On December 22, 1953,  Mariano Acosta, et al.,  filed  a petition  with  the Court of  Agrarian Relations praying for  a  readjustment  of the sharing ratio governing their tenancy relationship with Hacienda de Santos No. 5 situated in several municipalities of the province of Nueva Ecija and for  other  sundry readjustment  in  connection with said relationship.  The petition makes as party respondents the hacienda  itself and one Alberto de  Santos as manager of the hacienda.   This petition was subsequently amended by  introducing therein  certain  changes which do  not  materially alter  the  substance  of   the original petition.

On April  14,  1954, respondents  answered the amended petition setting up as special defense the fact that the court has no jurisdiction to order the  reliquidation of tenancy matters of previous years because such matters are governed  by the tenancy contracts that had  been entered into between  the  tenants  and  the  management of the hacienda.

The case was not tried on the merits but was submitted to  arbitration  upon direction  of the President  of the Philippines because of the  importance of the issues  involved, having  been designated  as  arbiter Hon. Arsenio C.  Roldan, presiding judge  of  the Court  of Industrial Relations.  On August 5,  1954,  Judge Roldan rendered his award  wherein he ordered that a reliquidation be  made in  accordance with certain conditions  and findings he made therein designating for that purpose Atty. Francisco Abella and Examiner Crispulo Tria,  both employees of the  Court of Industrial Relations.  On the  basis of the reliquidation made, the Court of Agrarian Relations, on January 10, 1958, issued an order awarding in favor of the tenants whose  names  appear listed  therein, certain amounts of palay that were found to  be payable to them, and ordering respondents to make  delivery  of the  palay in accordance with the  award.  This order not having been complied with, the agrarian  court directed that a writ of execution  be issued  and,  on March 12,  1958, the clerk of court  acted  accordingly  by requiring the provincial  sheriff to collect from respondents the amounts of  palay adjudicated to  the tenants, or  their equivalent in cash at  the rate of P10.20  per  cavan,   and  stating in the  writ that  the sheriff should "levy upon the properties  of  the  above-named  respondents, both  movable and real and  cause to be collected  therefrom  the total amount due to the petitioners under the aforementioned order dated January 10, 1958."  In other words, the sheriff was ordered to levy upon the personal properties not only of the owner of the hacienda but also of Alberto de Santos who was made a co-respondent in the petition.  On March 20, 1958, Alberto de Santos filed a motion with the agrarian court praying that the writ  of execution issued to enforce the award be quashed  insofar as it requires that a levy be made upon  his own  personal properties considering  that he is not  involved in the case in his personal capacity, but only as manager of the hacienda.  This motion was denied.  Hence the present petition  for review.

Petitioner claims that the agrarian court acted in excess of its jurisdiction  in ordering in the writ  of execution issued to enforce the award made in favor of the tenants that a levy be made not only upon the personal properties of the owner of the hacienda but also upon his own personal properties considering that he is not  involved in the case in his personal capacity but only as manager of the hacienda.

There is merit in this claim.  It is clear not only from the original petition filed  in this case but also in the amended one that the  real party respondent is Hacienda de  Santos No. 5 whose owner is Felipe de Santos although Alberto de Santos was included as co-respondent he being then the manager  of the hacienda.  And this has to be so  because the issues involved in  the petition  refer  to  a reliquidation of the harvests that had been gathered from said hacienda during several years in the past upon the theory that the sharing ratio that had been observed in the original liquidation was not in accordance with  law. It is therefore clear that the only party in interest affected by the petition is the owner of the hacienda.  Moreover, there  is nothing in the award from  which  it may be inferred that Alberto de Santos has been made personally liable  for  any amount of palay  which may  have  been withheld from the  tenants, his only intervention in the case being merely  in   his capacity  as  manager of the hacienda. It is  therefore  unfair  and improper to make him personally liable for the satisfaction of the award or to  order the  levy upon  his personal property to make the execution  effective.  In this respect,   the  agrarian court  has clearly acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

This Court  does  not find any plausible reason for  the action taken  by the agrarian court considering that  the owner of  the hacienda  is  known  and  enough  properties that may  be levied upon  belonging to the hacienda can be  ascertained and determined with little diligence and discernment without implicating properties of  a person who is foreign  to  the case.  Evidently, there is an intent to cause unnecessary harassment to herein  petitioner.

Wherefore,  the  orders  appealed from are  hereby  set aside.   It  is ordered  that the writ  of execution issued by the agrarian  court  be modified  by excluding therefrom the properties belonging  to Alberto de Santos and  by limiting.its scope to  those owned by  the  owner of the hacienda in question.  No  pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Endencia,  Barrera,  and  Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.