VELASQUEZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ON CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE. DIGESTED BY C Y THE GREAT

VELASQUEZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS,

G.R. No. 111387 June 8, 2004
JUSTINA ADVINCULA-VELASQUEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
FACTS.
1. The petitioners here were the agricultural lessees of a Riceland located in Paranyake Metro Manila.
2. In 1978,SPS. Nery and the Lorenzo’s sold the property to the Delta Motor’s corporation.
3. Petitioner Velasquez in his capacity as leaseholder agricultural tenant filed an action for the redemption of the said property before the court of
agrarian relation.
4. The car dismiss the motion for lack on the part of the petitioner to redeem the property in its acquisition price in the amount of 2,319,210 pesos but
directing the defendant to maintain the petitioner as agricultural lessee to the land in question.
5. Petitioner Velasquez and the defendants appealed the decision of the CAR to the intermediate appellate court who affirmed the decision of the CAR.
6. Petitioner Velasquez filed a petition for review to the supreme court who issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the car’s decision pending the
out come of the petition.
7In 1981, the land in question was reclassified as residential zone under the ordinance issued by the city of Manila.
8. Later, the land in question was mortgage by the DMC to the PNB as security for its obligation who later foreclose it because of the failure of the DMC
to pay its account.
9. The PNB in 1986 executed a deed of sale with mortgage of 1186800 in favor of the remman enterprise inc. who decided to develop it in to a residential
subdivision.
10. Then the supreme court issue a decision on the petition for review filed by the petitioner Velasquez affirming the decision of the IAC stating that
the case had become moot and academic with regards the claim of the petitioner against the DMC considering that the property had been foreclose by the
PNB declaring however that the petitioner may redeem the property from the PNB and its transferee.
11. The record was remanded to the parad or the provincial agrarian adjudication for the petitioner to exercise there right of redemption but since the
case had become moot and academic, the parad denied the action of the petitioner to recover the property against the DMC since the land in question is
now a residential land so the right of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee was terminated and the property was now in the possession of the remman
interprice inc.
12. The petitioner filed a motion before the darab or the department of agrarian adjudication board who reverses the decision of the parad stating that
the land in question is an agricultural lan and uphold the right of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee to recover the said land.
13. The remman interprice filed an appeal before the CA who reverses the decision of the darab because the land in question was already reclassified as
residential land as early as 1981 converting it from agricultural land in to non-agricoltural land.
14. The petitioner filed a motion to the supreme court.
Issue. Whether or not,the land was an agricultural lan or a residential land.
According to the supreme court,Agricoltural land was defined under RA. 6657 as those land devoted to agricultural activities and not classified as forest,minerals,residential
and industrial land.
And one thing more, the property in question was converted in to a residential land in 1981 under the ordinance issued by the city of Manila.
So the supreme court set aside the petition of the petitioner.