6. Bernas vs.

Court of Appeals The long settled rule in this jurisdiction is that a party is not allowed to change his theory of the case or his cause of action on appeal. Padilla, J.: Natividad Bito-on Deita gratuitously entrusted farm lots by way of dugo to her brother Benigno Bito-on so he could support the schooling of his children in Manila. Benigno then engaged Graciano Bernas in a production sharing agreement; the former shouldered the expenses while the latter provided labor. Natividad knew nothing of this arrangement. When Benigno returned the lots to his sister, Bernas contested their possession, claiming he was an agricultural leashold lessee. In the RTC, the issue was whether or not Bernas was a leasehold lessee. RTC ruled in his favor using RA 1199 and 3844. In her appeal to the CA, the issue was whether or not the Benigno-Bernas arrangement was binding upon her. Natividad argued that since their agreement was one of commodatum, Benigno cannot lend nor lease the properties contested. CA agreed with her since she knew nothing of the Benigno-Bernas arrangement. ISSUE and ANSWER: Is the Benigno-Bernas arrangement binding upon Natividad? Yes it is. RA 3844 made Benigno the LEGAL POSSESSOR, granting him the authority and capacity to institute agricultural leasehold lessees. Natividad did not raise the issue of terminating the leasehold so this court cannot decide oon that. Natividad changed the theory of her case from court to court, this is not allowed. Even if there was lack of authorization, no evidence established the specifics of Natividads dugo with her brother. 7. PNB vs CA Section 49 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules oof Court provides that the judgment, with respect to the matter directly adjudged there, is conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. Petition for Review on Certiorari Francisco, J.: PNB managed to acquire two parcels of land from spouses Crisanto dela Cruz and Pepita Montano by extrajudicially foreclosing their mortgage and creating a Certificate of Sale on the very same day they outbid everyone else at a public auction by being the only bidder there. They then issued a Writ of Possession which the RTC granted but Nildefonso Montano, tenant to said lands, and had the writ dissolved on the ground that he had the right to security of tenure. PNB appealed this decision to the SC who then devolved it to the CA but the CA flip-flopped on them. So, PNB decided to consolidate its titles to remove what defects of prematurity was still standing as obstacle to a writ of possession and insisted that it was not party to an agrarian reform case since it was not tried at an agrarian reform court so it should not be denied its desired writ. ISSUE and ANSWER: Petition is devoid of Merit. Should the PNB be granted its Writ of Possession? No, it should not. Just as it inherited the rights of the spouses dela Cruz so too did it inherit the obligations; this implies respect for the rights of the tenant to security of tenure. Not being party to an agrarian case does not exempt it from the matter already judge therein. Montano may enforce its right against PNB.