Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36626)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36626)
Facts:
Andres de la Merced, Land Authority, and Land Bank v. Teodoro de Guzman, G.R. No. L-36626, April 15, 1988, the Supreme Court First Division, Grino‑Aquino, J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arises from a three‑hectare riceland in Piel, Baliuag, Bulacan, owned by Teodoro de Guzman and cultivated under agricultural lease by Andres de la Merced. On June 22, 1970, De Guzman offered to sell the portion De la Merced cultivated and gave a 90‑day option; De la Merced received the notice on July 3, 1970 and advised he would buy or pre‑empt the land with the assistance of the Land Authority and the Land Bank. A conference convened by the Office of the Agrarian Counsel on August 12, 1970 failed to produce an agreement on price or payment terms.
On September 17, 1970, De la Merced filed a complaint for pre‑emption in the Court of Agrarian Relations at Baliuag, Bulacan, joined by the Land Authority and the Land Bank. The landowner filed a motion to dismiss on November 12, 1970. By order of March 31, 1971, the trial court dismissed the complaint on two grounds: (1) the complaint did not allege that De la Merced had tendered or consigned the reasonable price within the 90‑day period required by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3844; and (2) the filing of the complaint did not interrupt or suspend the 90‑day period. Motions for reconsideration were denied.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals; because the assignment of errors raised purely legal questions the case was referred to the Supreme Court and elevated on February 16, 1973. During the Supreme Court proceedings the Court on September 28, 1983 issued a resolution asking whether De la Merced remained in possession of the disputed land or whether the case had become moot; copies were sent to several counsel, but service problems and counsel deaths were noted and one attorney (Atty. Nicanor C. Sincioco) filed a manifestation stating he never acted for any party and sought withdrawal. There is no proof of service of that resolution on other counsel in the records.
Issues:
- Was the dismissal of the complaint proper for failure to allege tender or consignation of the purchase price within the 90‑day period prescribed by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3844?
- Does the filing of a complaint for pre‑emption interrupt or suspend the 90‑day period for exercising the agricultural lessee’s right of pre‑emption?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)