Inter-Regional Development Co. v. CA (1975) Castro,J Facts: 1. Civ.

Case 81951 CFI Ilo-ilo rendered judgment dismissing complaint and ordering the Sps. Jose & Isabel Baez(Pres and treasurer of Petitioner) o vacate and surrender the possession of Lots 1 & 6. 2. Petitioner appealed but Judge Veloso of CFI issued a partial writ of execution pending appeal. 3. Civ. Case 9562: filed five days before entry of Judgment corporation is for injunction and damages to settle the question of the ownership of the sugar crop of 1973-74 planted on Lots 1 & ^ in good faith by the petitioner. Judge Inserto issued a preliminary injunction. 4. Caballero moved for reconsideration, but before the court could act upon it, he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. 5. CA: Set aside the preliminary injunction. Issue: w/n May the petitioner entitled to the sugar crop? Hence the preliminary injunction valid. Decision: YES, the petitioner may be planter in good faith and entitled to the sugar crop based on CC448. 1. The order of preliminary injunction does not interfere with the writ of partial execution. The writ of partial execution related to the land itself, the ownership of which was the only issue in said case. The preliminary injunction refers to the sugar crop. 2. True cc440 in relation to 415, that things planted on the land would normally be accessions. BUT when the planter is in good faith, the land owner does not ipso facto acquire ownership of what has been planted; he must first indemnify the planter before he can appropriate the same.2 3. CA in holding that gathering of the crops are within the right of ownership and possession of Estrada3 in effect prematurely held that petitioner is in bad faith. But this is the very issue posed in Civ. Case 9562 which is yet pending. ACCORDINGLY judgment of CA is SET ASIDE. The preliminary injunction is made permanent, without prejudice to the final outcome in Civ.Case 9562 -Czarina Dee

1 2 3

Inter-Regional Development Court v. Estrada, et al. CC 448 The landowner, respondent in Civ. Case 8195