SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-62063 April 28, 1983

NORBERTO GERONIMO and ANACLETO GERONIMO, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, and BELEN L. LUNA, Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

RELOVA, J.:

This is an appeal to annul the writ of execution and the order denying the motion to stay execution issued on April 27, 1982 and June 18, 1982, respectively, by the Court of Agrarian Relations, Fifth Regional District, Branch VI at Baliuag, Bulacan in CAR Case No. 880, entitled "Joaquin Arambulo vs. Norberto Geronimo, et al."; to set aside the decision, dated August 3, 1982, and the resolution dated September 20, 1982, of respondent Court of Appeals; and, to enjoin the said courts from ordering the ejectment of petitioners from the property "until after the Ministry of Agrarian Reform shall have issued the corresponding rules and regulations implementing Presidential Decree No. 27."chanrobles virtual law library

The facts are as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

On June 26, 1979, the Court of Agrarian Relations in Baliuag, Bulacan rendered a decision in CAR Case No. 880, entitled "Joaquin Arambulo vs. Norberto Geronimo, et al., the dispositive portion of which reads: chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: chanrobles virtual law library

(a) Declaring that defendant Norberto Geronimo used to be the tenant of plaintiff on Lots Nos. 3333, 3219, and 3871, all of the Lolomboy Estate, situated at Prensa, Marilao, Bulacan described in and covered by TCT Nos. T-43360, T-41839 and T-41840 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, respectively, but said Norberto Geronimo had ceased to be such tenant thereon in 1972 when he gave the possession and cultivation thereof to his father, Anacleto Geronimo, without the consent of the plaintiff; chanrobles virtual law library

(b) Declaring that defendant Anacleto Geronimo was not, is not and has never been plaintiff's tenant on said Lots Nos. 3333, 3219 and 3871; chanrobles virtual law library

(c) Declaring plaintiff to be lawfully entitled to the possession of said Lots Nos. 3333, 3219 and 3871 as absolute owner thereof; chanrobles virtual law library

(d) Declaring that defendant Norberto Geronimo was a mere paid laborer on Lots Nos. 3224-A and 3330-A, also of the Lolomboy Estate, situated at Prensa, Marilao, Bulacan covered by TCT No. 78015 and TCT No. 126645, both of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, and, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to the lawful possession thereof as absolute owner of the same; chanrobles virtual law library

(e) Ordering defendant Anacleto Geronimo, his heirs, successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under him, to vacate Lots Nos. 3333, 3219 and 3871 and deliver possession thereof to plaintiff;chanrobles virtual law library

(f) Ordering defendant Norberto Geronimo to vacate Lots Nos. 3224- B and 3330-A and deliver possession thereof to plaintiff; and chanrobles virtual law library

(g) Dismissing defendants' counterclaim for actual, moral and exemplary damages for lack of substantiation/merit. (Ibid., p. 238)

The Court of Appeals, affirming in toto the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, said: chanrobles virtual law library

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

After a perusal of the record, the transcript of stenographic notes and the documentary evidence, we hold that the findings of fact in the appealed decision are indeed supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions stated therein are not clearly contrary to the law and jurisprudence applicable to the case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

The case therefore does not fall within the scope of P.D. No. 316. The evident implication of this is that should the evidence in the court below show that the defendants are not tenant-farmers then they can be ejected or removed from the subject agricultural land, pursuant to Section 1 of P.D. No. 316. The Ministry of Agrarian Reform further certified that the case was proper for trial, which meant that the court below could as it did, take cognizance of the ejectment case filed against the defendants, pursuant to Section 2 of P.D. No. 316.

Thereafter, herein petitioners elevated the case to this Court by petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. L-55461).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On December 2, 1981, the Court denied the petition for lack of merit; and, on December 16, 1981, the Court Resolved "to deny the motion (for reconsideration), and this denial is final." chanrobles virtual law library

Upon the death of plaintiff Joaquin Arambulo on January 6, 1982, he was substituted by his wife, Belen L. Luna, and their minor children.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On May 20, 1982, petitioners filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations an URGENT MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION of the writ which was issued on April 27, 1982 for the reason that the implementing rules and regulations under Presidential Decree No. 27 have not yet been issued.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On June 18, 1982, Judge Natividad G. Dizon of the Court of Agrarian Relations denied the motion to stay execution, saying as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

Finding no reason compelling enough in point of law to reconsider our Order of April 27, 1982, authorizing the issuance of the writ of execution of the final Decision rendered on June 26, 1979, defendants' 'Urgent Motion to Stay Execution', filed, through counsel, on May 24, 1982, viewed in the light of the opposition thereto, dated May 27, 1982, should be, as it is hereby, DENIED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It may be stated in this connection that the issue of referral has already been raised before the appellate Court as may be gleaned from the judgment rendered on October 6, 1980 in CA-G.R. No. 11002-CAR 'Joaquin Arambulo vs. Norberto Geronimo, et al. (pp. 19-21)

Petitioners appealed the foregoing order to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review but said petition was dismissed on August 3, 1982 on the ground, among others, that the challenged order of April 27, 1982 directing the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution of the decision rendered on June 26, 1979 (CAR Case No. 880) was filed out of time. Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946 provides: chanrobles virtual law library

SEC. 18. Appeals.-An Appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals by giving an oral or written notice of appeal with the trial court within the period of fifteen (15) days from notice of order or decision. A copy of the written notice of appeal shall be served within the same period upon the adverse party. In case the notice of appeal is orally made, the clerk of court shall reduce the same to writing, which shall be signed by the appellant and a copy thereof served within the same period by the clerk of court to the adverse party.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In case a motion for reconsideration is filed within that period of fifteen (15) days, the notice of appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days from notice of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed a party.

As aptly stated by the appellate court-chanrobles virtual law library

The subject order of April 27, 1972 was sought to be reconsidered by the petitioners but their motion for reconsideration was denied on June 18, 1982 (Annex B, Petition). This order of denial was received by petitioners's counsel on June 29, 1982 as appearing in the acknowledgment of said order stamped on the upper right hand of Annex B. In any case, no appeal whatsoever in the manner prescribed by Sec. 18 of P.D. 946 was undertaken by petitioners. Instead, long after the period within which to appeal lapsed, an obviously wrong and improper way of challenging the order was sought to be done by means of this petition for review.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Consequently on this consideration alone, the petition for review should be dismissed.

The petition cannot be granted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

1. The Court of Agrarian Relations in CAR Case No. 880 found that petitioner Norberto Geronimo ceased to be a tenant of subject property in 1972 when he gave the possession and cultivation thereof to his father, Anacleto Geronimo, without the consent of the owner, Joaquin Arambulo; and that petitioner Anacleto Geronimo was not, is not and has never been the tenant therein of Arambulo.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

2. The Court of Appeals, on October 6, 1980, affirmed in toto the above findings of the court a quo (CA-G.R. No. 11002CAR).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

3. This Court, on December 2, 1981, acting on the petition for review on certiorari, as well as an subsequent pleadings filed, Resolved "to deny the petition for lack of merit." And on December 16, 1981, the Court Resolved to deny the motion (for reconsideration), adding that "this denial is final." (G.R. No. L-55461)chanrobles virtual law library

4. Section 1, of Presidential Decree No. 316, provides: chanrobles virtual law library

SECTION 1. No tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn shall be ejected or removed from his farmholding until such time as the respective rights of the tenant-farmer and the landowner shall have been determined in accordance with the rules and regulations implementing Presidential Decree No. 27.

Considering that herein petitioners are not the tenants in subject property of private respondent, then they are not covered by said Presidential Decree No. 316.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is denied. With costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.