G.R. No. L-11751; September 30, 1959
Concepcion Vda. de Opinion, petitioner, vs. Simplicio Billones, et. al., respondents.

FACTS

1. In Case No. 211-Iloilo, the Court of Agrarian Relations rendered a judgment on September 1, 1956, dismissing the petition of Felix Asonio, Cornelio Ignacio, Epifanio Sultan, and Simplicio Billones, and authorizing the respondent, Concepcion Vda. de Opinion, to dispossess them of their respective landholdings as of June 7, 1954. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on October 22, 1956.
2. On November 2, 1956, the respondent (landowner) moved for execution of the judgment.
3. Also on November 2, 1956, Simplicio Billones filed a separate petition (Case No. 265-Iloilo) against the same respondent, alleging that although he was found to have abandoned his landholding in 1954 in the prior case, the landowner allowed him to work the land again at the start of the agricultural year 1955-1956, thereby creating a new and distinct tenancy relationship. He prayed for an injunction to prevent his dispossession.
4. On November 3, 1956, Billones filed an urgent ex-parte motion for an interlocutory order to restrain his ejectment.
5. On November 5, 1956, the Court, acting on the motion for execution in Case No. 211-Iloilo and considering the allegations in the new petition (Case No. 265-Iloilo), issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of execution against the other petitioners (Asonio, Ignacio, and Sultan) but staying execution against Simplicio Billones.
6. On November 6, 1956, the Court, acting on the urgent motion in Case No. 265-Iloilo, issued an order directing the respondent to maintain Billones peacefully as a tenant and refrain from dispossessing him.
7. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the November 5, 1956 order staying execution against Billones, which was denied on December 4, 1956.
8. The petitioner (landowner) filed the present petition, claiming the orders of November 5, 1956, and December 4, 1956, constitute a grave abuse of discretion, as the judgment in Case No. 211-Iloilo was already final and executory. She seeks annulment of the orders and execution of the judgment against Billones.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations committed a grave abuse of discretion in staying the execution of its final and executory judgment in Case No. 211-Iloilo against respondent Simplicio Billones based on the allegations in a subsequently filed petition (Case No. 265-Iloilo).

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writs of certiorari and mandamus prayed for by the petitioner.
1. The Court held that the mere fact that Simplicio Billones continued in possession of his landholding up to the agricultural year 1955-1956 was not, by itself, sufficient proof that a new tenancy relationship had been created with the landowner. This continuance was because no judgment ordering his dispossession had been rendered until September 1, 1956.
2. The Court ruled that the second petition filed by Billones (Case No. 265-Iloilo) could not legally prevent the issuance of a writ of execution in Case No. 211-Iloilo, where the judgment had already become final and executory.
3. Consequently, the orders of the Court of Agrarian Relations staying execution against Billones constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The judgment in Case No. 211-Iloilo should be executed as against him. Costs were awarded against respondent Simplicio Billones.