GR L 33516; (May, 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33516. May 8, 1975
MARIANO RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, PASIG, RIZAL and ORTIGAS & COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a petition filed by respondent Ortigas & Company, Limited Partnership before the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) seeking authority to convert a landholding of approximately 13,871 square meters in San Juan, Rizal, into a subdivision and to eject the tenant-farmer, petitioner Mariano Rodriguez. The CAR granted the petition in a decision dated March 29, 1968, ordering Rodriguez to vacate the land, subject to the conditions under Section 36(1) of the Agricultural Land Reform Code ( Republic Act No. 3844 ). The court also directed Ortigas to pay Rodriguez specified indemnities for removal expenses, cultivation costs, and necessary and useful improvements on the landholding.
Petitioner Rodriguez appealed the CAR decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s judgment in toto in its decision promulgated on April 12, 1971. Subsequently, Rodriguez elevated the case to the Supreme Court via an appeal by certiorari.
ISSUE
The principal issue submitted for the Supreme Court’s resolution was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CAR’s decision authorizing the conversion of the agricultural land and the ejectment of the tenant.
RULING
The Supreme Court did not reach a substantive ruling on the merits of the agrarian dispute. Before the Court could deliberate on the legal arguments, the parties, through their respective counsel, filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition dated April 22, 1975. In this motion, they informed the Court that they had entered into an amicable settlement. The terms of this settlement included the payment of a certain sum to petitioner Rodriguez, the surrender of the premises in question to respondent Ortigas & Company, and the mutual desire for the dismissal of the instant case with prejudice.
Finding the Joint Motion to be in order and reflecting a voluntary agreement between the parties that resolved the controversy, the Supreme Court granted the motion. Consequently, the Court issued a Resolution dismissing the instant appeal with prejudice, thereby terminating the case. The Court ordered that copies of the resolution be furnished to the parties and their counsels. The resolution was concurred in by the entire Division.