G.R. No. 60930. February 20, 1984
GREGORIO PALACOL, PEDRO D. PALACOL, AND ELEANOR D. PALACOL, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BRUNO BUMANGLAG, RUFO DOMINGO, FAUSTINO NOVENO, SAMUEL FERIA, MAXIMO OLIGO, V…
DE CASTRO, J.:
of the respondent Court of Appeals (now the Intermediate Appellate
Court) issued on March 22, 1982 in CA-G. R. No. SP-12923 entitled “Bruno
Bumanglag, et al., petitioners, versus Hon. Hermenegildo A. Prieto, Sr.
etc., et al., respondents,” as well as of its resolution[2] denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Records show that the herein petitioners had filed Civil Case No. 256
before the then Court of First Instance of Isabela, Branch IV, for the
recovery of possession and ownership of four parcels of land at Bagnos,
Aurora, Isabela, with damages, against Glicerio Domingo, married to
Salud Espiritu. After due hearing, the lower court rendered judgment on
July 29, 1981 declaring the petitioners as the absolute owners of the
land in suit and ordering, inter alia, the defendants and the
tenants they instituted to vacate and deliver the possession of the
subject land to the petitioners, as the plaintiffs below.
On August 14, 1981, the lower court, on motion of the petitioners duly
opposed by the defendants, issued an Order declaring the above-judgment
immediately executory pending appeal. In said order, however, the
execution of the decision as against the tenants was stayed “until the
principal case is finally decided by the Appellate Court should the
defendants decide to appeal.”[3]
On August 21, 1981, the herein private respondents who are claiming to
be the legitimate tenants of the four parcels of land subject of Civil
Case No. 256, filed a special civil action of certiorari with
the respondent appellate court to annul and set aside the decision of
the lower court in so far as it ordered them to vacate and deliver to
the petitioners the possession of the litigated property, on the ground
that the assailed judgment is null and void for having been rendered
without jurisdiction, they being not parties to the case. They
complained that from the time the above-mentioned decision of the lower
court dated July 29, 1981 was rendered, the herein petitioners have
been harassing and molesting them, telling them to vacate the premised
of the land in suit.
On March 22, 1982, the respondent court rendered the herein questioned
decision setting aside that portion of the judgment of the lower court
adverse to the herein private respondents upon a finding that the
latter, not being parties to Civil Case No. 256 and therefore not given
the opportunity to be heard, cannot be ordered to vacate the premises of
the disputed land, otherwise, their constitutional right to due process
would thereby be infringed. Unable to obtain a reconsideration, the
present petition was filed.
Whether the respondent appellate court acted with grave abuse of
discretion in declaring as null and void and in setting aside the
judgment of the lower court in so far as it orders the herein private
respondents to vacate and deliver the possession of their landholdings
to the herein petitioners, is a question which need not be resolved in
this petition for review, in view of the express manifestation and
assurance of the petitioners that private respondents will not be
removed as tenants of the disputed land. As petitioners themselves
alleged, such issue has been rendered moot and academic.
Petitioners, however, pray that private respondents be directed to
deliver to them the landowner’s share of the produce of the subject
parcels of land pursuant to the decision of the lower court declaring
them as owners thereof. Considering, however, that the defendants in
Civil Case No. 256 has appealed the judgment of the lower court, which
appeal is pending before the now Intermediate Appellate Court, docketed
as CA-G. R. No. 70195-R, and considering further that the records do not
show whether the Order of the lower court dated August 14, 1981
declaring its judgment immediately executory pending appeal was executed
or not, and it appearing that the parties had entered into an
agreement dated November 22, 1982 whereby it is agreed that the
landowner’s share of the harvest be deposited with Ernesto Subia, owner
of a bonded warehouse, to wait for the final outcome of the case, the
remedy which appears best and reasonable under the circumstances is to
direct the parties to abide with their above-mentioned agreement.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered directing the private
respondents, as the admitted tenants of the subject parcels of land, to
deposit the landowner’s share of their harvest with Ernesto Subia, as
above indicated, to await the final disposition of the appeal in CA-G.R.
No. 70195-R.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
[1] pp. 49-51, Rollo.
[2] p. 52, Id.
[3] p. 32, Rollo.