Quismundo v CA

G.R. No. 95664 September 13, 1991 NINA M. QUISMUNDO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF A!A"S, HON. R!#NA"DO $. DA%A#, F!"ICISIMO OCAMO, CATA"INO OCAMO, !DRO MARQU!&, ROM!O !NRIQU!& '() H!RMINIO #USON, respondents.

 Aladdin F. Tr Trinidad inidad for petitioner. The Trial Attorney III for private respondents.

R!GA"ADO, J.: p

This petition for review on certiorari seeks the reversal of the decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 1!1", 1 dated Nove#$er %&, 1&"& and 'cto$er &, 1&&(, respectivel), which upheld the *urisdiction of the Re+ional Trial Court of An+eles Cit), ranch ", in AGRA. Case No. 1!. * /t appears that on 0e$ruar) 1&, 1&"", private respondents, as tenants of petitioner, filed a co#plaint with the trial court pra)in+ that their relationship with petitioner $e chan+ed fro# share tenanc) to a leasehold s)ste#, pursuant to Section ! of Repu$lic Act No. "!!, as a#ended, their re2uest therefor havin+ $een denied $) petitioner. 3 'n 3arch %, 1&"", private respondents further filed a #otion for the issuance of an order authori4in+ the supervision $) the deput) sheriff of the court of the harvestin+ and li2uidation of the 1&"-1&"" su+arcane crops, which #otion was +ranted $) the trial court in an order dated 3arch , 1&"".  4 'n 3arch 1, 1&"", petitioner filed a #otion to dis#iss on the +round of lack of cause of action since the law that should alle+edl) +overn the relationship of the parties is Act No. !11, as a#ended $) Co##onwealth Act No. %1, and not Repu$lic Act No. "!!, as a#ended. The trial court denied the #otion for lack of #erit in an order dated 5une %, 1&"". 5 'n 5une 1", 1&"", petitioner filed a #otion for reconsideration of the denial order, invokin+ as an additional +round the lack of *urisdiction of the court over the case under the authorit) and $) reason of the Co#prehensive A+rarian Refor# Pro+ra#, specificall) 67ecutive 'rder No. %%& and Repu$lic  Act No. . 6 Pendin+ the resolution of said #otion for reconsideration, private respondents filed another #otion dated Nove#$er &, 1&"", for the supervision of harvestin+. 'n 8ece#$er , 1&"", the trial court +ranted the #otion of private respondents and denied petitioner9s #otion for reconsideration. + Petitioner then elevated the controvers) to respondent court on a petition for certiorari $ut, as stated at the outset, said court upheld the *urisdiction of the court $elow, rulin+ that: 777 777 777 Second. The ri+ht of the private respondents to choose leasehold tenanc) is +overned $) RA "!!. ;e find nothin+ in Procla#ation No. 11, 6.'. No. %%& and RA  divestin+ the trial court of *urisdiction over the case. To $e sure, RA 

was enacted on 5une 1(, 1&"" or later than the filin+ of the Co#plaint in AGRA Case No. 1! on 0e$ruar) 1, 1&"". 'n the other hand, sec. % of 6.'. %%& approved on 5ul) %%, 1&" provides that . The 8AR shall have powers to punish for conte#pt and to issue su$poena, su$poena duces tecuand writs to enforce its order or decisions. The decisions of the 8AR #a), in proper cases, $e appealed to the Re+ional Trial Courts $ut shall $e i##ediatel) e7ecutor) notwithstandin+ such appeal. The a$ove 2uoted provision should $e dee#ed to have repealed 11 Section 1% =a> and =$> of Presidential 8ecree No. &! which invested the then courts of a+rarian relations with ori+inal e7clusive  *urisdiction over cases and 2uestions involvin+ ri+hts +ranted and o$li+ations i#posed $) presidential issuances pro#ul+ated in relation to the a+rarian refor# pro+ra#. 0or#erl), under Presidential 8ecree No. &!, a#endin+ Chapter /? of Repu$lic Act No. "!!, the courts of a+rarian relations had ori+inal and e7clusive *urisdiction over