ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 139081.November 15, 1999]

GARCIA vs. REYES AND HON. SAGUM, JR.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 15, 1999.

G.R. No. 139081(Lucena Garcia vs. Felisa Reyes and Hon. Inocencio B. Sagum, Jr., Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 3, Cabanatuan City. )

The case is a special civil action under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with motion to litigate as pauper, assailing the orders of the Municipal Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 3, dated October 30, 1998 and December 17, 1998.

On July 27, 1994, the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 3, Cabanatuan City, in Civil Case No. 10704 entitled "Felisa P. Reyes vs. Lucena Garcia," for unlawful detainer, rendered decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, viz:

1. Ordering defendant and all persons claiming under her to remove the house occupied by them, vacate the land and to return the peaceful possession of the said land to the plaintiff;

2. Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P50.00 pesos as monthly lease rental from the date of demand letter until the peaceful delivery have (sic) been effected to the plaintiff;

3. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of P2,000.00 pesos as litigation expenses;

4. To pay attorney's fee in the amount of P1,000.00 pesos;

5. and to pay the cost of this suit."

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Cabanatuan City, on June 9, 1995, affirmed the decision of the lower court, ruling that no evidence was presented by the defendant to support her contention that the land in question was agricultural land or that a tenancy relationship existed between defendant Lucena Garcia and plaintiff Felisa Reyes. Thus, the court held that regular courts had jurisdiction over the case. The court further declared that plaintiff was the owner of the land in question and that defendant merely possessed the land by tolerance.

On petition for review with the Court of Appeals, the appellate court, on September 12, 1997, upheld the decision of the Regional Trial Court, noting that the barangay captain of Sumacab, Cabanatuan City, where the land is located, and the City Agrarian Reform Team Office issued certifications showing that the land in dispute was not tenanted. Furthermore, appellant Garcia failed to present any receipt or other evidence to prove payment of rentals or delivery of products of the land to the landowner as required under a tenancy relation.

On July 6, 1998, Felisa Reyes filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 3, Cabanatuan City a motion for special order (Writ of Demolition). The court granted the motion on October 30, 1998. ¹ Special Order of Demolition, Rollo, pp. 16-20.

On November 12, 1998, Lucena Garcia filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 3, Cabanatuan City an Urgent Motion for the Reconsideration of the Special Order for Demolition. The court, in an order dated December 17, 1998, denied the urgent motion and directed the sheriff to proceed in implementing the Special Order of Demolition it previously issued. ² Order, Rollo, p. 21.

On January 7, 1999, Lucena Garcia filed with this Court a special civil action for certiorari, assailing the denial by the Municipal Trial Court of her motion for reconsideration dated December 17, 1998. Petitioner alleged that the land under controversy is agricultural land under tenancy relationship and that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB), not the civil courts.

We dismiss the petition.

The instant case originated from the issuance of a Special Demolition Order issued by the Municipal Trial Court, Cabanatuan City in Civil Case No. 10704, which was but part of the execution of the decision that had become final. The main purpose of the present petition is to relitigate the issue of tenancy. Clearly, the petition is then utterly without merit.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. No costs.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE