Case Digest (G.R. No. 118292)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 118292)
Facts:
Henry L. Mon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118292, April 14, 2004, First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner is Henry L. Mon; respondents include the Court of Appeals, Hon. Leopoldo Serrano, Jr., the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), and private respondents Spouses Larry and Jovita Velasco.
On 4 December 1989 petitioner filed an affidavit-complaint for ejectment with the DARAB Regional Adjudication Office in San Fernando, La Union, alleging he was owner-administrator of a parcel planted to rice and tobacco and that the Spouses Velasco, his cultivators, stole one sack of palay and subleased the land to a third person. The Spouses Velasco answered, denied the accusations, asserted the longstanding 50-50 sharing arrangement with petitioner, and counterclaimed for reliquidation of past harvests to determine their just share. Hearings were conducted and both parties filed position papers and exhibits.
On 20 February 1991 the Regional Office rendered an order in favor of petitioner, directing the respondents to vacate and turn over possession, finding subletting to be shown and invoking Section 27(2) of Republic Act No. 3844 (RA 3844) to justify ejectment; it found no convincing evidence of theft. The Spouses Velasco appealed to the DARAB Central Office pursuant to the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
On 12 July 1993 the DARAB Central Office reversed the Regional Office, set aside the February 20, 1991 order, and remanded the case to the DAR Provincial Adjudicator in San Fernando for determination of lease rentals and reliquidation of crop harvests from 1986 onward, and ordered petitioner to return any excess palay or its cash equivalent collected above the legal rental (DARAB Case No. 0274).
Petitioner appealed the DARAB Decision to the Court of Appeals. On 9 December 1994 the Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB Central Office decision in toto (CA-G.R. SP No. 31763). Petitioner then filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Court assailing the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issues:
- Did petitioner improperly change the theory of the case on appeal by asserting a civil lease relationship and relying on Civil Code lease provisions instead of maintaining the original agrarian ejectment theory?
- Was the DARAB Central Office (and affirming Court of Appeals) correct in setting aside the Regional Office's ejectment order and remanding for reliquidation and rent determination under the agricultural leasehold regime?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)