its value) to Ferreria. A writ of execution was issued on May 23, 1952. Upon receiving the writ, Luis Tecson and Manolita Gonzales each filed petitions to set it aside. Tecson argued he was merely an overseer who had delivered the owner’s share to Manuela and had no further connection to the land after her death. Manolita claimed she was never properly made a party, was never validly served with process or notice, and that the estate was under probate. The Court of Agrarian Relations, through Judge Tomas P. Panganiban, denied their petitions and subsequent motion for reconsideration, holding it had jurisdiction and that Manolita was duly substituted and notified. Manolita and Tecson filed the present petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether there was valid service of the order of substitution on Manolita Gonzales.
2. Whether Luis Tecson, as overseer, is liable to comply with the writ of execution.
3. Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction to proceed with the case and issue the decision and writ of execution.

RULING

1. No, there was no valid service of the order of substitution on Manolita Gonzales. Substituted service was effected by leaving a copy with her niece, Aurora Gonzales. This did not comply with the Rules of Court (Sections 3 and 4, Rule 27, and Section 8, Rule 7) for service of court orders or summons, as it was not shown that service could not be made personally or by mail to Manolita or her attorney. Therefore, Manolita was not properly substituted as a party and was deprived of her day in court.
2. No, Luis Tecson is not liable. He acted merely as an overseer for the 1946-47 agricultural year and delivered the owner’s share to Manuela. His relation as overseer ceased, especially after Manuela’s death. Any obligation to deliver the contested share rests with the estate of Manuela, not with Tecson personally.
3. The original decision of the Tenancy Division (predecessor to the Court of Agrarian Relations) is set aside for lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to effect a valid substitution of the deceased party (Manuela). The writ of execution and the resolutions of the Agrarian Court denying the petitions to lift it are also set aside. The case is remanded to the Court of Agrarian Relations for further proceedings to properly determine the issues, including the valid substitution of parties and the correct sharing basis for the 1946-47 crop, considering the rulings in this decision. No costs.