1.

Gabriel L. Duero vs. CA and Bernardo A. Eradel

Facts: 1988 According to petitioner, private respondent occupied petitioners land in Baras, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur, with an assessed value of P5,240. Despite repeated demands, respondent refused to vacate the land. June 16, 1995 Petitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership against private respondent and Apolinario and Inocencio Ruena. Meanwhile, petitioner and the Ruenas entered into a compromise agreement whereby the latter bound themselves to recognize and respect petitioners ownership. Respondent was not a party thereto. January 12, 1996 Partial judgment was rendered by RTC on the basis of the compromise agreement. Respondent was declared in default for failure to file his answer. February 13, 1996 Petitioner presented his evidence ex-parte. May 8, 1996 Judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner, copy of which was received by respondent on May 25, 1996. June 10, 1996 Respondent filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging that he has been occupying the land as a tenant of Artemio Laurente, Sr., and that he turned over the summons to Laurente in the honest belief that the latter had a better right to the land and was responsible to defend any adverse claim on it. RTC denied the motion. Meanwhile, an administrative case between petitioner and the Laurentes remained pending before the DENR regional office. July 24, 1996 Respondent filed before the RTC a Petition for Relief from Judgment, reiterating the same allegation in his motion. He also averred that he cannot be made to vacate the land pending determination of who owned the land, and that the judgment is void because the indispensable heirs of Laurente were not impleaded. September 24, 1996 The grandchildren on Laurente filed a Motion for Intervention, but the same was denied by RTC. October 8, 1996 RTC denied the Petition for Relief from Judgment. In a Motion for Reconsideration, respondent alleged that RTC had no jurisdiction since the value of the land was only P5,240. RTC denied the Motion. January 22, 1997 Petitioner filed a Motion for Execution, which was granted on January 28. February 27, 1997 Writ of Execution was issued by RTC. March 12, 1997 Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA declared the judgment of RTC null and void for lack of jurisdiction.