Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Hon. Eulogio  Mencias, presiding,  dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff  brought this action as landowner against  tenants Luis  Abalos and Conrado Abalos, the  Court of Industrial Relations  and the provincial sheriff of  Nueva Ecija to annul a  judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations in  its cases Nos. 838 and 839 NE, Carlos  Abalos and Luis Abalos  vs.  Tomas  Fernando, ordering the  latter  to  restore plaintiff to  the possession  of a parcel of land subject of the action, and to pay Carlos Abalos 28% cavanes of palay  and Luis  Abalos 31.64 cavanes  of palay. The grounds upon which the action for annulment of the judgment is based are: (a) that the Court of Agrarian Relations had  no jurisdiction  to try  and decide the case and  (b) that  the writ of execution  for the above-mentioned judgment had caused damages to Tomas Fernando in the amount of P5,000.00.

The  action  was filed on November 26, 1956 and  on December 12, 1956, the court dismissed the action.   Upon motion of plaintiff,  however,  the court reconsidered  its former order of dismissal and issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the sheriff of Nueva Ecija to stop it from executing the judgment of the  Court of Agrarian Relations.  The provincial sheriff and the Court of Agrarian Relations moved to reconsider the order of the Court of First  Instance setting aside its previous order of dis missal, on December 24,  1956 and on December 28, 1956, respectively.  On January 12, 1957 Luis Abalos and Conrado Abalos also filed a joint motion to dismiss.  Counsel for Tomas Fernando filed replies to the above motions for dismissal.

On February  19,  1957, the  court  denied the motions for dismissal.  Thereupon the parties filed their respective answers,  the provincial  sheriff on .March 9;  1957, Luis Abalos and Conrado Abalos on March 11, 1957.  On March 11, 1957,  Luis and Conrado Abalos presented a motion for the reconsideration of the order denying their motions to dismiss and so did the Court  of  Agrarian Relations on March 16, 1957.  The motion for reconsideration presented by  the   defendants  Abalos was  set  for  hearing  on March 20, 1957, that of the  Court of Agrarian Relations, on March 23, 1957.  Counsel for  Tomas Fernando filed his opposition to the motions for reconsideration on March 22,  1957.  On April 2,  1957 counsel for the Court of Agrarian  Relations also presented a motion to reconsider the order  setting aside the dismissal and counsel for Tomas Fernando answered this  motion on April  5,  1957.  The Court of  Agrarian  Relations replied  to  the  answer  of Tomas Fernando by its pleading of April 8, 1957.

It further appears that on  April 15, 1957, Judge Mencias was transferred and  assigned to Rizal.  Notwithstanding this assignment he issued an order on April 30, 1957, dismissing the  original  petition, setting aside his previous order of February 19, 1957 as well  as its order for a writ of preliminary injunction.  The order of dismissal is dated at "Pasig, Rizal for Malolos,  Bulacan, April 30, 1957." The first question raised on this appeal is whether Judge Mencias who was  transferred to Rizal  on April 15, 1957 still had the right to issue  its order of dismissal  dated April 30,  1957, when he was  already  holding court  in Pasig,  Rizal.   The second question  refers to the sufficiency of  the complaint which  was  dismissed  by the order of Judge Mencias on April 30, 1957.   The legal authority for Judge  Mencias to  decide the  action instituted  by Tomas Fernando against Luis Abalos and others,  Civil Case  No. 1414,  Court of First Instance of  Bulacan,  is  Section  51 of  Republic Act No. 296,  as  amended by Republic  Act No. 1404, which provides  as follows:

"Whenever a  judge appointed or assigned in  any  province or branch of a court in a province shall leave the province by transfer or assignment to another court of equal  jurisdiction without having decided  a  case totally heard by him and which was duly argued of opportunity given for argument to the parties or their counsel, it shall be lawful for him  to prepare and sign his  decision  in  said  case anywhere  within the Philippines and send the  same by registered mail to the clerk of the Court to  be filed  in the  court as of the date when the same was received by the clerk, in the same manner as if the  judge  had been  present  in the court to  direct  the filing of the judgment: Provided, however, That if a case has been heard only in part, the Supreme Court, upon petition of any of the parties to the case and the  recommendation of the respective district judge, may also authorize the judge who has partly heard the case to continue hearing and to decide said case notwithstanding his transfer or appointment to  another  court  of equal  jurisdiction."

The argument of appellant Tomas Fernando against  the validity of the order of  Judge Mencias is predicated on Section 51 of Republic Act No. 296, as previously amended by Republic Act No. 1186.  It reads as follows:

"SEC.  51. Detail of judge to another district or province. When ever a  judge  stationed in any province or branch of a court  in a province shall certify to the Secretary of Justice that the condition of the docket in his  court is such as to require the assistance of an additional  judge, or when there  is any vacancy in any court or branch  of  a court in a  province, the Secretary of  Justice may, in the interest of justice, with the approval of the Supreme Court  and for a period of not  more than three months for each  time, assign any judge of any other court  or province whose docket  permits his temporary absence from said  court, to hold sessions in the court needing  such assistance, or where  such  vacancy exists.  No judge so detailed shall take cognizance of any case when any of the parties thereto objects and the objection is sustained by the Supreme Court."

Counsel  for  Tomas Fernando has  evidently overlooked the fact that  Section 51  of  Republic  Act  No. 296,  as amended by Republic Act No.  1186, was  subsequently amended by Republic Act No.  1404, which was approved on September  9, 1955, as  above-quoted.  Under the  provisions  of  this last amendment it is apparent that Judge Mencias had the right to issue the order  of dismissal  of the action  filed by Tomas  Fernando  against Luis Abalos and others.  Besides,  when the proceedings started in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan  by the  filing of the present action on November 26, 1956, Republic Act No. 1404 had already been  approved and all the proceedings had in the  case took place after its promulgation.

As to the correctness of the order of  Judge Mencias dismissing the cause  of action, plaintiff-appellant argues that the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations  is null and void for the reason that the  case, which originally started  in  the  Court of  Industrial Relations,  in its Tenancy Division, could not be transferred to the Court of Agrarian Relations.  Continuing  the argument  it  is claimed that as the action between the Abalos, complainants,  and  Tomas Fernando, defendant, occurred in the year 1952-1953, at which time  the  Court  of  Agrarian Relations did not yet exist because this Court was created only on June  14,  1955  by Republic  Act  No. 1267, the case could  not be transferred to  the  latter court, because the case is not  within the jurisdiction of  the  Court  of Agrarian Relations.   This  argument  is based on the language of Republic Act  No. 1267, as  amended by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1409, which was made effective on September 9, 1955.

"SEC. 7. Jurisdiction of the Court. The Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the  entire Philippines, to consider, investigate,  decide, and settle  all questions, matters, controversies or disputes involving all those relationships established by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land: Provided, however, That cases pending in the Court of Industrial  Relations upon approval of this Act which are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, shall be transferred to, and the proceedings therein continued in, the latter  court."

The apparent  meaning of the above-quoted provision is that those cases which started in the Court of Industrial Relations, because the Court of Agrarian Relations had not yet been established  when  they  were pending in the Court of Industrial Relations, should be transferred to the latter court.  If we  were to follow  the argument of counsel  for the appellant to the effect that the original: case of "Luis Abalos and Carlos  Abalos vs. Tomas Fernando"  may not  be transferred to the Court of Agrarian Relations,  because when the action was  instituted the Court of Agrarian Relations did not yet exist and  therefore the action is not within the  jurisdiction of the said agrarian court, there would be no meaning to the above-quoted provision  of Section 7 of Republic Act  No. 1409. The intention, precisely,  of  Republic Act No. 1409, is to transfer cases  then  pending in the Court  of  Industrial Relations to the Court of Agrarian Relations.  The pending cases were those, like the one in which the judgment sought to be annulled  was  rendered, brought before the Court of Industrial Relations before the creation  of the Court of Agrarian Relations.  The argument of counsel for plaintiff-appellant would lead to a clearly absurd proposition not contemplated by the intention  of the legislature.

The judgment  of  dismissal  appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.

Paras, C. J. Bengzon,  Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo,  Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.