Bacar v. Del Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Godofredo Bacar, a leasehold tenant in possession of a two-hectare landholding, filed a complaint for injunction and damages. He alleged that the private respondents, Valeriano and Fidela Bacabac, conspired to commit acts of molestation and dispossession. Specifically, they allegedly hired someone to set fire to his piled palay straw, intended for fertilizer, causing P500.00 in damages, and subsequently caused the land to be plowed by a hired tractor against his will. The petitioner claimed these actions disturbed his possession and cultivation, and that the respondents intended further molestation, including sowing seeds on the land, to ultimately divest him of possession. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner filed his complaint in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, which issued a restraining order. The private respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but this was denied. They then filed an answer asserting ownership of the land. An ocular inspection report indicated the petitioner had worked the land since 1976, with ownership apparently belonging to the private respondents. Subsequently, the trial court ordered the petitioner to amend his complaint to include Guadalupe Bacabac Batapa and Faustino Bacabac as indispensable parties, citing the need to resolve the ownership question. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction, arguing that the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the orders to amend the complaint and denying the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner contended that ownership is distinct from possession and that his action for injunction to protect his possessory rights as a tenant did not require the joinder of the landowners as indispensable parties. He argued that the issue of ownership should be resolved in a separate action, and the respondents could not resort to self-help to gain possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the amendment of the complaint to implead Guadalupe Bacabac Batapa and Faustino Bacabac as indispensable parties, considering the nature of the injunction case. Whether the question of ownership must be resolved in an action for injunction to protect possession, and the proper recourse for parties claiming ownership and entitlement to possession.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The orders dated 3 May 1979 and 18 June 1979 are SET ASIDE, and the case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings. Costs against the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of indispensable parties and the necessity of resolving ownership in an injunction case: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the distinction between ownership and possession, stating that a person may be the owner but not entitled to possession, which may legally be held by another as a lessee or tenant. In this case, the petitioner recognized that ownership belonged to Guadalupe Bacabac Batapa and Faustino Bacabac, and he was in possession as their tenant. As a possessor, he has the right to be protected in his possession against disturbances. The acts of molestation, such as setting fire to palay straw and plowing the land, were grounds for an injunction to protect his possession. The Court found that the relief prayed for by the petitioner could be granted without impleading the owners, thus they were not indispensable parties as erroneously held by the respondent judge. The Court cited Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court regarding the compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. On the proper recourse for parties claiming ownership and entitlement to possession: The Court stated that if the private respondents believed themselves to be the owners and entitled to possession, they should have filed a separate action to resolve the ownership issue, rather than taking the law into their own hands. They cannot acquire possession through force or intimidation while a possessor objects. The Court cited Article 536 of the Civil Code, which prohibits acquiring possession through force or intimidation and mandates invoking the aid of the competent court. Therefore, the respondent judge's order to implead the owners and the denial of the motion for reconsideration constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the amendment of the complaint to include indispensable parties, as the action for injunction to protect possession does not require the resolution of ownership, which should be ventilated in a separate action.