105 PHIL 569


Eusebio filed for a lease application over a parcel of land, Azarcon occupied a portion thereof under a homestead application. This caused a dispute between the two. While their dispute was pending, Eusebio filed a case against Eusebio alleging that he acquired the parcel of land by lease from the Director of Lands and that Azarcon had been occupying a portion thereof. He prayed for Azarcon to vacate the premises. Azarcon on the other hand, alleged that he had been occupying the land by virtue of a homestead application prior to the lease application of Eusebio, with interruptions during the war and until the time of filing of the action. The trial court ruled in favor of Eusebio and while pending appeal, a writ of execution was issued ordering Azarcon to leave the premises without expressly ordering Azarcon to desist from gathering pending fruits. Azarcon moved for the setting aside of the order and posted bond as he was required by the court. The court eventually set aside the order but reinstated it under the wrong premise that Azarcon failed to post the required bond. Despite the reinstatement of the order, Azarcon continued to gather the pending fruits on the land.


Evidence showed that despite the writ of execution ordering Azarcon to remove from the premises and let Eusebio to have restitution of the same, Azarcon continued to enter the premises and gather the palay, which was then pending harvest. It is found out that the palay had been planted and cultivated by Azarcon who had been in possession of the land. The court
didn't prohibit Azarcon in its order from gathering the crops then existing thereon. Under the law, a person who is in possession and who is being ordered to leave a parcel of land while products thereon are pending harvest, has the right to a part of the net harvest. As the order didn't expressly prohibited Azarcon to gather pending fruits, there has been no violation of the court’s order. This is even bolstered by the fact that the writ of execution has been set aside and Azarcon posted the required bond as required by the court. If the order was then reinstated it was because of the wrong premise that the bond wasn't posted by Azarcon as required.