G.R. NO. 166781 - ALEJANDRO MORAGA, REPRESENTED BY ENRIQUE MORAGA, VS. SPS. JULIAN AND FELICIDAD SOMO, SPS. REYNALDO AND CARMELITA FERNANDEZ, AND GIL AND HERMINILDO SAN DIEGO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered as follows: Finding the landholding of the late Victoriano Ipapo not covered by P.D. 27. Accordingly, EP No. 496453 issued in favor of Alejandro Moraga is hereby recalled and cancelled. Ordering defendant Alejandro Moraga and all other persons acting in his behalf to vacate the premises in question for the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. [2] The Moragas filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of merit. The Moragas then appealed to the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, respondents filed an application for retention with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) which was opposed by petitioner Enrique Moraga. In an Order dated 22 February 1994, the Regional Director of DAR Region III granted the application for retention by respondents. Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who affirmed the decision of the Regional Director in an Order dated 14 October 1994. Unfazed, petitioner appealed the ruling of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to the Court of Appeals. Said appealed ruling of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform was consolidated by the Court of Appeals with the appealed decision of the DARAB in Case No. 567-Bul '93. The consolidated cases were docketed as CA- G.R. No. SP No. 38445. In a Decision dated 28 September 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed the two appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38445, thus affirming the rulings of the DARAB and the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The decision became final and executory since no either motion for reconsideration nor appeal from the same were ever filed by any party. While the CA-G.R. SP No. 38445 was still pending before the Court of Appeals, petitioner and Mercedes Moraga, on 6 April 1995, filed before the Provincial Adjudicator of Malolos, Bulacan, a complaint for Redemption against respondents which was docketed as DARAB Case No. 927-Bul '95. The complaint alleged that upon Alejandro Moraga's death, the Moragas succeeded Alejandro Moraga as tenants over the parcel of land that is the subject of the controversy. It was likewise averred that the sale entered into between Victoriano Ipapo and respondents on 7 March 1973, involving the said property, was made without the written notice given to Alejandro Moraga and the DAR, in violation of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389. Within the purview of the said provisions of law, the Moragas were exercising their right of redemption over the said landholding. In a Decision dated 23 November 1995, the Provincial Adjudicator, taking into consideration the earlier ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38445, which affirmed the judgment of the DARAB ordering Alejandro Moraga to vacate the premises of land in question and the order of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform granting respondents' application for retention, opined that the case for redemption has been rendered moot and academic inasmuch as respondents, by virtue of t