Heirs of Cadeliña Vs Cadiz
Heirs of Cadeliña Vs Cadiz
D TRUE COPY
~novU-N
~n
~~
~-
!lepublit of tbe ~bilippines Divisiffe Clerk of Court
£,upreme Court tird Division
THIRD DIVISION
- versus -
JARDELEZA, J.:
On official leave.
'
Rollo, pp. 4-18.
Id at 97-98; penned by Associate Ju,tice Jo" C. Reyes, Jc., and concurred in by Associate Ju'1ic" /:f
~
Decision 2 G.R. No. 194417
The Facts
In its Decision 13 dated October 24, 2000, the DARAB, Region 2, San
Fermin, Cauayan, Isabela ruled in favor of respondents. The DARAB
declared Ibuna as legal possessor of the properties who had the right to
institute respondents as tenants of the properties. The DARAB said, "[ w]hile
the title of the late Nicanor Ibuna was subsequently declared null and void
Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Normandie S. Pizarro.
Id. at 99-10 I; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, and concurred in by Associate Justices
Normandie S. Pizarro and Ricardo R. Rosario.
4
CA rollo, pp. 14-20.
Rollo, pp. 91-93.
6
The May 25, 2009 Resolution of the CA identified the DARAS cases as DARAS Cases Nos. 1053-
1043. Id at 97.
Id. at 73-76.
Id. at 8; 94.
9
The portions are the following: (I) Francisco Cadiz - Lot A since 1962; (2) Celestino Dela Cruz - Lot
S since 1972; (3) Antonio Victoria - Lot E since 1962; (4) Teodoro Villar - Lot I since 1972. Id. at 73-
74.
10 Id.
11
12 Id. at19-61.
Id. at 79.
13
Id. at 78-83.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 194417
This was appealed before the DARAB Quezon City (DARAB Cases
Nos. 10543-10544) which denied the appeal in its Decision dated July 5,
2006. A motion for reconsideration was also denied in the March 11, 2009
Resolution. Thereafter, petitioners filed the petition for review under Rule
43 before the CA.
On May 25, 2009, the CA dismissed the petition for not being
sufficient in form and in substance. 16 In their Motion for Reconsideration, 17
petitioners attached the missing special power of attorney in favor of Enor C.
Cadelina and the certified original copies of the pertinent DARAB decisions
and resolution, and cited inadvertence and excusable negligence for the other
procedural lapses. The CA, however, denied the motion in the September 22,
2010 Resolution which petitioners received on September 29, 2010. 18
14
Id. at 80.
15
Id. at 83.
16
Id. at 97-98.The CA dismissed the petition for the following reasons: (1) no special power of attorney
was attached to the petition showing that the signatory, Enor C. Cadelina, was authorized to sign the
verification and certification against forum shopping for and on behalf of petitioners; (2) no concise
statement of facts and issues involved and grounds relied upon for the review as required by Section 6(b)
Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court; (3) the petition was not accompanied by pertinent and important
documents and pleadings to support its allegations thereof as required by Section 6(c) Rule 43 of the
Revised Rules of Court; (4) the attached assailed decision and resolution of the DARAB were mere
photocopies; (5) no explanation as to why personal service of the petition was not resorted as required by
5V
Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court; and ( 6) the addresses of the parties were not indicated
in the petition.
17
CAro/lo,pp.124-142.
18
19 Rollo, p.
Id. at 4.
20
Id. at 13.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 194417
The Issue
Our Ruling
It does not escape us that the right recourse against the dismissal of
petitioners' appeal with the CA is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, and
not certiorari under Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of Court. 21 The Assailed
Decisions were final and appealable judgments, which disposed of
petitioners' appeal in a manner left nothing more to be done by the CA. 22 As
a rule, the existence and availability of this right to appeal precludes the
resort to certiorari since a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court may only be resorted to in the absence of appeal or
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 23
Corollarily, we have repeatedly ruled that certiorari is not and cannot be
made a substitute for a lost appeal. As such, this case would have been
dismissed outright for failure of petitioners to avail of the proper remedy.
21
See Dycoco v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013, 702 SCRA 566, 577-579.
22
Id. at 577.
23
Id. at 576-578.
24
Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation v7Court o Appeals, G.R. No. 167237, April 23,
2010, 619 SCRA250, 257.
25
G.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011, 655 SCRA 553.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 194417
The record shows that the facts of this case are undisputed and we are
only presented with questions of law which we are readily able to decide.
The issues only involve the determination of whether respondents are de Jure
tenants entitled to security of tenure under our land reform laws, and
consequently, of the jurisdiction of the DARAB to order the restoration of
possession of petitioners' properties to respondents. After review, we hold
that since the merits of the petition far outweigh the rigid application of the
rules, there is a need to suspend the rules in this case to achieve substantial
justice.
This is all the more true when the strict application of technical rules
of procedure will result in a decision that will disturb already settled cases.
We are mindful of the impact that the dismissal of this petition may have on
the final and executory decisions not only in CA-G.R. CV No. 42237
(declaring Ibuna's title as void, and upholding petitioners' homestead over
the properties), but also in a much earlier case involving the denial of the
free patent application of Ibuna over the properties (which also declared his
title void) in Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR)
Case No. 2411. 27 We take notice that we affirmed this order of the Secretary
of DANR in DANR Case No. 2411 in our Resolution in G.R. No. L-30916
dated April 25, 1988.28
26
Id. at 572, citing Salinas, Jr. v. National labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 114671, November 24,
1999, 319 SCRA 54; Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140576-99, December 13, 2004, 446
SCRA 166; and Caraan v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 124516, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 579.
27
28
Rollo, pp. 23-24. (
Id. at 25-26. ·
29
Arzaga v. Copias, G.R. No. 152404, March 28, 2003, 400 SCRA 148, 153.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 194417
No. 42237) under Section 330 of Presidential Decree No. 152, 31 which gives
a share tenant actually tilling the land the preferential right to acquire the
portion actually tilled by him. 32 Respondents' assertions of ownership over
the properties in CA-G.R. CV No. 42237 were only but a consequence of
their previous status as alleged tenants of Ibuna; their claims of tenancy
status and ownership were successive, and not simultaneous. Thus,
particular to the circumstances of their case, there was no conflict between
their assertion of ownership in CA-G.R. CV No. 42237 and of tenancy in
this case.
30
3. Lands covered by application or grants that have been rejected, cancelled or revoked for violation of
this Decree shall be disposed of to other qualified persons who will till the land themselves but the share
tenant actually tilling the land shall be entitled to preferential right to acquire the portion actually
tilled by him if he is not otherwise disqualified to apply for the same under the provisions of the
Public Land Act. (Emphasis supplied.)
31
Prohibiting the Employment or the Use of Share Tenants in Complying with Requirements of Law
Regarding Entry, Occupation, Improvement and Cultivation of Public Lands, Amending for the Purpose
Certain Provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, Otherwise Known as the Public Land
Act (1973).
32
Rollo, p. 48.
33
RA No. 3844 took effect on August 8, 1963.
34
An Act to Govern the Relations Between Landholders and Tenants of Agricultural Lands (Leaseholds
and Share Tenancy) (1954).
35
Soliman v. Pampanga Sugar Development Company (PASUDECO), I n GR. c . ,N?. 169589, June 16,
2009, 589 SCRA 236, 247-248. Citations omitted.
36
Rodriguez v. Salvador, G.R. No. 171972, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 429, 437.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 194417
37
Reyes v. Heirs of Pablo Floro, G.R. No. 200713, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 692, 705.
38
G.R. No. L-31963, August 31, 1978, 85 SCRA 47.
39
Id at 58.
40
Rollo, p. 80.
41
See Tongoy v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. L-45645, June 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 99, 121.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 194417
benefit, and not for the benefit of someone else. 42 Also, it must be recalled
that the CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 42237, ordered respondents to reconvey the
properties to petitioners herein. 43 Upholding respondents' claim for tenancy,
and consequently their possession of the properties, would frustrate this final
and executory decision of the CA.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
42
Saltiga de Romero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109307, November 25, 1999, 319 SCRA 180, 190-
191, citing Section 90(e) of the Pub! ic Land Act. Section 90(e) provides:
Sec. 90. Every application under the provisions of this Act shall be made under oath and shall set
forth: xx x
(e) That the application is made for the exclusive benefit of the application and not, either directly
or indirectly, for the benefit of any other person or persons, corporation, association, or
partnership.
43
Rollo, p. 61.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 194417
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above ~cision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to,#e writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION
~~~,l~D TR~~;
,DOV.-L~
Divisib'n C!erk of Court
Third Di..,dsion
DEC 1 2- 2011
- ,