Title
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-30821
Decision Date
Dec 14, 1988
Agricultural lessees challenged forcible land conversion by new owner; Supreme Court upheld their security of tenure, ruling TRO valid and rejecting dispossession without court order.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30821)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • Petitioners Vidal Bernardo and Jesus Silverio were agricultural lessees of a 2-hectare rice landholding owned by Mercedes Tomas.
  • On January 16 and 17, 1969, Tropical Homes, Inc. (TROPICAL), in conspiracy with Mercedes Tomas, forcibly bulldozed a portion of the landholding without prior notice or consent from the petitioners.
  • The land was intended to be converted for residential purposes.

Legal Proceedings

  • On January 29, 1969, the petitioners filed a verified complaint with the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR), seeking a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the bulldozing.
  • On January 31, 1969, the CAR issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the bulldozing pending a hearing.
  • TROPICAL filed motions to lift the TRO and stay the proceedings, arguing that the TRO was improperly issued without a hearing or bond.
  • The CAR denied TROPICAL’s motion to lift the TRO, and the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Court of Appeals Decision

  • The CA ruled in favor of TROPICAL, holding that the TRO was effectively a preliminary injunction issued without a hearing or bond, which was improper under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 58 of the New Rules of Court.
  • The CA also interpreted Section 14 and Section 36(1) of the Code of Agrarian Reform (R.A. 3844), concluding that ejectment proceedings should take precedence only when the landowner or their immediate family undertakes the conversion in good faith.

Issue:

  1. Procedural Issue: Whether the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the CAR on January 31, 1969, was valid despite the absence of a prior hearing or bond.
  2. Substantive Issue: Whether the provisions of Sections 14 and 36(1) of R.A. 3844 were properly applied by the CA in determining the rights of the petitioners as agricultural lessees.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA’s decision, and remanded the case to the proper court for further proceedings, subject to the parties’ interest in pursuing the case. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the security of tenure of agricultural lessees under R.A. 3844.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.