G.R. No. L-7214 - Patricio Ceniza, Judge of Court of 1st Instance of Misamis Occ., Benito Bedad, et al. vs. Magdaleno Atad

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7214)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties and land subject of dispute

Respondent Magdaleno Atad filed an application for a homestead with the Bureau of Lands for a portion of the public domain in Guinabot, Baliangao, Misamis Occidental (H.A. No. 114004 - E106070).
The homestead application included a large parcel of about 17 hectares, later subdivided into 12 lots, which were occupied by petitioners Benito Bedad et al.
Petitioners Bedad et al. filed a protest against Atad’s application, claiming that the 17 hectares were not actually occupied by Atad but by themselves, and requested segregation of that portion from Atad’s application.
The Director of Lands overruled the protest and, in an order dated November 10, 1955, denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Orders in the homestead proceeding and alleged effect on possession

On December 26, 1959, the Director of Lands issued an order of execution directing the Provincial Land Officer in Misamis to enforce the prior order, have the oppositors vacate the entire homestead, and place Atad in possession.
When the Land Officer attempted execution, petitioners refused to vacate and renewed their protest against Atad’s homestead application, even with the Chief Executive.
As a consequence of the persistent protest, the Secretary of Agriculture, in an order dated September 2, 1941, directed:

that Atad’s application should proceed only for the portion actually occupied by him; and
that the remainder occupied by persons mentioned in the ocular inspection report submitted on July 23, 1941 (Public Lands Inspector Atilano Villaceran and Surveyor Delfin Deligero) be adjudicated in favor of those occupants, to be applied for under the homestead provisions of the Public Land Law.

Petitioners occupied and planted the 17 hectares with fruit trees, especially coconut trees, which were bearing fruit.
According to the narrative, Atad claimed dissatisfaction with the Secretary of Agriculture’s segregation order because he argued that the protestants-oppositors were mere croppers working for him, and that since they did not appeal the Director of Lands rulings to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of Lands orders became final; yet, the later Secretary of Agriculture order excluded the 17 hectares from Atad’s homestead application and awarded it to the occupants for their own homestead applications.

Prior litigation initiated by Atad against petitioners

On November 11, 1946, Atad filed Civil Case No. 911 in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental titled UNLAWFUL DETAINER AND DAMAGES against petitioners.
Atad also filed a criminal action in the Justice of the Peace Court of Baliangao for violation of Section 2725 of the Revised Administrative Code relating to interference with the execution of decisions, resolutions or decrees of the Bureau of Lands, presumably due to petitioners’ refusal to vacate the 17 hectares.
In the Justice of the Peace Court, petitioners were found guilty and each was sentenced to pay P10.00.
On appeal to the Court of First Instance in Criminal Case No. 2503, the information was quashed and the case dismissed.
Civil Case No. 911 was also dismissed.

Proceedings in Civil Case No. 1484 and the challenged receiver order

The Court noted that the dismissals of the civil and criminal cases were reasoned to be based on a belief by the trial judge that the Director of Lands order overruling petitioners’ protest and ordering them to leave had been vacated or set aside by the later Secretary of Agriculture order dated September 2, 1941, excluding the 17 hectares from Atad’s homestead application and awarding the 17 hectares to petitioners’ group.
Petitioners alleged that on December 10, 1951, Atad (with his wife and children) and several hired men entered five of the twelve lots occupied by petitioners and harvested coconuts.
Petitioners alleged the invasion and reaping were repeated on July 22, 1952, and again on July 23, 1952.
On July 23 (the next day after the reaping on July 22, 1952), petitioners filed Civil Case No. 1484 against Atad for recovery of the value of the coconuts taken and for damages.
When petitioners sought a writ of preliminary injunction, Judge Ceniza granted the same ex parte upon filing a bond of P1,000.00.
The writ was later lifted when Atad filed a counterbond of P2,000.00.
Petitioners further alleged that five days after the lifting of the writ, on September 10, 1952, Atad and his men again invaded not only the five lots but also the remaining seven lots, covering the whole 17 hectares occupied and adjudicated to petitioners by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Petitioners alleged that Atad’s harvesting pattern deviated from the established practice by picking coconuts every month and even immature coconuts, thereby disturbing fruiting and rendering the trees less fruitful.
Petitioners alleged Atad and companions carried away other fruits such as jackfruits, bananas, coffee, and avocados.
Petitioners filed an amended complaint alleging the estimated value of the coconuts and other fruits harvested by Atad and damages.
On February 17, 1953, petitioners filed an ex parte petition for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the whole area involved.
Judge Ceniza issued the order dated February 17, 1953, appointing a receiver, which provided:

The order found that Atad, after the writ of preliminary injunction had been lifted through the filing of the counterbond, “have been and are wantonly harvesting” nuts from coconut trees on the land such that the plantation would be greatly damaged unless a receiver was appointed to preserve the litigated property.
It appointed Vicente Roa, the Clerk of Court, as receiver to take care of the property and administer it during the pendency of the litigation upon filing a bond of P5,000.00 with solvent sureties.
It required the receiver to render an accounting of the receivership from time to time or not less than once in every six months.
It ordered the receiver to deposit the proceeds of the products from the land after all incidental expenses with the Philippine National Bank Agency of this province.

Certiorari proceedings before the Court of Appeals and the present appeal to review that nullification

Atad filed certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 11091-R) to annul the February 17, 1953 order appointing a receiver.
The Court of Appeals declared the order null and void.
Respondents in the Court of Appeals certiorari proceedings (Atad’s side) filed with the Supreme Court an appeal by certiorari to review the Court of Appeals decision.
The parties filed corresponding briefs, including a memorandum for the appellee.

Grounds cited by the Court of Appeals for nullifying the receiver appointment

The Court of Appeals reasoned that Atad had filed a counterbond of P2,000.00 that could respond for any damages that might be caused by him.
The Court of Appeals held that there was no proof showing that the counterbond was not sufficient for the protection of petitioners.
The Court of Appeals further held that Judge Ceniza should not have hastily granted the ex parte petition for receiver relying on his personal knowledge of the case, apparently referring to the dismissal of Civil Case No. 911 and the quashing and dismissal of the criminal case.

Supreme Court’s statement of the circumstances prompting the receiver petition

Petitioners explained that Atad filed in the trial court a petition to dismiss the original Civil Case No. 1484; when denied, Atad filed a notice to appeal to the Supreme Court and perfected the appeal.
Petitioners believed the appeal w...(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7214)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7214)
Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7214) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7214) Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7214)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7214)
Advanced