G.R. No. L-12902; July 29, 1959
Ceferino Marcelo, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Nazario de Leon, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On February 4, 1957, Ceferino Marcelo filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, to recover possession of a 2,000-square-meter lot. He sued as the attorney-in-fact of the true owner, Severino P. Marcelo. The complaint alleged that defendant Nazario de Leon held the land under an agreement to give one-half of all products raised to the landowner. After plaintiff assumed administration, defendant initially delivered the owner’s share. However, in September 1956, when plaintiff demanded an additional monthly rental of two pesos, defendant refused. Plaintiff prayed for defendant’s ejectment and payment of damages. Defendant contested the court’s jurisdiction, arguing the case involved tenancy relations under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, and challenged plaintiff’s capacity to sue. The Justice of the Peace Court ruled for plaintiff, but on appeal, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija dismissed the complaint on two grounds: (1) the case pertained to the Court of Agrarian Relations, and (2) plaintiff, as a mere attorney-in-fact, had no right to bring the action in his own name.

ISSUE

1. Whether the case involves an ejectment matter within the jurisdiction of the inferior court or a tenancy dispute under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
2. Whether plaintiff Ceferino Marcelo, acting as attorney-in-fact, has the capacity to sue in his own name.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the order of dismissal.
1. On Jurisdiction: The Court held the case involved an agricultural tenancy relationship, specifically share tenancy, falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. The land was part of a larger agricultural tract. The defendant’s possession for cultivation and sharing of produce with the owner established a landlord-tenant relationship. The fact that defendant built a dwelling on a portion of the lot did not convert it to residential land or alter the tenancy relationship, as the Agricultural Tenancy Act ( Republic Act No. 1199 ) itself contemplates the tenant having a dwelling on the landholding. The defendant’s alleged refusal to pay an additional rental of two pesos per month, which was unilaterally imposed and never agreed upon, did not change the essential nature of the tenancy relation. Therefore, the action for dispossession was correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of First Instance.
2. On Capacity to Sue: The Court ruled that the plaintiff, as a mere attorney-in-fact (apoderado) of the owner, was not the real party in interest and could not prosecute the action in his own name. The rule requires every action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest (Section 2, Rule 3, Rules of Court). While Section 1 of Rule 72 (on ejectment) allows the “legal representative” of a landlord to bring an action, the power of attorney granted to plaintiff authorized him to sue “for and in the name of” his principal, Severino P. Marcelo. Since the complaint was filed in the name of Ceferino Marcelo himself, and not in the name of his principal, he lacked the capacity to institute the suit.