LUCIANA SASES AND CALIXTO SASES, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. PASTOR P. REYES, ASSOCIATE JUDGE, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, HILARIO SEGUI, AND AGUEDO RACINES, RESPONDENTS.

Severino Talagtag and Jose Maranilla, respondents, Luciana Sases and
Calixto Sases, intervenors, the dispositive part of which reads as
follows:

On 3 June 1957 the Court of Agrarian Relations, Sixth Regional
District, sitting at Legaspi, Albay, rendered judgment in CAR Case No.
16-Albay, Hilario Segui and Aguedo Racines, petitioners, vs.

Wherefore, respondent Severino
Talagtag is hereby ordered to vacate and surrender the holdings in
question to petitioners Hilario Segui and Aguedo Racines.

Respondents Jose Maronilla and Severino Talagtag and intervenors
Luciana Sases and Calixto Sases are hereby ordered to maintain Aguedo
Racines and Hilario Segui in the peaceful possession of their
respective holdings situated at Barrio Bololo, Libon, Albay, with all
the rights and obligations imposed by law.

The right is hereby reserved to the petitioners to file a separate action for damages against respondent Severino Talagtag.

The counterclaim of respondents Severino Talagtag and the herein intervenors are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

Respondents Jose Maronilla and Severino Talagtag and the intervenors
Luciana and Calixto Sases are hereby given thirty (30) days from
receipt of a copy of this decision to avail of the necessary legal
procedure for the appointing of a receiver who shall receive for
safekeeping the shares from the harvest pertaining to the owner of the
holdings in question, pending final determination of Civil Case No.
1493 of the Court of First Instance of Albay (Annex A).

The foregoing judgment having become final, on 19 July 1957 the
petitioners were placed in possession of the land. On 1 August 1957 the
petitioners filed a petition alleging that on 20 July, the day
following that when they had been placed in possession of the land,
respondent Severino Talagtag, intervenor Luciana Sases, and their
privies or agents named Juan Sazon and Anastacio Reforzado, entered
upon, threatened the petitioners with bodily harm, and chased them out
of the land, and that during the pendency of the case respondent
Severino Talagtag erected or built on the land two houses and a small
store made of light materials, and praying that the respondent
Talagtag, intervenor Luciana Sases and their agents be punished for
contempt and that the two houses and small store be demolished (Annex
B). On 17 August the Commissioner set the petition for hearing on 3
September at 8:30 a.m. (Annex C). On 1 September respondent Talagtag
averred in his answer that he would surrender the land after the
harvest of the crop in November 1957, in accordance with the spirit of
section 9, Republic Act No. 1199 (as amended by Republic Act No. 2263),
or should the petitioners want to take immediate possession of the land
he should be indemnified for his labor and expenses, as provided for in
section 22, paragraph 4, Republic Act No. 1199 (as amended by Republic
Act No. 2263). In their answer Juan Sazon and Anastacio Reforzado
prayed that as they were not parties to the case the petition for
contempt as to them be dismissed (Annex D). On 22 October, an amicable
settlement was entered into by and between respondent Talagtag and the
petitioners whereby, for and in consideration of P150 to be paid by the
petitioners to the respondent for the standing crop, the latter would
surrender to the former the possession of the land and agreed not to
molest or disturb them in the possession thereof (Annex E). Acting upon
the amicable settlement on 24 October the Court entered an order, the
dispositive part of which is as follows:

Whereof, respondent Severino Talagtag as well as intervenors Luciana
Sases and Calixto Sases are hereby ordered to deliver possession of the
landholding in question described in paragraph 2 of the petition dated
June 22, 1956 to petitioners Aguedo Racines and Hilario Segui upon
payment of the amount of P150.00 as provided in paragraph 3 of the
amicable settlement. Petitioners are hereby authorized, should they so
desire, to take in or employ new tenant of their own choice. There
being no other issue before the Court to resolve, let this case be as
it is hereby, considered closed and terminated with the exception of
petitioners’ “Motion to Demolish Improvements” dated August 1, 1957
which by agreement of the parties, have previously been set for hearing
on October 26, 1957 at 9:00 o’clock a.m., Legaspi, Albay (Annex F).

Upon learning of the last order (Annex F), on the same day the
intervenors moved for reconsideration of that part of the order
allowing the petitioners “to take in or employ new tenant of their own
choice” for that would be violative of the provisions of section 24,
paragraph 3, Republic Act No. 1199. On 26 October, after hearing of the
petition for the demolition of the improvements where the petitioners
were absent despite notice of the hearing served upon them, the Court
entered an order which directs the following:

Wherefore, it appearing that respondent Severino Talagtag has already
been ejected for cause and the decision in this case having been
executed pursuant to the amicable settlement entered into between the
parties on October 22, 1957, said respondent as well as the herein
intervenors are hereby ordered to remove the house in question and
other improvements made thereon, if any, upon the expiration of
forty-five (45) days following the finality of this order pursuant to
sub-paragraph 3 section 22, Republic Act No. 1199 (Annex H).

On 23 November the motion for reconsideration dated 9 November of the order of 26 October was denied (Annex J.)

Upon the foregoing facts, the herein petitioners, intervenors in the
Court below, pray that the order of 24 October allowing the respondents
Segui and Racines, petitioners in the Court below, “to take in or
employ new tenant of their own choice” and that of 26 October ordering
the demolition of the two houses and a small store made of light
materials be annulled.

The judgment rendered by the
respondent Court in CAR Case No. 16-Albay, already final and executory,
the dispositive part of which is copied at the beginning of this
opinion, did not grant the herein respondents, petitioners in the Court
below, the right “to take in or employ new tenant of their own choice,”
and the same being violative of section 24, paragraphs 2 and 3,
Republic Act No. 1199, would be reversed, if appeal therefrom had been
taken by the herein petitioners, intervenors in the Court below. No
such appeal has been taken. The motion for reconsideration of the order
of 24 October 1957 filed on the same day, as claimed by the herein
petitioners, does not exist, because Annex G referred to in paragraph 9
of the petition as the motion for reconsideration of the order of 24
October 1957 is one dated 9 November 1957 for reconsideration of the
order of 26 October 1957 authorizing the demolition of the houses. Such
being the case the order of 24 October 1957 became final as no appeal
had been taken therefrom within fifteen days as provided for in section
13, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409.

Likewise, the order of 26 October 1957 authorizing the demolition of
the houses which is contrary to the provisions of section 13, Rule 39
of the Rules of Court, made applicable to execution of judgments
rendered by the Court of Agrarian Relations, as provided for in section
12, Republic Act No. 1367, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409, because
where the judgment to be executed is to place the prevailing party in
possession of the litigated property, if the restitution, restoration
or placing of the prevailing party in possession of the litigated
property cannot be carried out without destroying, demolishing or
removing the improvement made by the defeated party or his agent on the
litigated property, such destruction, demolition or removal can only be
made by special order of the Court after due hearing and upon failure
of the defeated party to remove the improvements within a reasonable
time to be fixed by the Court,^[1]
has become final, as no appeal had been taken therefrom within fifteen
days, as provided for in Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Republic
Act No. 1409. The motion for reconsideration dated 9 November 1957 of
the order of 26 October 1957 was filed within the 15-day period. The
motion was denied on 23 November 1957, as claimed by the respondents,
or on 28 November 1957, as alleged by the herein petitioners. The
instant petition assuming that it is not for a writ of certiorari but
an appeal from the order complained of, as provided for in section 13,
Republic Act No, 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409, was filed
on 16 December 1957. Without counting the period that had elapsed from
notice of the order to the filing of the motion for reconsideration,
and starting from 28 November 1957, the date of notice of the order, to
16 December 1957, the date of the filing of the instant petition, 18
days had elapsed, or beyond the 15-day period provided for in section
13, Republic Act No. 1267, as amended, for the perfection of an appeal.

The petition for review is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Section 13, Rule 39.