Haystack: Inter-regional Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals (GR L-39677, 22 July 1975)

Inter-regional Development Corporation v. CA
[G.R. No. L-39677. July 22, 1975.]
First division, Castro (J): 4 concur, 1 on leave

Facts: In civil case 8195 in the CFI Iloilo (Branch 3, Inter-Regional Development Corporation vs. Isidro Estrada), for the annulment of sales and damages and involving land ownership, the Court through Judge Castrence Veloso, ordered Jose and Isabel Bañez (president and treasurer, respectively, of the Inter-Regional Development Corporation) or their privies to immediately vacate the possession of Lots 1 and 6, Plan Psu-118496 to Isidro A. Estrada, third-party plaintiff, and not to molest, disturb or in any manner interfere with his possession thereof. The corporation appealed; nonetheless, Judge Veloso issued, on 7 May 1973, a partial writ of execution pending appeal, and possession of the two lots was delivered to Estrada, following which the latter, on 25 May 1973, leased the lots to Ricardo Caballero for a term of 10 years, starting with the crop year 1973-74.

On July 6, 1973 the corporation filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, praying that Judge Veloso be enjoined from enforcing the partial writ of execution. Holding that the said Judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering partial execution, the Court of Appeals, on 16 October 1973, dismissed the petition. This decision became final.

5 days before entry of judgment, or on 15 November 1973, the corporation filed civil case 9562, for injunction and damages, against the lessee Caballero to settle the question of ownership of the sugar crop for 1973-74 which the corporation alleged to have planted in good faith on the lands litigated in civil case 8195. On 16 January 1974, Judge Sancho Y. Inserto of the CFI Iloilo (Branch 1) enjoined Ricardo Caballero in Civil Case 9562 (Inter-Regional Development Corporation vs. Ricardo Caballero) from cutting and milling the sugar cane crop which the company asserts to have planted in good faith. Caballero moved for reconsideration, but before the court could act on his motion, he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. On 30 September 1974 the appellate court promulgated its decision setting aside Judge Inserto's preliminary injunction. The corporation filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Court resolved to treat the case as a special civil action upon consideration of the allegations contained, the issues raised, and the arguments adduced. The Court also issued a TRO preventing the CA from executing its decision, and preventing Caballero and his assigns from cutting the sugar cane.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the restraining order issued is made permanent, without prejudice, however, to the final outcome in case 9562 of the CFI Iloilo; without costs.

1. Preliminary injunction in case 9562 and the partial writ of execution pending appeal issued in case 8195 are complementary and not interfering with each other; Absent incompatibility, doctrine that equal courts have no power to interfere does not apply
The preliminary injunction issued in case 9562 (by Judge Inserto enjoining Caballero from cutting and milling the sugar cane) and the partial writ of execution pending appeal issued in case 8195 (by Judge Veloso ordering the Bañez spouses to vacate and surrender possession of the parcels of land and not to molest or disturb Estrada's, Caballero's lessor, possession thereof) do not interfere with the other; but as a matter of fact the order of Judge Inserto complements that of Judge Veloso. The latter refers to the land itself, the ownership of which was the only issue adjudged in the decision pending appeal, while the former refers to the sugar cane crop standing thereon. Absent any incompatibility between the orders issued by Judges Inserto and Veloso, the doctrine that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgment or decrees of another court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction, having equal power to grant the relief, does not apply.

2. Landowner does not ipso facto acquire ownership of what has been planted; good faith is issue
True it is that under article 440 of the Civil Code the ownership of property includes the right of accession to everything attached thereto either naturally or artificially, and that under article 415, trees, plants and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land, are immovable property; it is equally true that when a person plants in good faith on land belonging to another, the landowner does not ipso facto acquire ownership of what has been planted; he must first indemnify the planter before he can appropriate the same. In the present case, the petitioner has alleged good faith in planting the sugar cane, thus giving rise to a conflict of rights which poses the issue of the protection of the alleged planter in good faith without causing injustice to the landowner.

3. Gathering crops existing as Estrada’s right of ownership and possession premature
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the gathering of the crops existing on the land is part of Estrada's right of ownership and possession, as this, in effect prematurely held that the petitioner is a planter in bad faith. The issues as to who planted and whether the planter planted in good faith are the very issues posed in case 9562, which is yet pending.

4. Procedure; Perishability of goods allow the hearing of petition for certiorari even if motion for reconsideration is pending in the lower court
The Court of Appeals did not err in entertaining the petition for certiorari even if a motion for reconsideration had not yet been resolved by the Court of First Instance, in view of the urgency of securing a definitive ruling on the sugar cane crop, which is perishable.

	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.