Facts:

The case involves petitioners Vidal Bernardo and Jesus Silverio against respondents Court of Appeals (4th Division) and Tropical Homes, Inc. The events leading to this case began on January 29, 1969, when the petitioners filed a verified complaint with the Court of Agrarian Relations in Pasig, Rizal, under CAR Case No. 442-Rizal 69. They claimed to be agricultural lessees of a 2-hectare rice landholding owned by Mercedes Tomas. The petitioners alleged that on January 16 and 17, 1969, Tropical Homes, Inc., in conspiracy with Tomas, forcibly bulldozed a portion of their land without prior notice or consent, destroying existing earth embankments. Despite their protests, the bulldozing continued. The petitioners sought a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent further destruction of their land.

On January 31, 1969, the respondent judge issued a temporary restraining order against Tropical Homes, Inc. and Tomas, prohibiting them from further bulldozing. The defendants were gi...

Facts:

Background and Initiation of the Case

• Petition for review by certiorari filed by Vidal Bernardo and Jesus Silverio against Tropical Homes, Inc. and the Court of Appeals (Fourth Division).
• The case had been pending for seventeen years; during this span, communication between counsel and petitioners had lapsed for over ten years, raising concerns about the continuity of their interest.
• Although both respondent Tropical Homes, Inc. and its counsel could not be located, the Court declined to dismiss the case as moot or academic.

Factual Matrix of the Original Agrarian Dispute

• On January 29, 1969, the petitioners—agricultural lessees—filed a verified complaint before the Court of Agrarian Relations, Sixth Regional District, Branch III, Pasig, Rizal (CAR Case No. 442-Rizal 69).
• The complaint alleged that:
• Petitioners were the lawful agricultural lessees of Mercedes Tomas, whose 2-hectare rice landholding was allegedly sold to Tropical Homes, Inc. for conversion purposes without notifying or obtaining their consent.
• On January 16 and 17, 1969, Tropical Homes, Inc., in concert with Mercedes Tomas, forcefully bulldozed a portion of the land and destroyed earth enbankments (pilapiles) without the petitioners’ permission.
• Despite timely protests, the actions continued, leading to irreversible changes on the land.

Procedural Developments and Judicial Interventions

• Following the verified complaint, the respondent CAR Judge issued a temporary restraining order on January 31, 1969, enjoining both Mercedes Tomas and Tropical Homes, Inc., including their agents and contractors, from bulldozing or disturbing the land.
• The defendants were notified of the restraining order on January 30, 1969, and were given five days to file a reply or objection to the motion for a writ of preliminary injunction set for February 6, 1969.
• Petitioner Tropical Homes, Inc. filed several ex parte motions:
• On February 3, 1969, a motion to lift the temporary restraining order.
• On February 6, 1969, a motion to stay the preliminary injunction proceedings pending a petition for certiorari filed on February 5, 1969, seeking annulment of the CAR Judge’s order.
• The CAR Judge later, on February 7, 1969, abeyanced the hearing for the motion for preliminary injunction and on February 8, 1969, denied the motion to lift the restraining order.
• A writ of preliminary injunction was subsequently issued by this Court on February 17, 1969, upon the filing of a bond (P1,000.00) to maintain the status quo.

Legislative and Legal Context

• The case involves a critical analysis of Sections 14 and 36(1) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3844.
• Section 36(1) underscores that ejectment of an agricultural lessee can only occur through a final and executory court order.
• The repealed Section 14 (treated herein as if not repealed) vested a right of pre-emption and redemption for the tenant-lessee, emphasizing their prerogative to retain possession in light of conversion to non-agricultural purposes.
• The Court addressed the procedural aspect by applying Section 5 of Rule 58 of the New Rules of Court, as amended by B.P. Blg. 224 in 1982, which permits the issuance of a temporary restraining order without a prior hearing provided that affidavits or the verified complaint demonstrate that imminent injury may result to the applicant.

Issue:

Procedural Validity of the Temporary Restraining Order

• Whether the temporary restraining order issued on January 31, 1969, by the CAR Judge—without a prior hearing and without posting a bond as normally required—can be equated to a writ of preliminary injunction under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 58 of the New Rules of Court.

Interpretation and Application of Provisions of R.A. 3844

• Whether the respondent’s reliance on the interpretation that ejectment proceedings pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land should only take precedence in cases involving direct acting owners (or immediate family) is valid.
• Whether the purchaser (Tropical Homes, Inc.) is bound by the obligations of the previous agricultural lessor to respect the petitioners’ security of tenure under Sections 9, 10, and 36(1) of R.A. 3844.
• The relevance and applicability of the repealed Section 14 within the context of the petitioners’ claims for security of tenure.

The Effect of Procedural and Substantive Legal Standards on Maintaining the Status Quo

• Whether the temporary restraining order is merely a provisional measure to maintain the status quo without impinging on substantial rights, given that remedial laws may be retroactively applied if no substantial right is impaired.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)