Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sta Rosa Realty Development Corporation V Amante Et Al
Sta Rosa Realty Development Corporation V Amante Et Al
,
G.R. No. 112526, March 16, 2005, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
FACTS:
Defendants denied the allegations and disclaimed any control and supervision
over its security personnel
SRRDC also alleged that as the real owner of the property, it was the one that
suffered damages due to the encroachment on the property
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court on August 17, 1987,
but this was subsequently dissolved by the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 22,
1988 in its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 13908
ISSUE: WON the issued writ of preliminary injunction by the MTC is proper
RULING:
No. Between October 1986 and August 1987, after the injunction case was filed
by Amante, et al. SRRDC filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao,
Laguna, several complaints for forcible entry with preliminary injunction and
damages against Amante, et al.
SRRDC alleged that sometime in July 1987, they learned that Amante, et al.,
without their authority and through stealth and strategy, were clearing, cultivating
and planting on the subject property
Despite requests from SRRDC’s counsel, Amante, et al. refused to vacate the
property, prompting them to file the ejectment cases
Amante, et al. denied that SRRDC are the absolute owners of the property,
stating that they have been in peaceful possession thereof, through their
predecessors-in-interest, since 1910
May 24, 1991, the MTC-Cabuyao rendered its decision in favor of SRRDC.
Amante, et al. were ordered to surrender possession and vacate the subject
property. The decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Biñan,
Laguna (Assisting Court)
On February 18, 1992, the RTC dismissed the ejectment cases on the ground
that the subject property is an agricultural land being tilled by Amante, et al.,
hence it is the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which has jurisdiction over
the dispute
The RTC’s dismissal of the complaints was brought to the CA via a petition for
review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 33382
CA dismissed the petition per its Decision dated January 17, 1995 on the ground
that SRRDC failed to show any prior physical possession of the subject property
that would have justified the filing of the ejectment cases
CA did not sustain the RTC’s finding that the subject properties are agricultural
lands and Amante, et al. are tenant/farmers thereof, as the evidence on record
does not support such finding
The parties did not file any motion for reconsideration from the Court of Appeals’
dismissal, hence, it became final and executory