G.R. No. L-5910; February 8, 1955
Dominga de Santos, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Andres Vivas, et al., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On November 15, 1950, plaintiff Dominga de Santos filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court of Digos, Davao, against defendants Andres Vivas and Anastacio Lastimosa. The complaint alleged that around December 1948, the defendants entered into a contract to work as tenants on a share basis on a portion of the plaintiff’s land in Odaka, Digos, Davao, each cultivating one and one-half hectares. The defendants harvested about 30 cavanes each but failed and refused to deliver the plaintiff’s share of 10 cavanes from each defendant, violating their contract. The plaintiff prayed for the defendants to vacate the land, deliver her share of the crops or its value, and pay P200 as damages and P150 as attorney’s fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the complaint lacked an allegation of a previous demand to vacate as required by Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. The motion was denied, and after trial, judgment was rendered against the defendants, who appealed to the Court of First Instance of Davao. In the Court of First Instance, the defendants again filed a motion to dismiss on the same jurisdictional ground, contending that since the justice of the peace court lacked jurisdiction, the Court of First Instance could not acquire appellate jurisdiction. The Court of First Instance issued an order on February 7, 1952, dismissing the complaint, from which the plaintiff appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of an allegation of a prior demand to vacate as required by Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court for an unlawful detainer action based on violation of lease conditions, and whether the case, being an agricultural tenancy case, falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.
RULING
The appealed order of dismissal is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that a demand to vacate is an indispensable prerequisite for an action of unlawful detainer when the ground is the tenant’s failure to pay rent or comply with lease conditions, as provided in Section 2, Rule 72. This demand is jurisdictional; without it, the justice of the peace court does not acquire jurisdiction, and consequently, the Court of First Instance cannot acquire appellate jurisdiction. The appellant’s reliance on Co Tiamco vs. Diaz is misplaced, as that case involved an action to terminate a lease due to the expiration of its term, where a demand is not required, unlike the present case which is based on a violation of the tenancy conditions. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the complaint unquestionably refers to an agricultural tenancy case, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, not the justice of the peace court or the Court of First Instance. Therefore, the dismissal by the Court of First Instance was correct. Costs were imposed against the plaintiff-appellant.
