CASE DIGEST : Mabayo Farms, Inc. v. CA

 G.R. No. 140058            August 1, 2002

MABAYO FARMS, INC., herein represented by its President MRS. RORAIMA SILVA, petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO SANTOS, respondents

FACTS: On August 22, 1969, the Bureau of Lands declared Francisco Domingo, Reynaldo Florida, Cornelio Pilipino and Severino Vistan, lawful possessors of Lot 1379. In October 1970, petitioner bought the respective portions of Domingo, Florida, Pilipino and Vistan, totaling 69,932 square meters and entered into a compromise settlement with six other persons occupying the property, whose applications had been rejected by the Bureau. On December 20, 1991, the trial court decided the land registration case in petitioner’s favor. The losing parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. In June 1997, a group of occupants entered the land, destroyed the fences and drove away livestock owned by petitioner. On October 9, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for injunction. The trial court issued the temporary restraining order (TRO) and on January 16, 1998, the sheriff served copies on the defendants. On April 14, 1998, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the defendants or persons acting on their behalf from entering and cultivating the disputed property. On February 24, 1999, private respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 51375 with the Court of Appeals. On August 27, 1999, the appellate court decided CA-G.R. SP No. 51375 in private respondent’s favor.

ISSUE: WON  private respondent may intervene in the court proceeding

HELD: Private respondent had no duty to intervene in the proceedings in Civil Case No. 6695. Intervention in an action is neither compulsory nor mandatory but only optional and permissive. For intervention to effect, the movant must have interest in the matter in litigation and the intervention must not unduly delay the said proceeding. The interest, which entitles a person to intervene in a suit, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. As a stranger to the case, private respondent had neither legal interest in a permanent injunction nor an interest on the damages to be imposed, if any, in Civil Case No. 6695. To allow him to intervene would have unnecessarily complicated and prolonged the case