GR L 39677; (July 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39677 July 22, 1975
INTER-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RICARDO CABALLERO, respondents.
FACTS
In a prior land ownership case (Civil Case No. 8195), the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo, through Judge Veloso, dismissed the complaint of Inter-Regional Development Corporation (IRDC) and ordered its officers to vacate and surrender possession of the disputed lots to Isidro Estrada. Pending IRDC’s appeal, Judge Veloso issued a partial writ of execution, and possession was delivered to Estrada, who subsequently leased the land to Ricardo Caballero. The Court of Appeals upheld the propriety of this partial execution. Subsequently, IRDC filed a separate action (Civil Case No. 9562) against lessee Caballero before Judge Inserto, alleging it had planted the standing sugar cane crop on the land in good faith and seeking to enjoin Caballero from cutting and milling it. Judge Inserto issued the requested preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
Whether the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Inserto in Case No. 9562, which enjoined the cutting of the sugar cane crop, constituted an improper interference with the partial writ of execution issued by Judge Veloso in Case No. 8195, which awarded possession of the land.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the two orders did not interfere with each other and were, in fact, complementary. The partial writ of execution in the land ownership case pertained solely to the possession of the land itself. In contrast, the preliminary injunction in the separate action concerned the ownership and disposition of the sugar cane crop standing on that land. The Court clarified that while Article 440 of the Civil Code states ownership of land includes accession, Article 448 provides a specific rule when something is built, sown, or planted in good faith on another’s land: the landowner has the right to appropriate the planting only after indemnifying the planter. Since IRDC alleged it planted in good faith, a genuine conflict of rights arose that needed adjudication in the pending Case No. 9562. The Court of Appeals erred in effectively ruling that IRDC was a planter in bad faith by holding that gathering the crop was part of Estrada’s possessory right, thereby pre-judging the very issue pending before the trial court. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s decision and made the restraining order permanent, without prejudice to the final outcome of the case concerning the crop.