Case Digest (G.R. No. 78214)
Facts:
Caballes v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78214, December 05, 1988, Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Yolanda Caballes and her husband acquired a 60-square-meter portion (20m x 3m) of Lot No. 3109‑C by Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 24, 1978; the parcel was part of an original 500‑square‑meter lot formerly owned by Andrea Alicaba Millenes. Prior to that sale, respondent Bienvenido Abajon had built a house on a portion of the lot (from 1975) and paid a monthly rental of P2.00 to Andrea Millenes; he also planted crops (corn, bananas, camote) and shared fifty percent of produce with Millenes.
After the 1978 sale to the Caballes spouses, the new owners asked Abajon to relocate and later to vacate; Abajon refused. On April 1, 1982, petitioner Yolanda Caballes filed an affidavit accusing Abajon of maliciously cutting banana plants allegedly worth about P50.00, and Criminal Case No. 4003 for malicious mischief was instituted against Abajon in the Municipal Court of Talisay, Cebu. On September 30, 1982, pursuant to PD 1038 the trial court ordered referral of the criminal case to Regional Office No. VII of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) for preliminary determination of the parties’ relationship.
The MAR Regional Director, after investigation, certified on January 24, 1983 that the criminal case was not proper for hearing because Abajon was a bona fide tenant, the case was filed to harass and eject him, and the dispute was connected with agrarian relations. The Caballes spouses appealed to MAR (later Department of Agrarian Reform, DAR). By Order dated February 3, 1986, DAR Minister Conrado Estrella reversed the certification and declared the case proper for trial, finding the land a residential lot within the town’s industrial zone. On reconsideration, DAR under Minister Heherson T. Alvarez issued an Order dated November 15, 1986 setting aside the February 3 Order and again certifying the criminal case as not proper for trial after finding a tenancy relation between Abajon and the prior owner.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of DAR’s November 15, 1986 Order as a grave abuse of discretion and claiming the DAR erred in holding the criminal case not proper for trial. The Court took the case on petition for certiorari and reviewed both the DAR factual findings and the crimina...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Department of Agrarian Reform commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in certifying Criminal Case No. 4003 as not proper for trial on the ground that respondent Abajon was an agricultural tenant?
- If Abajon is not an agricultural tenant, is the criminal case for malicious mischief against him proper for trial, or ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)