G.R. No. 131099 - DOMINGO CELENDRO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND LEONILA VDA. DE GUEVARRA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered giving due course to the petition. The assailed decision of public respondent is nullified. "[Herein petitioner is] hereby ordered to vacate that portion of land occupied by him and restore possession thereof to [herein private respondent]." On the other hand, the DARAB ruled: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Adjudicator dated October 10, 1990 is AFFIRMED. "Order is hereby given to Respondent-Appellant not to disturb Petitioner-Appellee in his peaceful possession of the landholding in controversy which is covered by Certificate of Land Ownership Award numbered 00018282-Original Certificate of Title No. CLOA -651 issued in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee." In effect, the DARAB set aside the final and executory Decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Wao, Bumbaran, Lanao del Sur [5] in Civil Case No. 50 [6] and the September 28, 1987 judgment [7] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur affirming the MCTC. The Facts As summarized by the Court of Appeals, the undisputed facts of the case are as follows: "[Private respondent] is the surviving spouse of the late Florencio Guevarra, an awardee of Lot No. 725 PLS, which contains an area of 7.7594 hectares, situated in Barrio Kapinisan, Municipality of Wao, Lanao del Sur. On the basis of a Homestead Patent No. 01418, Original Certificate of Title No. PAF-136 was issued to [private respondent's] late husband, who had been paying taxes due thereon until he died and was succeeded by herein [private respondents]. "In 1963, [petitioner] arrived in Wao, Lanao del Sur coming from Bukidnon Settlement Project, who occupied and tilled two (2) hectares of [private respondent's] property through the latter's tolerance, with the express condition that if and when that portion of the land should be needed by [private respondent], the latter needed only to demand xxx its return. "After the death of [private respondent's] husband in 1975, [private respondent] started to demand [petitioner's] eviction, but due to the latter's request for extension, [petitioner] was allowed to stay in said property and till the same. Until finally, on March 15, 1992 [private respondent] wrote a formal demand to vacate the property and restore possession to the [private respondent]. When said demand remained unheeded, a case for unlawful detainer was commenced by petitioner before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Wao, Lanao del Sur against [petitioner] docketed therein as Civil Case No. 50. "During the pendency of said Civil Case No. 50, [private respondent] filed [in the] MCTC a `Motion for Referral' of subject dispute to the DAR agency, which motion was denied (Annex `A', petition; pp. 13-18, rollo) on the ground that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and that the subject lot [was] no longer part of the resettlement area in view of the issuance by the government of title. Said MCTC rendered its decision, the decretal