Case Digest (G.R. No. 108338)
Facts:
Calixto Sanado v. Court of Appeals and Simeon G. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 108338, April 17, 2001, Supreme Court Third Division, Melo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Calixto Sanado sued private respondent Simeon G. Nepomuceno (and later Edgar J. Chu) in Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Pagadian City, in Civil Case No. 2085 for recovery of possession and damages arising from a 1973 “Contract of Fishpond Development and Financing.” The contract provided that Nepomuceno would develop 30 hectares of Sanado’s fifty-hectare fishpond and recover his investment first, then share net harvests 65% to Nepomuceno and 35% to Sanado for four years, renewable by agreement of the parties. Sanado had earlier quitclaimed 20 hectares (1972) and excluded 10 hectares already developed from the 1973 deal; Nepomuceno later assigned his rights to Edgar Chu (March 20, 1980).While Civil Case No. 2085 was pending, administrative proceedings concerning Sanado’s fishpond rights were underway. The Director of Fisheries recommended conversion of the Ordinary Fishpond Permit into Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 3090 covering about 26.7450 hectares (issued October 8, 1979). The Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF) cancelled that lease by order of Minister Salvador H. Escudero III dated January 28, 1985, forfeiting improvements; a May 14, 1985 Escudero order later afforded priority to Nepomuceno to apply and reconsidered forfeiture of improvements. Sanado appealed administratively; the Office of the President (O.P.), in O.P. Case No. 2958, denied his appeal and, by decision dated July 31, 1989, affirmed cancellation of Lease No. 3090 mainly for unauthorized transfers/subletting and failure to meet development requirements under Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 125 and Presidential Decree No. 704.
On June 19, 1989 the trial court rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 2085 in favor of Sanado ordering defendants jointly to restore possession, declaring Nepomuceno’s waiver to Chu null and void, awarding Sanado P168,000 for his share (Feb. 19, 1975–Feb. 19, 1979), reasonable rentals, attorney’s fees and costs. Nepomuceno appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 23165); Chu’s appeal was dismissed for failure to file brief. During the appeal the parties litigated motions for execution and injunctions; the CA entertained the July 31, 1989 O.P. decision which post‑dated the trial court judgment and issued a June 14, 1991 restraining resolution that prevented enforcement of the writ of execution restoring possession to Sanado.
The Court of Appeals, by decision dated September 11, 1992 (resolution denying reconsideration October 15, 1992), modified and otherwise affirmed portions of the trial court judgment: it affirmed monetary awards t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion by considering and applying the July 31, 1989 Office of the President decision and other matters not presented at the trial court?
- What is the legal effect and evidentiary weight of the July 31, 1989 Office of the President decision on the trial court’s order restoring possess...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)