Title
Pagdanga vs. Court of Agrarian Relations
Case
G.R. No. L-12335
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1958
Tenants sought to stay ejectment execution after final judgment, citing Land Reform Act. Court ruled Section 20 inapplicable post-finality, enforcing ejectment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12335)

Background of the Case

This matter arises from Tenancy Case No. 1248-NE, in which a decision was rendered ordering the ejectment of Esteban Baligad and eight other tenants from lands owned by Canuto Pagdanganan. This judgment became final on October 5, 1956, leading to a decree for execution on March 18, 1957. However, on March 25, 1957, the tenants sought to stay the execution, claiming a petition for the acquisition of the land was filed by a majority of the tenants with the Land Tenure Administration.

Legal Contention

The central legal issue concerns the interpretation of Section 20 of the Land Reform Act of 1955, which prohibits landowners from alienating their land or instituting ejectment proceedings once a petition for expropriation is filed by tenants. The Court of Agrarian Relations initially stayed the execution based on this provision, indicating that if no action was taken on the acquisition petition within three months, the court would reconsider.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Pagdanganan contended that Section 20 applies only when a formal expropriation petition is filed in court and argued that the tenants had not provided sufficient proof that a valid petition had been filed by a majority. He further claimed the Agrarian Court lacked jurisdiction to cancel the execution of a final decision. Pagdanganan posited that such actions would necessitate an exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over a higher court's affirmed decision.

Court’s Analysis

The court clarified that the term “petition” in Section 20 refers to a submission made by tenants to the Land Tenure Administration for action on the acquisition of land, and not strictly to a petition filed in court. It observed that the certification regarding the supposed tenants did not affirmatively establish that a majority signed the petition, which weakened their claim under the statute. The ruling emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to statutory provisions to invoke privileges conferred by the state.

Execution of Final Judgment

In reviewing the Agrarian Court's suspension of execution of the final judgment, the court concluded that once the judgment entered in favor of Pagdanganan became final and executory, the tenants lost their status as bona fide occupants under the provisio

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.