Title
Nicolas Bohayang vs. Hon. Cirilio C. Maceren, Judge of Court of 1st Instance of Davao, Rufino Travenio, Leon Travenio, et al.
Case
G. R. No. L-7290
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1954
Petitioner sought recovery of land possession, abandoned during war, found occupied by respondents. Court improperly suspended case pending administrative resolution; Supreme Court ordered trial to resume promptly.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G. R. No. L-7290)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:
    The petitioner, Nicolas Bohayang, filed an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 105 of the Tagum Cadastre (accion publiciana or plenaria de posesion) and damages against the respondents (excluding the respondent judge) in the Court of First Instance of Davao (Civil Case No. 454).

  2. Petitioner’s Claim:

    • The petitioner claimed prior entry, possession, and cultivation of the land since 1935.
    • He applied for a homestead over the land in 1939 and continued possession and cultivation until the outbreak of the Pacific War.
    • During the war, he was forced to abandon the land and seek refuge elsewhere.
    • Upon his return in October 1946, he found the respondents squatting on parts of the land and profiting from the hemp plants he had cultivated.
  3. Proceedings in the Lower Court:

    • The hearing of the case was set for July 8, 1953.
    • During the trial, the first witness for the plaintiff, the Chief of the Survey Party of the Bureau of Lands, testified that there was a conflict of claims over Lot No. 105 between the petitioner and the respondents, and that the conflict was pending investigation by the Director of Lands.
    • Based on this testimony, the respondent court issued an order holding the case in abeyance until the Director of Lands resolved the conflict.
  4. Motion for Reconsideration:

    • The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, praying for the setting aside of the order and for the resumption of the trial.
    • The motion was denied, prompting the petitioner to file this petition to compel the respondent court to set aside the order and proceed with the trial.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Nature of Recovery of Possession Cases:

    • An action for recovery of possession is an urgent matter that must be decided promptly to prevent breaches of peace, bodily harm, or even loss of life.
    • Courts have a duty to act swiftly and expeditiously in such cases.
  2. Impropriety of Suspending the Case:

    • The respondent court’s order suspending the hearing and making it dependent on the action of the Director of Lands was improper.
    • Such a postponement could result in an indefinite delay, as the resolution of the conflict by the Director of Lands might take a long time.
    • The court’s role is to adjudicate the case based on the evidence presented, not to defer to administrative proceedings that may not resolve the issue of possession.
  3. Judicial Independence and Control Over Proceedings:

    • While courts have control over their calendars, they must exercise this discretion judiciously, especially in urgent matters like recovery of possession.
    • The court’s duty is to resolve disputes promptly and not to abdicate its responsibility by deferring to administrative agencies.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court emphasized the urgency of resolving recovery of possession cases and the impropriety of suspending judicial proceedings based on pending administrative investigations. The respondent court was directed to proceed with the trial without further delay.


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.