G.R. No. L-4013

JUSTO GUIDO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. AGUSTIN DE BORJA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

February 4, 1909

—

FACTS:

The heirs and successors of Francisco Guido and Dominga Santa Ana (plaintiffs-appellees) filed an action to recover the ownership and possession of the Hacienda of Angono against Agustin de Borja, et al. (defendants-appellants). The defendants were former tenants of the hacienda until 1903, after which they denied the plaintiffs’ ownership and claimed to be the owners themselves.

The Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered judgment:
1. Declaring the plaintiffs as the owners and rightful possessors of the Hacienda Angono and ordering the defendants to restore possession.
2. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs sums in money and paddy (rice) for ground rent/lease on shares, as itemized in the complaint (civil fruits), but denied the plaintiffs’ claim over the natural fruits/crops planted by the defendants.
3. Ordering defendants to pay costs.

The defendants appealed, raising several errors, primarily contending: (1) Misjoinder of defendants, arguing that separate actions should have been brought against each tenant; (2) Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over the monetary claims for rent, as individual amounts owed by each tenant were less than the jurisdictional threshold of $100; (3) That plaintiffs’ ownership was not proven, citing issues with the original grant (allegedly violating laws concerning “Indios”), the non-registration of one-half of the hacienda (Article 23 of the Mortgage Law), and the insufficient time for conversion of a possessory title into an ownership title for the other half (Article 393 of the Mortgage Law); and (4) That their status as tenants and the specific amounts owed were not proven. The defendants’ collective denial of ownership and an agreement among themselves to dispose of half the hacienda to pay their lawyers was presented as evidence.

ISSUE:

1. Did the lower court err in declaring the plaintiffs as owners of the Hacienda Angono, considering the defendants’ arguments regarding the original grant and the application of the Mortgage Law?
2. Were the defendants properly joined in a single complaint, or should separate actions have been filed against each tenant?
3. Did the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction over the collective monetary claim for civil fruits (rent/lease) as an accessory to the action for recovery of the hacienda, despite individual amounts being below the jurisdictional threshold?

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

1. On Ownership: The Court found no error in the lower court’s declaration of the plaintiffs’ ownership. The original titles of acquisition by “composicion and royal approval” from 1749 and 1752 were deemed valid and were “in no way impugned.” The Court implicitly rejected the defendants’ arguments regarding the alleged illegality of the original grant and the applicability of Articles 23 and 393 of the Mortgage Law, maintaining that the plaintiffs had adequately proven their ownership.
2. On Misjoinder: The Court held that the defendants were properly joined in one complaint. Citing Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for joining all necessary parties, the Court found that the defendants, by collectively denying the plaintiffs’ ownership and actively conspiring (as evidenced by Exhibit P, where they agreed to dispose of half the hacienda to pay their lawyers), presented themselves as “one sole party” against the owners. Therefore, it was appropriate to sue them collectively for the restitution of the hacienda and its civil fruits.
3. On Jurisdiction: The Court ruled that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the monetary claims for civil fruits. The recovery of the thing (hacienda) and its fruits (civil fruits like rent/lease) is a natural effect and accessory to an action for recovery of ownership. While the lower court correctly denied natural fruits to the defendants (who planted them), it properly awarded civil fruits. Since the defendants acted in bad faith by usurping ownership, they owed civil fruits, not by virtue of a contract they disowned, but by virtue of the right of accession accompanying the right of recovery. Thus, the accessory claim for civil fruits fell under the CFI’s jurisdiction, regardless of individual amounts, as it was directly linked to the main action of recovery which was within the CFI’s competence.