Case Digest (G.R. No. 136253)
Facts:
The case involves Ireneo Abuan and Ricardo Ordonez as petitioners and the Honorable Miguel T. Valera and Pablo Nonan as respondents. The events of this case unfolded regarding a landholding of about one hectare located in Aurora, Alicia, Isabela. On July 17, 1975, respondent Judge Miguel T. Valera issued an order that required the petitioners to vacate the disputed property in favor of private respondent Pablo Nonan, who claimed to be the rightful tenant. This decision was allegedly based on a prior ruling by the Supreme Court that had dismissed a case involving the same parties while asserting that jurisdiction over agrarian disputes lay with the Agrarian Courts, not with the Courts of First Instance.
Following this order, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on July 20, 1975, claiming violations of procedural due process, as they were not notified of the hearing or given the opportunity to oppose the motion for possession that had been made by Pablo Nona
Case Digest (G.R. No. 136253)
Facts:
- Parties Involved:
- Petitioners: Ireneo Abuan and Ricardo Ordonez.
- Respondents: Honorable Miguel T. Valera (Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations) and Pablo Nonan (private respondent).
- Subject Matter:
- A landholding dispute involving approximately 1 hectare of land in Aurora, Alicia, Isabela, tenanted by Ricardo Ordonez.
- Procedural Background:
- The Court of Agrarian Relations issued an order on July 17, 1975, directing petitioners to vacate the landholding and deliver possession to Pablo Nonan.
- The order was based on a motion filed by Nonan on July 16, 1975, which was granted the next day without notice to the petitioners.
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing lack of due process and misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in *Nonan v. Honorable Andres B. Plan*.
- Allegations:
- Petitioners claimed they were not served a copy of Nonan's motion nor notified of its hearing, depriving them of the opportunity to oppose it.
- They argued that the Supreme Court's decision in *Nonan v. Plan* only determined jurisdiction and did not affirm Nonan's tenancy rights.
Issues:
- Whether the order of respondent Judge Valera violated procedural due process by issuing it without notice or hearing.
- Whether the Supreme Court's decision in *Nonan v. Plan* was misinterpreted as a basis for granting possession to Nonan.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)