FAUSTINO CORTEZ, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE ONOFRE VILLALUZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, FIFTH REGIONAL DISTRICT, BRANCH TWO, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPAN­GA, ATTY. SAN…

Petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, filed by Faustino Cortez
against the Honor­able Onofre Villaluz,
Presiding Judge, Court of Agrarian Relations, Fifth Regional District, Branch
Two, Jose Reyes, the Clerk, Court of Agrarian Relations, Fifth Regional
District, Branch Two, to declare void and set aside an order issued by the
respondent judge on March 2, 1968 attached to said petition as Annex D.

It appears that respondent Jose Reyes filed an action in the
aforesaid Court of Agrarian Relations against Liborio
Cortez, father of herein petitioner Faustino Cortez, to have him
ejected from the land­holding (of Reyes) cultivated by him, situated in San
Jose, Macabebe, Pampanga;
for the collection of forty-five cavans of rice as
rental, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.  Upon being served with the required summons, Liborio Cortez filed his answer, but upon the case being
called for pre-trial on February 2,
1968, he and his attorney failed to appear although, they had been
previously notified.  Instead they filed
a motion for postponement, to which Reyes streneously
objected.  As the reason alleged in said
motion was found to be without merit, the same was denied and, thereafter, the
court allowed Reyes to present his evidence. 
Subsequently, or more specifically on February 19, 1968, on the strength of the evidence
presented, judgment was rendered as follows:

“1. authorizing the ejectment of the defendant and/or anybody in possession or
cultivation of the landholding of the plaintiff;

“2. ordering the defendant
and/or any other person acting in his behalf to vacate the landholding of the
plaintiff situated at San Jose, Macabebe, Pampanga.

“3. ordering the defendant
to pay the plaintiff the amount of 45 cavans as
rental for the use of the landholding for the agri­cultural year 1966-1967; and

“4. ordering the defendant
to pay the amount of P300.00 as attorney’s fees and P150.00 as litigation
expenses.

“With cost against the defendant.”

On March 2, 1968,
upon an ex-parte motion filed by Reyes, the
respondent court issued the order complained of, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Clerk of Court, Atty. Santiago S. Suñga, is hereby directed to proceed immediately, upon
receipt of this. Order to the landholding in question situated at San
Jose, Macabebe, Pampanga, and one therein to supervise the reaping, thresh­ing,
and liquidation of the current standing palay
crop.  The liquidation shall be as
follows:

“1.  The Clerk of Court shall deliver to
the defendant 25% of the gross harvest;

“2.  From the net harvest he shall deduct and
deliver to the plaintiff the rental of 45 cavans for
the agricul­tural year 1966-67, and another 45 cavans
as rental for the use of the landholding in question for the current
agricultural year 1967-68; and

“3.  The balance, after deducting the said amounts
to be deposited in a bonded warehouse, the same to be remained therein until
further order of this Court.

“Atty. Suñga is hereby further
directed to submit a written report of his actuations within five (5) days from
completion thereof.”

On March
6, 1968, petitioner Faustino Cortez filed a motion praying that the
order of March 2, 1968
above-mentioned be set aside, claiming that he was the real tenant of the
landholding subject matter of the case; that he had not been made a party
thereto, and that for these reasons, the order complained of was illegal and
arbitrary.  This motion was denied by the
court on the ground that Faustino Cortez had “no
standing nor per­sonality to appear” in the case.

In connection with the issue thus raised by herein petitioner, it
appears that on July 12, 1965 respondent Jose Reyes had a ready filed a case in
the same court against Liborio Cortez for the
latter’s ejectment from the same landholding involved
in Case No. 625, upon the ground that he (Reyes) desired to cultivate his land
personally.  Liborio
Cortez filed his answer in which he admitted being the tenant of the aforesaid
landholding.  Moreover, in a verified
motion filed in said case (No. 248) Liborio Cortez
prayed the Court to order the deposit of the forty-five cavans
of palay paid by him as rental in a bonded warehouse.

After trial case No. 248 was decided in favor of the plaintiff
Reyes.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals
(C.A.-G.R. No. 38873-R) affirmed said decision on May 15, 1968.

Furthermore, the record also discloses that in Case No. 625,
final judgment has already been rendered, and the same having become executory, the corresponding writ of execution was issued
on June 6, 1968.

The foregoing facts and circumstances would seem show that
Faustino Cortez’ late appearance in the picture, first by motion to set aside
the order complained of – which the respondent court denied – and second, by
present petition for certiorari etc., was obviously intended to frustrate the
judgment rendered against his father, and that the question of fact of who as
between the two, father and son, was really the tenant, has already been
resolved by the respondent court not only when it rendered final judgment in
cases Nos. 248 and 625 but also when it denied Faustino Cortez’ motion in the
latter, praying that the order complained of be set aside.

At any rate, respondents in this case aver in their answer – and
this has not been denied by peti­tioner – that the order complained of has been
fully implemented and carried out.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition under
consideration is dismissed and the writs prayed for are denied, with costs.

As a result, the motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction filed by petitioner in the present case on April 17, 1968 is likewise denied.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.