Title
Patricio Ceniza, Judge of Court of 1st Instance of Misamis Occ., Benito Bedad, et al. vs. Magdaleno Atad
Case
G.R. No. L-7214
Decision Date
Jul 23, 1955
Dispute over 17-hectare public land in Misamis Occidental; appellants contested homestead application, leading to legal battles. Receiver appointed to preserve property; Supreme Court upheld appointment, citing inadequate counterbond and need to prevent further damage.
certiorari
civil case
unlawful detainer
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-7214)

Factual Background

Before 1935, Atad filed an application for a homestead with the Bureau of Lands for a portion of the public domain in Guinabot, Baliangao, Misamis Occidental. The application included a large parcel of approximately seventeen hectares, later subdivided into twelve lots, which were occupied by Bedad and his co-occupants. The occupants protested Atad’s application, asserting that the seventeen-hectare portion was not actually occupied by Atad but by them, and they requested that this portion be segregated from Atad’s homestead application.

The Director of Lands overruled the protest. In an order dated November 10, 1955 (as stated in the text), the Director denied a motion for reconsideration. On December 26, 1959, the Director issued an order of execution directing the Provincial Land Officer in Misamis to enforce the prior order: the oppositors were to vacate the entire homestead and Atad was to be placed in possession. When the Land Officer proceeded to execute the order, the oppositors refused to vacate their holdings and continued their protest against Atad’s homestead application, even after they took the protest to the Chief Executive.

As a result of persistent protest, the Secretary of Agriculture issued an order dated September 2, 1941, directing that Atad’s application be given due course only for the portion actually occupied by him. The remainder, occupied by various persons listed in the ocular inspection report submitted on July 23, 1941 by Public Lands Inspector Atilano Villaceran and Surveyor Delfin Deligero, was to be adjudicated in favor of those occupants for their homestead applications under the Public Land Law.

Atad was dissatisfied with the segregation of the seventeen hectares from his homestead application. He claimed that the protestants were merely croppers working for him and that they had not appealed the Director of Lands’ denial of their protest to the Secretary of Agriculture, which would have rendered the Director’s order final. He thus continued to assert ownership and entitlement over the whole area, including the seventeen hectares.

Actions by Atad Before the Civil and Receiver Proceedings

On November 11, 1946, Atad filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental civil case No. 911 entitled unlawful detainer and damages against the occupants Bedad et al. Atad also filed a criminal case in the Justice of the Peace Court of Baliangao for violation of Section 2725 of the Revised Administrative Code, relating to interference with the execution of decisions, resolutions, or decrees of the Bureau of Lands, apparently in relation to the occupants’ refusal to vacate the seventeen hectares ordered for Atad’s possession.

The occupants were convicted in the Justice of the Peace Court, with each sentenced to pay P10.00. On appeal to the Court of First Instance in Criminal Case No. 2503, the information was quashed and the case dismissed. Civil Case No. 911 was likewise dismissed. The Supreme Court noted a reasonable basis to believe that both dismissals were grounded on the trial judge’s view that the order of the Director of Lands overruling the protest and ordering the occupants to leave the land had been vacated by the later Secretary of Agriculture order dated September 2, 1941, which excluded the seventeen hectares from Atad’s homestead application and awarded that area to the occupants to be applied for by them under the homestead provisions.

Civil Case No. 1484 and the Ex Parte Receivership

The occupants alleged that on December 10, 1951, Atad, together with his wife, children, and several hired men, entered five of the twelve lots occupied by the occupants and harvested coconuts. The invasion and harvesting allegedly recurred on July 22, 1952, and the next day, July 23, the occupants filed Civil Case No. 1484 against Atad for recovery of the value of coconuts taken and for damages.

The trial court, upon an ex parte request in the complaint for a writ of preliminary injunction, granted the writ after the filing of a bond of P1,000.00 by the plaintiffs. After Atad filed a counterbond of P2,000.00, the writ was later lifted.

Five days after the lifting of the injunction, the occupants alleged that on September 10, 1952, Atad and his men again invaded not only the previously mentioned five lots but the remaining seven lots, meaning the entire seventeen-hectare area that the occupants claimed had been adjudicated to them by the Secretary of Agriculture. They further alleged that Atad changed the harvesting practice by picking coconuts every month, including immature ones, which supposedly disturbed fruiting and reduced the trees’ productivity. They also alleged removal of other fruits such as jackfruits, bananas, coffee, and avocados.

In response, they filed an amended complaint alleging estimated values of the coconuts and other fruits harvested, together with damages. On February 17, 1953, they filed an ex parte petition for appointment of a receiver to take charge of the whole area involved. The petition alleged urgency grounded on alleged wanton harvesting by Atad after the injunction had been lifted, such that the plantation would be greatly damaged unless a receiver was appointed to preserve the property.

The Trial Court’s Order of February 17, 1953

In an order dated February 17, 1953, Judge Ceniza granted the ex parte petition. The order stated that, based on the ex parte urgent motion supported by affidavit, Atad and the defendant had been and were harvesting nuts from the coconut trees on the land, such that the plantation would be greatly damaged unless a receiver was appointed. The court then appointed Vicente Roa, the clerk of court, as receiver to take care of the property and administer it during the pendency of the litigation upon filing a bond of P5,000.00 with solvent sureties. The receiver was ordered to render an accounting at least once every six months, and to deposit proceeds after incidental expenses with the Philippine National Bank agency in the province.

Court of Appeals’ Decision in the Certiorari Proceedings

Atad challenged the February 17, 1953 receivership order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals declared the order null and void. It reasoned that a counterbond of P2,000.00 filed by Atad for the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction could respond for damages and that there was no proof that the bond was insufficient for the protection of the occupants. The appellate court further faulted the trial judge for “hastily” granting the ex parte petition, suggesting he relied on his personal knowledge of the matter in litigation, apparently referring to the earlier dismissal of Civil Case No. 911 and the quashing of the information in Criminal Case No. 2503.

The Parties’ Positions in the Supreme Court

On appeal by certiorari, the Supreme Court considered whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the order appointing a receiver. The occupants explained that Atad had sought dismissal of the original Civil Case No. 1484, and when that motion was denied he filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. They alleged they perfected their belief that the appeal would take time, and that during that period Atad and his companions would keep harvesting fruits from the whole area, including coconut trees, and continue causing damage. They asserted that, therefore, they filed the urgent motion for receivership on February 17, 1953 as the most feasible means to prevent further destruction while the case proceeded.

They also stated that Atad withdrew his appeal only on March 7, 1953, after the issuance of the receivership order. The Supreme Court addressed and rejected the Court of Appeals’ criticism that the trial judge had improperly relied on personal knowledge, while also evaluating whether the counterbond was, in the circumstances, adequate protection for the occupants.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that it could not agree with the Court of Appeals’ annulment of the trial court’s receivership order. It found that the occupants had satisfactorily explained the reasons and circumstances leading to the filing of the receiver petition. The Court emphasized that the trial judge was authorized by Rule 61, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court to grant meritorious petitions for the appointment of a receiver even ex parte. In the Court’s view, there was no impropriety in the trial judge’s use of knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case in deciding the receivership petition, since such knowledge related to the advisability of preserving the property in litigation, including its fruits, during the pendency of proceedings in the trial court and on appeal.

The Supreme Court underscored that the case involved a disputed area of approximately seventeen hectares, which was claimed by Atad as included in his homestead application per the Director of Lands’ orders, and was equally claimed by the occupants and actually occupied by them, with adjudication of the area to them by the Secretary of Agriculture in its order dated September 2, 1941. It noted that Atad’s criminal action for interference with the Bureau of Lands’ enforcement and his civil unlawful detainer action were dismissed by the trial court. It considered the alleged continuing invasions and harvestings in Civil Case No. 1484, the alleged extraction of fruits from

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms