Case Digest (G.R. No. L-42452)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Ireneo Abuan and Ricardo Ordonez against respondents Honorable Miguel T. Valera and Pablo Nonan. The events leading to this case unfolded in Aurora, Alicia, Isabela, where a dispute arose over a landholding of approximately one hectare. On July 16, 1975, Pablo Nonan filed a motion with the Court of Agrarian Relations, presided over by Judge Miguel T. Valera, requesting to be placed in possession of the disputed land, which was then tenanted by Ricardo Ordonez. The following day, Judge Valera issued an order granting Nonan's request, directing Ordonez to vacate the premises and reinstating Nonan as the rightful tenant. This order was based on a previous decision by the Supreme Court, which had dismissed a related case and revived the current one. However, the petitioners contended that they were not given proper notice of the motion or the hearing, thus violating their right to procedural due process. They filed a motion for reconsideration on...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-42452)
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.
Issue:
- 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)