Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15264)
Facts:
- Garcia Samson filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of Zamboanga City against Ramon Enriquez and Fermin Filoteo.
- Samson sought the recovery of possession of Lot No. 422, damages, and other relief.
- Samson claimed to have a contract of tenancy with the owners of the land, allowing him to possess and cultivate it in exchange for 25 cavanes of palay payable annually.
- Samson alleged that the defendants forcibly deprived him of the land's possession and caused damage to his bamboo groves.
- The defendants denied the plaintiff's claims and argued that Samson was a mere cropper on the land and did not have a written contract with the owners.
- The defendants also contended that Samson's alleged right to possess the land was on a year-to-year basis and had expired.
- The defendants filed a counterclaim for moral damages and attorney's fees, alleging that Samson's suit was malicious and unfounded.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- When a plaintiff alleges being deprived of possession of an agricultural land under a contract of tenancy, the Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction.
- Samson claimed to have a contract of tenancy with the owners of the land, which entitled him to possess and cultivate it.
- Therefore, the Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction over the dispute.
- The...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15264)
Facts:
The case of Samson v. Enriquez involves a dispute over the possession of an agricultural land between Garcia Samson and Ramon Enriquez and Fermin Filoteo. On June 24, 1955, Samson filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of Zamboanga City against Enriquez and Filoteo for the recovery of possession of Lot No. 422, a parcel of land in Zamboanga City. Samson also sought damages and other relief. He claimed that he had a contract of tenancy (contracto de aparceria) with the owners of the land, which allowed him to possess and cultivate the land in exchange for 25 cavanes of palay annually. Samson alleged that the defendants forcibly deprived him of the land's possession and destroyed his bamboo groves.
Enriquez and Filoteo denied Samson's allegations and argued that he had no written contract with the owners of the land and was merely a cropper. They claimed that Samson's right to stay on the land and share in its harvest was on a year-to-year basis and terminated when Filoteo terminated his services as a cropper. They also argued that the Municipal Court did not have jurisdiction over the case because it involved an interpretation of the contract of tenancy and should be heard by the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether the Municipal Court ha...