G.R. No. L-47991; April 30, 1941
SISENANDO MACALINDO, petitioner, vs. MARIANO L. DELA ROSA, as Judge of First Instance of Batangas, THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR ADMINISTRATION, CENTRAL AZUCARERA “DON PEDRO”, and CIRILA MARTINEZ, for herself and as guardian of her minor daughters Miguela, Ceferina and Cecilia, surnamed Custodio, respondents.

FACTS

1. In Civil Case No. 2616 before the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Cirila Martinez (for herself and as guardian of her minor daughters) sued Esperanza Avena and Salomeo Inumerable to recover a parcel of land. The parties entered into a compromise agreement, and on September 20, 1932, Judge Pedro Ma. Sison rendered a judgment in accordance with the stipulation.
2. On August 30, 1940, the respondent Judge ordered the Philippine Sugar Administration (PSA) to transfer the sugar quotas corresponding to the land assigned to Martinez and her daughters in favor of them. As the order did not mention the specific Plantation Audits authorizing the quotas, Martinez, on September 17, 1940, filed a letter with the court alleging that Plantation Audits Nos. 17-95, 17-344, and 17-379 authorized the quotas for their land and requested the PSA be ordered to transfer these audits to their names.
3. On the same date, September 17, 1940, the court issued an order directing the PSA to transfer Plantation Audits Nos. 17-95, 17-344, and 17-379 in favor of Martinez and her daughters.
4. It turned out that Plantation Audit No. 17-379 was issued and registered in the PSA office in the name of petitioner Sisenando Macalindong. Upon learning of the order for its transfer, Macalindong filed a special appearance, alleging that the court had no jurisdiction over his person as he was not a party to the case, and that it had no power or jurisdiction to order the transfer of Plantation Audit No. 17-379. He asked for the annulment and cancellation of said order.
5. By order of December 6, 1940, the court denied Macalindong’s petition and, modifying its September 17 order, directed, among other things, the PSA to transfer Plantation Audit No. 17-379 in favor of Martinez and her daughters. Consequently, the PSA required Central Azucarera “Don Pedro” to transfer the corresponding sugar quota.
6. To annul these orders, as he was in imminent danger of losing the Plantation Audit and its corresponding sugar quota, Macalindong filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of September 17, 1940, and December 6, 1940, which directed the transfer of Plantation Audit No. 17-379 (registered in Macalindong’s name) to Martinez and her daughters, despite Macalindong not being a party to the original case and without affording him due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition for certiorari and NULLIFIED the orders dated September 17, 1940, and December 6, 1940.
1. The Court found that if the challenged orders were not set aside, the petitioner would be deprived of Plantation Audit No. 17-379 and its corresponding sugar quota—which are properties in the legal sense—without due process of law. This is because he was not a party in Civil Case No. 2616 and was not heard when the court ordered the transfer of the document and quota in favor of Martinez and her daughters.
2. The respondent court, in its December 6 order, justified its action by stating that Macalindong was a mere lessee of Martinez for the lands adjudicated to her, to which the Plantation Audit and quota pertained, and that his lease contract expired on July 1, 1935. The Supreme Court held this reasoning to be neither legal nor valid. Even assuming Macalindong was a mere lessee, he could not be deprived of the document or the sugar quota without due process and without being heard beforehand.
3. The Court ruled that the petitioner was the prima facie owner of Plantation Audit No. 17-379 and its corresponding sugar quota, as they were registered in his name with the PSA and Central Azucarera “Don Pedro,” respectively. He could not be legally deprived of these properties except through the exercise of an ordinary civil action.
4. Costs were taxed against respondent Cirila Martinez.