Case Digest (G.R. No. 139913)
Facts:
Teresita S. David, Benjamin S. David, Pacifico S. David, Nemesio S. David, Celine S. David, Cristina S. David, Paulina S. David, and Leonie S. David-De Leon v. Agustin Rivera, G.R. Nos. 139913 & 140159, January 16, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Agustin Rivera filed on May 10, 1994 a complaint for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession with Prayer for Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction before the Provincial Adjudication Board (PARAB), claiming ownership and peaceful possession of an 18,000-sq.m. portion of Lot No. 38-B (the subject land) that he said had been given to him in 1957 as disturbance compensation arising from his renunciation of tenurial rights over an original 18-hectare farmholding. He alleged harassment by the petitioners, heirs of Spouses Cristino and Consolacion David, seeking his eviction.
The petitioners filed a separate action for ejectment (Civil Case No. 1106) in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Mabalacat and Magalang, Pampanga, alleging unlawful occupation and nonpayment of rent, and seeking possession for personal use. In his MCTC answer the respondent invoked a tenancy relationship, supported by a Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) certification, and informed the court of his pending PARAB complaint.
While the MCTC ejectment case was pending, the PARAB on January 31, 1995 declared the respondent a tenant and ordered that his peaceful possession be maintained; the petitioners appealed that PARAB decision to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). On September 28, 1995 the MCTC nonetheless rendered judgment ordering the respondent to vacate the premises, award back rentals and monthly rentals, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
Within the period to appeal but without filing one, the respondent petitioned the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City for prohibition with preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order to nullify the MCTC decision on grounds that the MCTC lacked jurisdiction due to the agrarian character of the dispute. The RTC issued a TRO on October 30, 1995 and, after hearing, granted a writ of preliminary injunction on November 29, 1995 upon bond. After trial in the prohibition proceeding the petitioners moved to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence; on February 25, 1998 the RTC denied that motion, treating it as raising factual issues requiring presentation of both parties’ evidence. Reconsideration was denied on June 23, 1998.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals; on September 3, 1999 the CA denied relief, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s denial of the demurrer and treating the order as interlocutory. The petitioners then filed a petition for review with this Court (re-filed after an initial procedural dismis...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does certiorari lie to review an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence filed after the plaintiff rested his case, or is such order immune from certiorari except when tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
- Was the RTC’s denial of the petitioners’ demurrer to evidence tainted with grave abuse of discretion because the MCTC allegedly lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment action due to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)