Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    Rosalinda Bonifacio Et. Al., v. Judge Dizon G.R. No, 79416

    Uploaded by

    oniksukkie
    The heirs of Olimpio Bonifacio sought to execute a judgment granting their predecessor's request to eject an agricultural lessee, Pastora San Miguel, from over 2 hectares of land. The RTC denied the motion, finding the sheriff's decision null and void. On appeal, the key issue was whether the heirs inherited the right to eject conferred by the judgment in favor of their predecessor. The Supreme Court ruled that petition was granted, finding that under the agrarian reform laws, the right to ejection of an agricultural lessee extends to the landowner's heirs and successors-in-interest. Therefore, the favorable judgment was transmitted to the petitioners upon their predecessor's death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rosalinda Bonifacio Et. Al., v. Judge Dizon G.R. No, 79416

    Uploaded by

    oniksukkie
    77 views1 page
    The heirs of Olimpio Bonifacio sought to execute a judgment granting their predecessor's request to eject an agricultural lessee, Pastora San Miguel, from over 2 hectares of land. The RTC denied the motion, finding the sheriff's decision null and void. On appeal, the key issue was whether the heirs inherited the right to eject conferred by the judgment in favor of their predecessor. The Supreme Court ruled that petition was granted, finding that under the agrarian reform laws, the right to ejection of an agricultural lessee extends to the landowner's heirs and successors-in-interest. Therefore, the favorable judgment was transmitted to the petitioners upon their predecessor's death.

    Original Description:

    Social Legislation and Agrarian Laws

    Original Title

    Bonifacio v. Dizon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The heirs of Olimpio Bonifacio sought to execute a judgment granting their predecessor's request to eject an agricultural lessee, Pastora San Miguel, from over 2 hectares of land. The RTC denied the motion, finding the sheriff's decision null and void. On appeal, the key issue was whether the heirs inherited the right to eject conferred by the judgment in favor of their predecessor. The Supreme Court ruled that petition was granted, finding that under the agrarian reform laws, the right to ejection of an agricultural lessee extends to the landowner's heirs and successors-in-interest. Therefore, the favorable judgment was transmitted to the petitioners upon their predecessor's death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views1 page

    Rosalinda Bonifacio Et. Al., v. Judge Dizon G.R. No, 79416

    Uploaded by

    oniksukkie
    The heirs of Olimpio Bonifacio sought to execute a judgment granting their predecessor's request to eject an agricultural lessee, Pastora San Miguel, from over 2 hectares of land. The RTC denied the motion, finding the sheriff's decision null and void. On appeal, the key issue was whether the heirs inherited the right to eject conferred by the judgment in favor of their predecessor. The Supreme Court ruled that petition was granted, finding that under the agrarian reform laws, the right to ejection of an agricultural lessee extends to the landowner's heirs and successors-in-interest. Therefore, the favorable judgment was transmitted to the petitioners upon their predecessor's death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    FERNANDO, Nikki Luz C.

    2D Social Legislation and Agrarian Reform Laws


    Rosalinda Bonifacio et. al., v. Judge Dizon
    G.R. No, 79416
    FERNAN, C.J.:
    FACTS:
    Olimpio Bonifacio as the owner of a land which the private respondent, Pastora San
    Miguel, was an agricultural lessee. On July 1, 1968, Olimpio filed a complaint seeking
    the ejectment of private respondent from Bonifacios 2-hectare agricultural land. The
    CAR granted the ejectment of Pastora San Miguel. On appeal by the private respondent,
    the CA modified the judgement with respect to her counterclaim by ordering Olimpio to
    pay her in P1,376.00. Still dissatisfied, private respondent sought relief to SC. During the
    pendency of the case, Olimpio died andwas succeeded by his heirs. However, no notice
    of such death was given to the Court, hence no order of substitution of his heirs was
    made. SC resolved to deny the petition of the private respondent for lack of merit, SC
    affirmed the decision of CA. Subsequently, petitioners (heirs of Olimpio) moved for the
    execution of the decision by RTC of Bulacan. The Deputy Sheriff submitted his report
    stating in part that except for a portion thereof occupied by the private respondent which
    the latter refused the vacate. Private respondent moved to quash the execution. RTC held
    the decision of the sheriff to be null and void, and that the motion for demolition was
    denied. Petitioners conteded that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion. They
    assert that the CAR case, being an ejectment case survives the death of a party. Private
    respondent, on the other hand, stress on the fact that the action is not an ordiary ejectment
    but an agrarian case for the ejectment of the agricultural lessee.
    ISSUE:
    Won, the compulsory heirs inherit the favorable judgment obtained by the decedent,
    thereby vesting to the former, all rights conferred by the judgment to the decedent.
    RULING:
    Petition is granted.
    SC reads Sec. 36 (1), R.A. 3844, which provides, for the continuation in the enjoyment
    and possession of an agricultural lessee of his landholding except when his dispossession
    has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory. Under such
    provision, the ejectment of an agricultural lessee was authorized not only when the
    landowner-lessor desired to cultivate the landholding, but also when a member of his
    immediate family so desired. The right of cultivation was extended to the landowners
    immediate family members evidently to place the landowner-lessor in parity with the
    agricultural lessee who was (and still) allowed to cultivate the land with the aid of his
    farm household. Whether used in reference to the agricultural lessor or lessee, the term
    personal cultivation cannot b given restricted connotation to mean a right personal and
    exclusive to either the lessor or lessee. In either case, the right extends to the members of
    the lessors or lessees immediate family. The CAR case not being a purely personal right,
    the same was transmitted to petitioners as heirs and successors-in-interest.

    You might also like