G.R. No. L-12335 - NOVEMBER 1968 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-12335November 29, 1968 Canuto Pagdanganan, vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-18661November 29, 1968 People of the Philippines, vs. Jose Alto, et al. G.R. No. L-19143November 29, 1968 People of the Philippines, vs. Santos Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-19196November 29, 1968 Angel Villarica, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20121November 29, 1968 Alfredo Apao, et al., vs. Hon. Tito V. Tizon, et al. G.R. No. L-20352November 29, 1968 Lilia Yusay Gonzales, vs. Hon. Wenceslao L. Fernan, et al. G.R. No. L-20390November 29, 1968 Raul R. Ingles, et al., vs. Amelito R. Mutuc, et al. G.R. No. L-20768November 29, 1968 Eliseo B. Lemi, vs. Brigido Valencia, et al. G.R. No. L-21362November 29, 1968 Development Bank of the Philippines, vs. Lourdes Gaspar Bautista, et al. G.R. No. L-21725November 29, 1968 Aurelio Arcillas, vs. Hon. Gregorio D. Montejo, et al. G.R. No. L-22377November 29, 1968 Municipality (now City) of Legaspi, vs. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-22243November 29, 1968 Rileco, Inc., vs. Mindanao Congress of Labor-Ramie United Farm Workers' Assoc. (Local), et al. G.R. No. L-22802November 29, 1968 Maximo H. Gregorio, vs. Court of Appeals (4th Division), et al. G.R. No. L-23072November 29, 1968 Simeon B. Miguel, et al., vs. Florendo Catalino G.R. No. L-23145November 29, 1968 Testate Estate of Idonah Slade Perkins. Renato D. Tayag, vs. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. G.R. No. L-23276November 29, 1968 Melecio Coquia, et al., vs. Fieldmen's Insurance Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-23428November 29, 1968 Detective & Protective Bureau, Inc., vs. Hon. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-23971November 29, 1968 Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., vs. Antonio Banzon, et al. G.R. No. L-23967November 29, 1968 Antonino M. Milanes, vs. Eulogio F. De Guzman, et al. G.R. No. L-24019November 29, 1968 Philippine Educational Institution, et al., vs. MLQSEA Faculty Association, et al. G.R. No. L-24963November 29, 1968 G. Liner, et al., vs. National Labor Union, et al. G.R. No. L-25091November 29, 1968 Nilda Sura, vs. Vicente Silvestre Martin, Sr. G.R. No. L-25372November 29, 1968 People of the Philippines, vs. Sencio Gutierrez, et al. G.R. No. L-25589November 29, 1968 City of Legazpi, vs. Hon. Roberto Zurbano, et al. G.R. No. L-25677November 29, 1968 Jovito O. Vitanzo, vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-26082November 29, 1968 Norberto De La Rea, vs. Hon. Abelardo Subido, et al. G.R. No. L-27246November 29, 1968 Ismael Mathay, Sr., et al., vs. Hon. Francisco Arca, et al. G.R. No. L-27248November 29, 1968 Norberto De La Rea, et al., vs. Ismael Mathay, Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-27145November 29, 1968 Mariquita Luna, vs. Geronimo Carandang G.R. No. L-27511November 29, 1968 In Re: Simon Luna. Simon Luna, vs. Hon. Lorenzo M. Plaza, et al. G.R. No. L-27852November 29, 1968 People of the Philippines, vs. Eddie Buenbrazo G.R. No. L-29658November 29, 1968 Enrique V. Morales, vs. Abelardo Subido G.R. No. L-29696November 29, 1968 Jesus Gigante, vs. Republic Savings Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-29766November 29, 1968 Permanent Concrete Products, Inc., vs. Donato Teodoro A.C. No. 217November 27, 1968 Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera, vs. Casiano U. Laput G.R. No. L-20014November 27, 1968 Francisco Crisologo, et al., vs. Isaac Centeno, et al. G.R. No. L-20075November 27, 1968 Danao Coal Mining Syndicate, Ltd., et al., vs. Cenon Laurente G.R. No. L-21545November 27, 1968 Eufemia Rivera, vs. Maria Concepcion Paez Vda. De Cruz G.R. No. L-22240November 27, 1968 Santiago Balmonte, vs. Julian Marcelo, et al. G.R. No. L-22705November 27, 1968 Anthony Chan, vs. Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. G.R. No. L-22717November 27, 1968 Geminiano L. Gonzales, vs. Saturnina Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-23345November 27, 1968 Dionisio Abenaza, et al., vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-24624November 27, 1968 Sinforosa Alca, vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-25609November 27, 1968 Margaret Ann Wainright Versoza, et al., vs. Jose Ma. Versoza G.R. No. L-26341November 27, 1968 Iloilo Dock &Amp; Engineering Co., vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-26461November 27, 1968 Associated Labor Union, vs. Jose C. Borromeo, et al. G.R. No. L-21757November 26, 1968 People of the Philippines, vs. Kasila Sangaran G.R. No. L-25858November 26, 1968 Lu Ming, et al., vs. Vicente Lopez, et al. G.R. No. L-25972November 26, 1968 Leonardo C. Gutierrez, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.C. No. 555November 25, 1968 Ernesto M. Nombrado, vs. Atty. Juanito T. Hernandez G.R. No. L-22508November 25, 1968 Floro Buenconsejo, vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-29612November 15, 1968 Luciano A. Saulog, vs. Custombuilt Manufacturing Corp. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Canuto Pagdanganan, vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. People of the Philippines, vs. Jose Alto, et al. People of the Philippines, vs. Santos Ramos, et al. Angel Villarica, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Alfredo Apao, et al., vs. Hon. Tito V. Tizon, et al. Lilia Yusay Gonzales, vs. Hon. Wenceslao L. Fernan, et al. Raul R. Ingles, et al., vs. Amelito R. Mutuc, et al. Eliseo B. Lemi, vs. Brigido Valencia, et al. Development Bank of the Philippines, vs. Lourdes Gaspar Bautista, et al. Aurelio Arcillas, vs. Hon. Gregorio D. Montejo, et al. Municipality (now City) of Legaspi, vs. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. Rileco, Inc., vs. Mindanao Congress of Labor-Ramie United Farm Workers' Assoc. (Local), et al. Maximo H. Gregorio, vs. Court of Appeals (4th Division), et al. Simeon B. Miguel, et al., vs. Florendo Catalino Testate Estate of Idonah Slade Perkins. Renato D. Tayag, vs. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. Melecio Coquia, et al., vs. Fieldmen's Insurance Co., Inc. Detective & Protective Bureau, Inc., vs. Hon. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., vs. Antonio Banzon, et al. Antonino M. Milanes, vs. Eulogio F. De Guzman, et al. Philippine Educational Institution, et al., vs. MLQSEA Faculty Association, et al. G. Liner, et al., vs. National Labor Union, et al. Nilda Sura, vs. Vicente Silvestre Martin, Sr. People of the Philippines, vs. Sencio Gutierrez, et al. City of Legazpi, vs. Hon. Roberto Zurbano, et al. Jovito O. Vitanzo, vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Norberto De La Rea, vs. Hon. Abelardo Subido, et al. Ismael Mathay, Sr., et al., vs. Hon. Francisco Arca, et al. Norberto De La Rea, et al., vs. Ismael Mathay, Sr., et al. Mariquita Luna, vs. Geronimo Carandang In Re: Simon Luna. Simon Luna, vs. Hon. Lorenzo M. Plaza, et al. People of the Philippines, vs. Eddie Buenbrazo Enrique V. Morales, vs. Abelardo Subido Jesus Gigante, vs. Republic Savings Bank, et al. Permanent Concrete Products, Inc., vs. Donato Teodoro Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera, vs. Casiano U. Laput Francisco Crisologo, et al., vs. Isaac Centeno, et al. Danao Coal Mining Syndicate, Ltd., et al., vs. Cenon Laurente Eufemia Rivera, vs. Maria Concepcion Paez Vda. De Cruz Santiago Balmonte, vs. Julian Marcelo, et al. Anthony Chan, vs. Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. Geminiano L. Gonzales, vs. Saturnina Gonzales, et al. Dionisio Abenaza, et al., vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. Sinforosa Alca, vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. Margaret Ann Wainright Versoza, et al., vs. Jose Ma. Versoza Iloilo Dock &Amp; Engineering Co., vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Associated Labor Union, vs. Jose C. Borromeo, et al. People of the Philippines, vs. Kasila Sangaran Lu Ming, et al., vs. Vicente Lopez, et al. Leonardo C. Gutierrez, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ernesto M. Nombrado, vs. Atty. Juanito T. Hernandez Floro Buenconsejo, vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Luciano A. Saulog, vs. Custombuilt Manufacturing Corp. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12335 November 29, 1968
CANUTO PAGDANGANAN,petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 2nd District, Br. I, Cabanatuan City. ESTEBAN BALIGAD, ET AL.,respondents.
Inocencio B. Garampil for petitioner.
Nora G. Nostratis and Josefina S. Sioson for respondent CAR.
Nicanor B. Serrano for the other respondents.
BENGZON,J.:
This proceedings calls for interpretation of Sec. 20 of the Land Reform Act of 1955, which reads as follows:
SEC. 20.Prohibition against alienation. — Upon the filing of the petition referred to in sections 12 and 16, the landowner cannot alienate any portion of the land covered by such petition except in pursuance of the provisions of this Act, or enter into any form of contract to defeat the purposes of this Act, andno ejectment proceedings against any tenant or occupant of the landcovered by the petition shall be instituted or prosecuted until it becomes certain that the land shall not be acquired by the Administration. (Republic Act 1400) [Emphasis ours.]
No dispute about the facts: In Tenancy Case No. 1248-NE of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Second District, a decision was rendered on October 5, 1956, ordering the ejectment of Esteban Baligad with eight other tenants of Canuto Pagdanganan in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and authorizing the latter to take others in their place. Such judgment having become final, the court, on motion, decreed its execution on March 18, 1957; but on March 25, 1957, the said tenants asked for its stay alleging that in December 1955 "a majority of the tenants in Hacienda Ilagan, in which the land-holdings of the respondents in the instant case are located, filed a petition with the Land Tenure Administration for the acquisition by the Government of the above-named Hacienda under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1400." Acting on the motion, and following sec. 20 of Republic Act 1400, the court by its Resolution of April 15, 1957, quashed its writ of execution.
Later, upon a motion to reconsider, the court qualified its resolution, stating that if within a period of 3 months the Land Tenure Administration took no definite steps towards acquisition of the land, the court would be free to take whatever action may be proper in the premises. Vain was the opposition of Pagdanganan to the request for stay of execution, asserting the court's lack of jurisdiction because its decision had become final and executory. Vain was also his move to reconsider.
Consequently, he instituted this special civil action for mandamus and certiorari, founded on lack or excess of jurisdiction or mistaken legal interpretation.
In his first proposition, he maintains that section 20 applies only where a "petition" for expropriation has been filedin court. We think he errs on this point. The petition contemplated in section 20 is the petition of the tenants submitted to the Land Tenure Administration, to be acted upon by it. Section 20 specifically says "petition referred to in sections 12 and 16 as amended by Republic Act 1485; and these sections speak of petition of tenants to the said office. Of course, they mention "expropriation proceeding", but these are not designated therein as "petitions."
While on this matter, we notice that the court acted upon a certification that Hacienda Ilagan "is subject to a petition led by the supposed tenants and/or occupants thereof." Sections 12 and 16 refer to "petition filed by amajorityof the tenants or occupants."1The certificate does not state that the petition was signed by "a majority of the tenants." It says only, "petition by the supposed tenants." The difference is obvious and significant. Those who would invoke a special privilege granted by the State must comply strictly with its provisions. Furthermore, the statute has not authorized the suspension of ejectment proceedings upon the petition ofsupposedtenants orsupposedoccupants. It would be preposterous to permit the defendant-tenants to stop the proceedings upon their presenting a petition by outsidersposing as tenantsof the land.
As a second proposition, the petitioner denies the Agrarian Court's power to cancel the execution of a final decision. Pointing out that an appeal from said decision had been dismissed here, he questions such court's authority to refuse to carry out a decision that had practically been affirmed by the highest court of the land. Such act, he argues, would amount to assuming "supervisory jurisdiction to interpret or reverse the judgment of the higher court."
There is more to this argument than appears on the surface. It involves the secondary contention that sec. 20 does not apply where the Court is advised of the petition for expropriationafter the judgmentin the ejectment proceedings hadbecome final and executory.
The undersigned all agree that in the circumstances disclosed by the record, it was improper to cancel the order of execution. Construing the statute, some of us believe, as directing suspension of the execution of a final judgment might render it unconstitutional2, inasmuch as the tenancy contracts had been entered in 1953 and 1954, before the passage of Republic Act 1400 (1955). Others, without expressing any opinion on the constitutional aspect, hold, in the light of the purpose of the law and its phraseology, that the section could not be interpreted to cover the situation, because neither the plaintiff nor the court was "instituting or prosecuting" ejectment proceedings, but "executing" a final judgment. The section directs that no ejectment proceedings "shall be instituted or prosecuted" i.e., prosecuted to judgment; yet it does not direct that no judgment shall be executed or carried out. There is reason for the distinction, if one cares to analyze. The law obviously intended to favor bona fide tenants or occupants, those lawfully in possession.3Now, once the adverse judgment in the ejectment proceedings becomes final, the tenants (Esteban Baligad and his companions), automatically fall beyond the scope of the benevolent provisions of Republic Act 1400, since they lost standing as bona fide occupants.4
Accordingly, annulling its resolution of April 15, 1957, we hereby direct the respondent court, to execute its final decision of October 5, 1956. No costs.
Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Section 11, Republic Act 1400.
2Statutes suspending execution on judgments for a limited time are generally considered unconstitutional as applied to prior judgments or constracts even though conditions are annexed to the suspension. (16A Corpus Juris Secundum p. 89)
3Enrique et al. vs. Judge Panlilio, 50 Off. Gaz., 3026. Purchase by Government is for resale to bona fide tenants. Sec. 6 (1) Republic Act 1400.
4Enrique et al.,vs. Judge Panlilio,supra.