G.R. No. 109992 Case Digest

G.R. No. 109992, March 7, 2000

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos

vs Court of Appeals

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago

Facts:

A parcel of land in Plaridel, Bulacan was levied on execution by the MTC of Bulacan in 1989. The land was sold at public auction in 1990 with Santos, [now substituted by his heirs] as the sole bidder.

Santos registered the deed of sale in bulacan in October 1990 after Exequiel Garcia failed to exercise his right of redemption within the reglementary period.

In 1992, Garcia filed a petition for injunction and damages with preliminary injunction with the DARAB, praying that petitioner be enjoined from preventing private respondent from gathering the mango fruits. DARAB issued an order allowing the gathering of the mango fruits and directing that the proceeds thereof be deposited with the DARAB.

Subsequently, Garcia also filed to redeem his land. This petition was dismissed. Meanwhile, Pantaleon Antonio filed a motion to intervene with the DARAB claiming that he is affected in his rights over the mango trees which he tended for that season. DARAB suspended the claim of Antonio pending the resolution of the ownership issue.

Later, Antonio filed a motion to withdraw intervenors deposited share which was granted by DARAB, also recognizing Antonio as the duly constituted agricultural tenant of the land. This order was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

(1)Whether the jurisdiction is under PARAD since there is an issue of ownership.

(2)Whether CA erred in allowing the release of the share without bond.

Ruling:

Petition is with merit.

(1) Agrarian dispute is under the jurisdiction of DARAB, however in the case, there is no agrarian dispute since the parties are contending as to the ownership of the land. And the parties have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations. So DARAB has no jurisdiction. The issue of the case is ownership which is under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

(2) As to the claim of Antonio, DARAB has no jurisdiction also because the issue of who can harvest the mangoes is an ancillary to the main petition for injunction, so it is dependent on the main case.

CA's decision was reversed and set aside.