GR 25503; (December, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25503 December 17, 1966
LEON DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO CHINGCUANGCO, Associate Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of NUEVA ECIJA and TOMAS IMPERIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leon del Rosario was a leasehold tenant on land owned by respondent Tomas Imperio. The Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) ordered del Rosario’s ejectment in a decision dated July 12, 1963, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on March 26, 1965. Imperio moved for execution of the judgment. Del Rosario opposed, claiming a right of retention over the land until indemnified for expenses and improvements under Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act). The CAR denied del Rosario’s motion and issued a writ of execution, stating his claim for indemnity should be filed separately but could not stop execution. Del Rosario filed this petition for certiorari. This Court issued a preliminary injunction on January 8, 1966, restraining implementation of the writ. Contempt petitions were also filed: one by Imperio against del Rosario’s counsel for citing an alleged fictitious authority, and one by del Rosario against Imperio and three policemen for allegedly disturbing his possession and cultivation of the land after the injunction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations erred in ordering execution of the ejectment judgment without first determining and settling the tenant’s claim for indemnity for improvements under Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 .
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The orders denying the motion to stay execution and the writ of execution were set aside. Respondents were ordered to restore petitioner to the landholding and to proceed according to Section 1 of Rule 15 of the former Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations. The Court ruled that the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of one-half the value of improvements under Section 43 of R.A. 1199 must first be threshed out, determined, and resolved before the tenant can be dispossessed by writ of execution. Although the Agricultural Land Reform Code (R.A. 3844) provided that the CAR shall be governed by the Rules of Court, which lack a similar protective provision, the former procedure under the CAR Rules should apply to this pending case to avoid injustice. The policy of the law to protect tenants’ rights under the principle of social justice mandates this protection. The petitions for contempt were denied for lack of merit.