G.R. No. L-28842 July 29, 1968
FAUSTINO CORTEZ, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ONOFRE VILLALUZ, Presiding Judge, Court of Agrarian Relations, Fifth Regional District, Branch Two, San Fernando, Pampanga, ATTY. SANTIAGO SUÑGA, Clerk of Court, Court of Agrarian Relations, Fifth Regional District, Branch Two, San Fernando, Pampanga and JOSE REYES, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Jose Reyes filed an ejectment case (Case No. 625) in the Court of Agrarian Relations against Liborio Cortez, father of petitioner Faustino Cortez, concerning a landholding in San Jose, Macabebe, Pampanga. Liborio Cortez filed an answer but failed to appear at the pre-trial. His motion for postponement was denied. Respondent Reyes was allowed to present evidence ex-parte. On February 19, 1968, judgment was rendered authorizing the ejectment of Liborio Cortez and ordering him to pay 45 cavans of rice as rental for 1966-1967, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. On March 2, 1968, upon Reyes’s ex-parte motion, the respondent judge issued an order directing the Clerk of Court to supervise the reaping, threshing, and liquidation of the current palay crop. The order allocated 25% of the gross harvest to the defendant, directed the payment of 45 cavans as rental for 1966-1967 and another 45 cavans for 1967-1968 to Reyes, and ordered the balance deposited. On March 6, 1968, Faustino Cortez filed a motion to set aside this order, claiming he was the real tenant and was not a party to the case. The court denied his motion, stating he had no standing. It was also noted that in a prior related case (No. 248) between Reyes and Liborio Cortez, Liborio had admitted being the tenant, and that case had been decided in favor of Reyes and affirmed on appeal. The judgment in Case No. 625 had become final and executory, and a writ of execution was issued on June 6, 1968. Respondents averred that the March 2 order had already been fully implemented.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of March 2, 1968, concerning the liquidation of the palay crop, despite petitioner Faustino Cortez’s claim of being the real tenant and not a party to the case.

RULING

The petition is dismissed and the writs prayed for are denied. The Court found that Faustino Cortez’s late appearance, first by motion and then by the petition for certiorari, was intended to frustrate the judgment against his father. The question of fact regarding who was the real tenant had already been resolved by the respondent court in its final judgments in Cases No. 248 and 625 and by its denial of Faustino’s motion. Furthermore, the order complained of had already been fully implemented. The motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was likewise denied.