Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 212778 -

G.R. No. 212778 -

Cited Laws

RA 524RA 681RA 85RA 6389RA 3844,RA 419,RA 230,RA 183,RA 7160,RA 348,RA 600,RA 238RA 581,RA 6389,RA 37,RA 185,RA 430,RA 252,RA 341RA 249
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [petitioners] and against defendants [Santos and the Municipality of Bustos]. Likewise, [petitioners] are entitled to exercise the right of redemption of the property in question. No pronouncement as to costs. [16] On appeal by both defendants, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [petitioners] and against defendants [Santos and the Municipality of Bustos]. Likewise, [petitioners] are entitled to exercise the right of redemption of the property in question. No pronouncement as to costs. [16] On appeal by both defendants, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 4384 affirmed that petitioners are bona fide tenants of the property. However, it also ruled that it would be impractical to reinstate petitioners in the possession thereof or allow them to redeem it where there is no showing of petitioners' capacity to pay the redemption price. [17] Consequently, the DARAB modified the decision of the PARAD, directing instead respondent Municipality to pay disturbance compensation to petitioners: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered modifying the decision rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of MaJolos, Bulacan and entering new decision ordering the herein Defendants-Appellants [respondent Municipality] to: 1. Pay [petitioners] the disturbance compensation equivalent to six hundred fifty two (652) cavans at forty (40) kilos per cavan and twenty five (25) kilos palay to be paid in cash at the prevailing market price at the time of tender of payment. [18] This time petitioners appealed to the CA and their case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 47234. [19] On July 17, 2002, the CA affirmed the uniform rulings of the PARAD and the DARAB that petitioners are tenants of the property who did not receive notice of its sale by Jesus. The CA reinstated the PARAD's original ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the appealed Decision of the DARAB [is] SET ASIDE. The Decision of the PARAD is hereby REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that Jesus Santos and the [respondent Municipality] are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, petitioners the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as payment of moral damages and the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS as attorney's fees. [20] This lapsed into finality on November 27, 2003. [21] On March 2, 2006, upon motion of petitioners, the PARAD issued a Writ of Execution, which states in pertinent part: Whereas on November 27, 2003, an Entry of Judgment was issued by Division Clerk of Court, Ma. Roman L. Ledesma of Court of Appeals certifying that the Decision promulgated on July 17, 2002 had been final and executory on November 27, 2003. NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby directed to implement and make effective the Decision of this Board dated July 17, 2002 with the assistance of the MARO of Bustos, Bulacan, Barangay Captain of Barangay Poblacion, Bustos, Bulacan and the PNP of the locality, if necessary, and make a return of this writ within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. [22] The succeeding Orders of the PARAD reciting the incidents and its respective rulings thereon are contained in its Writ of Execution and Possession dated September 29, 2006: WHEREAS,