Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35495)
Facts:
Raymundo Ancheta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-35495, August 09, 1991, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Raymundo Ancheta filed on March 2, 1970 an action for ejectment on the ground of personal cultivation under Section 36(1) of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (R.A. No. 3844) in the Court of Agrarian Relations, Fourth Regional District, Branch II‑A, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, against agricultural lessees Calixto Blaza (1½ hectares) and Canuto Damaso (3 hectares), whose holdings were covered by TCT No. NT‑26924 and located in a declared Land Reform Area (stipulated facts).At pre‑trial the parties stipulated the ownership/leasehold relationship, the land areas and Land Reform Area status, and that the defendants had been notified of petitioner’s alleged bona fide intention to personally cultivate; they also agreed the sole issue was whether the plaintiff should be allowed to personally cultivate the parcels. Defendants answered admitting the lessor‑lessee relation but denied validity of the notice and pleaded that petitioner acted from vindictiveness.
After trial the Court of Agrarian Relations (presided by Judge Agustin C. Bagasao) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on March 23, 1971. Ancheta appealed to the Court of Appeals; the CA, in a decision dated April 19, 1972 (CA G.R. No. 00057‑R, decision penned by Justice Manuel P. Barcelona), affirmed, holding there was "lack of cause of action in view of the provisions of Section 7, Republic Act No. 6389," and did not pronounce costs.
Petitioner sought review in this Court by petition for review on certiorari. The petition was initially denied on September 15, 1972 for procedural defects but was given due course on October 2, 1972. Petitioner filed his brief November 7, 1972; private respondents did not file a brief within the extended period and the matter was submitted for decision without it. Petitioner ass...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner has the right to eject respondents on the ground of personal cultivation under Section 36(1) of the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
- Whether Republic Act No. 6389, which removed personal cultivation as a ground for ejectment, applies retroactively to bar petitioner’s action.
- Whether the agrarian court’s finding that petitioner acted in bad faith is supported by substantial ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)