Del Rosario vs. Chingcuangco

Where a leasehold tenant's ejectment judgment became final before the effectivity of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, the tenant's claim for one-half of the value of improvements under Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 must first be determined and settled before a writ of execution may dispossess him; the former Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations applies to pending cases when application of the Rules of Court would work injustice.

Leon del Rosario was a leasehold tenant occupying a parcel of land owned by Tomas Imperio in Cabocbocan Rizal, Nueva Ecija. Their tenancy relationship was governed by Republic Act No. 1199, Section 43 of which entitles a tenant-lessee, upon termination, to one-half of the value of reasonable and adequate improvements. At the time, Section 1 of Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations required a judge's certification that the tenant had been fully indemnified under Section 43 before a writ of execution could issue in a final judgment ejecting a tenant. Republic Act No. 3844, effective August 8, 1963, provided that the Court of Agrarian Relations shall be governed by the Rules of Court, which contain no similar provision.

Leon del Rosario occupied, as leasehold tenant, a parcel of land owned by Tomas Imperio in Cabocbocan Rizal, Nueva Ecija. The tenancy relationship became the subject of litigation between them before the Court of Agrarian Relations, Fourth Regional District, in CAR Cases Nos. 2652-NE '61 and 2902-NE '62. On July 12, 1963, the Court of Agrarian Relations rendered a decision ordering Del Rosario's ejectment from the landholding subject to Section 43 and Section 50, paragraph (a), of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263, and ordering Imperio to pay Del Rosario the value of excess rentals received by him for agricultural years 1961-62 and 1962-63. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in toto on March 26, 1965.

After the judgment became final, Imperio filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations a motion for execution on October 26, 1965. Del Rosario opposed the motion on the ground that he had a right of retention over the land until he was indemnified for expenses and improvements, alleging that he was entitled thereto. Acting on the motion, the Court of Agrarian Relations issued an order on November 18, 1965 for the issuance of a writ of execution, stating that the judgment had become final and executory and that Del Rosario's claim for indemnity, if any, should be filed with the court for determination but could not stop execution. Del Rosario's motion for reconsideration was denied on December 14, 1965, and the corresponding writ of execution was issued on December 16, 1965. The sheriff's return indicated that Imperio was placed in possession of the land by virtue of the writ as of December 18, 1965.

Del Rosario filed the present special civil action on December 27, 1965. On January 8, 1966, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining implementation of the December 16, 1965 writ of execution. Thereafter, Imperio filed a petition dated February 5, 1966 to declare Del Rosario's counsel in direct contempt for allegedly citing a fictitious authority. Del Rosario, for his part, filed a petition dated June 20, 1966 to cite Imperio and three non-parties—the Chief of Police of the Municipality of Rizal, Nueva Ecija, Eduardo Dumlao, and policemen Remigio Baldonado and Romeo Miguel—for contempt, alleging that they sought to eject him from the land notwithstanding the preliminary injunction; a supplemental petition dated July 25, 1966 further alleged that, with the backing of the policemen, Imperio caused the plowing and harrowing of the landholding and prevented Del Rosario from reaping the crops.

The record did not show that the Court of Agrarian Relations had determined Del Rosario's claim for improvements before issuing the writ; the court instead ruled that the claim, if any, should be filed for determination but could not stop execution. Imperio argued that Del Rosario failed to show that improvements were in fact made, while Del Rosario alleged that he was entitled to indemnity for expenses and improvements. The sheriff's return showed that the writ had already been carried out before the preliminary injunction was issued.

• Right of Retention and Indemnity Before Ejectment: Petitioner maintained that he had a right of retention over the landholding until he was indemnified for expenses and improvements, and that execution of the ejectment judgment should be stayed pending settlement of that claim.
• Applicability of Former CAR Rule 15: Petitioner argued that Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations, predicated on Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199, required that no writ of execution issue unless the tenant was first indemnified; he cited Paz Ongsiako, Inc. vs. Celestino Abad as having upheld this rule.
• Contempt for Violation of Injunction: Petitioner sought to cite Imperio and three law enforcement officers for contempt for allegedly ejecting him, plowing and harrowing the land, and preventing him from reaping crops despite the preliminary injunction.

• No Right of Retention: Respondents contended that Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 merely granted the tenant the right to recover one-half of the value of improvements he made on the land, without giving him any right of retention over the land until he is reimbursed.
• Superseded Procedural Rule: Respondents argued that Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations had been superseded by the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844), effective August 8, 1963, which replaced the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations with the Rules of Court; they emphasized that there can be no vested right on procedure and that petitioner's right under the former rules was merely procedural.
• Failure to Show Improvements: Respondent Imperio argued that petitioner failed to show that improvements were in fact made.
• Contempt Against Petitioner's Counsel: Respondent Imperio sought to declare petitioner's counsel in direct contempt for allegedly citing a fictitious authority in the petition.

• Applicability of Former CAR Rule 15: Whether Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations remained applicable to this case after the Agricultural Land Reform Code provided that the Court of Agrarian Relations shall be governed by the Rules of Court.
• Right to Indemnity Before Execution: Whether a leasehold tenant's claim for one-half of the value of improvements under Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 must first be determined and settled before a writ of execution may issue to dispossess him.
• Contempt — Imperio's Petition Against Counsel: Whether petitioner's counsel should be held in contempt for citing a docket number with a typographical error and for arguing an interpretation of Paz Ongsiako, Inc. vs. Celestino Abad.
• Contempt — Del Rosario's Petition Against Imperio and Officers: Whether respondent Imperio and the law enforcement officers should be held in contempt for acts allegedly committed after the preliminary injunction, and whether petitioner should be restored to possession.

• Applicability of Former CAR Rule 15: Yes. The former Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations applies to this pending case because applying the Rules of Court, which lack a similar provision, would work injustice to the tenant; Rule 133 of the Rules of Court permits the former procedure in such event.
• Right to Indemnity Before Execution: Yes. Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 gives the tenant the right to one-half of the value of improvements and imposes on the landholder the correlative duty to pay; the tenant's claim must be threshed out, determined, and resolved before dispossession by writ of execution.
• Contempt — Imperio's Petition Against Counsel: No. The erroneous docket number L-121447 instead of L-12147 was a slight typographical mistake, and counsel's interpretation of Paz Ongsiako was earnest argument, not deception.
• Contempt — Del Rosario's Petition Against Imperio and Officers: No. The sheriff's return showed Imperio was placed in possession under the writ on December 18, 1965, before the preliminary injunction issued on January 8, 1966; nevertheless, the premature implementation being illegal, petitioner should be restored to possession until his claim is settled.

• Applicability of Former CAR Rule 15: Republic Act No. 3844 provided that the Court of Agrarian Relations shall be governed by the Rules of Court, and neither the Rules of Court then obtaining nor the present Rules of Court contain a provision requiring payment to the tenant of one-half of the value of his improvements before execution of a judgment dispossessing him. However, the Rules of Court were applied to the Court of Agrarian Relations only on August 8, 1963, and their effectiveness to pending cases as of that time is governed by Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the rules shall govern all cases brought after they take effect and all further proceedings in cases then pending, except to the extent that their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former procedure shall apply. Because Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 gives the tenant the right to one-half of the value of improvements and the former rule required settlement before execution, applying the Rules of Court would be unjust to the tenant. The former procedure, Section 1 of Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations, must therefore be followed.
• Right to Indemnity Before Execution: Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199 provides that upon termination of the leasehold relationship, the tenant shall be entitled to one-half of the value of the improvements made by him, provided they are reasonable and adequate to the purposes of the lease. If the tenant had made improvements, this provision gives him the right to one-half of their value and imposes upon the landholder dispossessing him the correlative duty of paying the same. The rule prevailing during the pendency of the case in the Court of Agrarian Relations required that this account be settled before any judgment of ejectment could be executed. Imperio's argument that petitioner failed to show that improvements were in fact made should be addressed to the Court of Agrarian Relations; the tenant's claim for reimbursement under Section 43 should first be threshed out, determined, and resolved before the tenant can be dispossessed by writ of execution. This recourse accords with the policy of the law to protect the rights of tenants upon the principle of social justice under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1199.
• Contempt — Imperio's Petition Against Counsel: Imperio charged petitioner's counsel with citing a fictitious case and a non-existing ruling. The record showed that counsel alleged in the petition that Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations, predicated on Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199, had been upheld by the Supreme Court so that no writ of execution could issue unless it was complied with first, citing Paz Ongsiako, Inc. vs. Celestino Abad, et al., G.R. No. L-121447. Counsel obviously had in mind the decision in Paz Ongsiako, Inc. vs. Celestino Abad, L-12147, July 30, 1957. The citation of L-121447 instead of L-12147 was plainly a slight typographical mistake, especially because the names of the parties were given correctly. Counsel's interpretation of what the decision "in effect" created, established, or confirmed was a mere argument fully within the bounds of earnest debate, rather than a deception urged upon the Supreme Court. The first petition for contempt was therefore without merit.
• Contempt — Del Rosario's Petition Against Imperio and Officers: The second petition for contempt was against Imperio and three non-parties: the Chief of Police of the Municipality of Rizal, Nueva Ecija, Eduardo Dumlao; policeman Remigio Baldonado; and policeman Romeo Miguel. The petition and supplemental petition alleged that Imperio, with the aid of the law enforcement officers, disturbed petitioner's possession and cultivation of the land on June 13, 1966, caused its plowing and harrowing on June 27, 1966, and prevented petitioner from reaping the second rice crop on July 16, 1966. These acts, if true, would be a ground for contempt only if at the time the Supreme Court's writ of preliminary injunction was issued, the respondent court's writ of execution had not yet been carried out. The sheriff's return showed that Imperio was placed in possession of the land by virtue of the writ of execution as of December 18, 1965, while the preliminary injunction restraining implementation of the writ was issued only on January 8, 1966. Respondents therefore may not be held in contempt. Nonetheless, the premature implementation of the writ of execution being illegal, petitioner should be restored to peaceful and undisturbed possession of the landholding until his claim for payment of improvements, one-half of their value, is settled by the respondent court.

• Tenant's Right to One-Half of Value of Improvements — Under Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199, upon termination of the leasehold relationship, the tenant-lessee is entitled to one-half of the value of improvements made by him, provided they are reasonable and adequate to the purposes of the lease. This right imposes a correlative duty on the landholder dispossessing him to pay that amount. In this case, the Court ruled that the tenant's claim for reimbursement must be determined and settled before he can be dispossessed by writ of execution.
• No Writ of Execution Without Indemnity Under Former CAR Rule 15 — Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations provides that where dispossession is authorized by final judgment, no writ of execution shall issue unless upon certification of the corresponding Judge that the tenant has been fully indemnified of his claim under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199 in share tenancy or under Section 43 in leasehold tenancy. The Court applied this former rule to the pending case and set aside the writ issued without such prior determination.
• Procedural Rules in Pending Cases; Exception for Injustice — Under Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, new rules govern all cases brought after they take effect and all further proceedings in cases then pending, except when their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former procedure applies. The Court held that applying the Rules of Court to this pending agrarian case would work injustice to the tenant because the Rules of Court lacked the protective requirement that the tenant be indemnified before dispossession; hence, the former CAR Rule 15 applied.
• Social Justice in Agrarian Legislation — Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1199 embodies the policy of protecting the rights of tenants upon the principle of social justice. The Court invoked this policy to require that the tenant's claim for improvements be threshed out, determined, and resolved before dispossession.
• Contempt for Typographical Error and Earnest Argument — A slight typographical mistake in a docket number, where the parties are correctly named, is not sufficient to place counsel in contempt. Likewise, an interpretation of a prior decision as having "in effect" established a rule is a mere argument within the bounds of earnest debate, not a deception upon the Court.
• Contempt and Prior Execution of Writ — Alleged acts violating a preliminary injunction cannot be punished as contempt if the writ of execution had already been carried out before the injunction was issued. However, premature implementation of a writ of execution is illegal, and the tenant should be restored to possession until his claim for improvements is settled.

• "Upon termination of the relationship, he shall be entitled to one-half of the value of the improvements made by him, provided they are reasonable and adequate to the purposes of the lease." — This is the Court's quotation of Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199, defining the leasehold tenant's substantive right to indemnity for improvements.
• "In cases where the dispossession is authorized by final judgment no writ of execution shall issue unless upon certification of the corresponding Judge that the tenant has been fully indemnified of his claim under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199 in case of share tenancy or under Section 43 thereof in case of leasehold tenancy." — This is the Court's quotation of Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations, the procedural rule requiring indemnity before execution.
• "It is therefore not difficult to see that to apply the Rules of Court, which do not contain a similar provision, would be unjust to the tenant. In this event, the former procedure is to be followed, namely, Section 1 of Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations." — This passage states the ratio for applying the former CAR rule to this pending case despite the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
• "The point is that the tenant's claim for reimbursement under Section 43 of Republic Act 1199 should first be threshed out, determined and resolved before the tenant can be dispossessed by writ of execution." — This is the core holding that the tenant's claim for improvements must be settled before dispossession.

• Paz Ongsiako, Inc. vs. Celestino Abad, L-12147, July 30, 1957 — Cited by petitioner's counsel as upholding the validity of Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations; the Court noted that counsel mistakenly cited the docket number as L-121447 but correctly named the parties, and treated counsel's interpretation of the ruling as earnest argument rather than contempt.

• Section 43, Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act) — Provides that upon termination of the leasehold relationship, the tenant shall be entitled to one-half of the value of improvements made by him, provided they are reasonable and adequate to the purposes of the lease. The Court held this gives the tenant a right and imposes on the landholder the correlative duty to pay before dispossession.
• Section 1, Rule 15, Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations — Provides that in cases where dispossession is authorized by final judgment, no writ of execution shall issue unless upon certification of the corresponding Judge that the tenant has been fully indemnified of his claim under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199 in share tenancy or under Section 43 in leasehold tenancy. The Court applied this former rule to the pending case.
• Rule 133, Rules of Court — Provides that the rules shall govern all cases brought after they take effect and all further proceedings in cases then pending, except to the extent that their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former procedure shall apply. The Court used this provision to justify applying the former CAR Rule 15.
• Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) — Effective August 8, 1963; provided that the Court of Agrarian Relations shall be governed by the Rules of Court, replacing the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations. The Court held that this did not abrogate the former Rule 15 for this pending case because applying the Rules of Court would work injustice. The text cites Section 115 in respondents' contention and Section 155 in the Court's discussion.
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 1199 — Embodies the policy of protecting the rights of tenants upon the principle of social justice. The Court invoked this policy in requiring prior determination of the tenant's claim for improvements.
• Section 50, paragraph (a), Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263 — Mentioned in the Court of Agrarian Relations judgment ordering ejectment subject to Section 43 and Section 50, paragraph (a), Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263. The Supreme Court did not elaborate on its application.

Concepcion, C.J.; Reyes, J.B.L.; Barrera; Dizon; Regala; Makalintal; Zaldivar; Sanchez; and Castro, JJ.