August 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > August 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181697 : August 04, 2010] NELLIE ROBILLOS-OSABEL, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND, ANTONIO S. OSABEL V. RAMON ABERASTURI :
[G.R. No. 181697 : August 04, 2010]
NELLIE ROBILLOS-OSABEL, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND, ANTONIO S. OSABEL V. RAMON ABERASTURI
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 August 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 181697 (Nellie Robillos-Osabel, in Her Capacity as the Surviving Spouse of Her Deceased Husband, Antonio S. Osabel v. Ramon Aberasturi) - In October 1982, a lease contract was entered into by respondent Ramon Aberasturi, as lessor, and petitioner Antonio Osabel, as lessee, over a 10-hectare parcel of land located in Barrio Sto. Ni�o, Talakag, Bukidnon. The land formed part of respondent's 20-hectare property. The term of the lease contract was three (3) years, renewable for another three-year period.
In October 1985, both parties renewed the lease for another three years, commencing on April 1986, with an annual rental of P4,000.00 payable between the months of April and October every year. This time, the contract provided that it may be renewed at the option of the lessor. The lessee was also given the first option to buy the property should the lessor decide to sell the same.
On March 29, 2005, respondent filed a complaint for ejectment before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Talakag, Bukidnon against petitioner, alleging that the latter never paid any rental on the land despite his repeated demands.
The MCTC ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bukidnon but the same was dismissed for lack of merit. His motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 14, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal due to petitioner's failure to submit the required memoranda after the lapse of 212 days. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the CA denied the same.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for review under Rule 45 arguing that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
The petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioner ought to know that the right to appeal is not a statutory right. The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not commit any reversible error when it decided to dismiss petitioner's appeal for his dismissal failure to comply with the CA resolution requiring him to file his memorandum. Instead of promptly complying with the said order, petitioner allowed 212 days to lapse before deciding to comply, thus showing his lackadaisical and cavalier attitude towards the court.
Moreover, petitioner's argument that it is not the MCTC but the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the issue is likewise misplaced.
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. Here, the facts do not show that a tenancy relationship existed between petitioner and respondent.
For a tenancy relationship to exist, it is essential to establish all the following indispensable elements: 1)the parties are the landowner and hte tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[1] The facts surrounding the instant case, however, fail to satisfy these indispensable elements.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
G.R. No. 181697 (Nellie Robillos-Osabel, in Her Capacity as the Surviving Spouse of Her Deceased Husband, Antonio S. Osabel v. Ramon Aberasturi) - In October 1982, a lease contract was entered into by respondent Ramon Aberasturi, as lessor, and petitioner Antonio Osabel, as lessee, over a 10-hectare parcel of land located in Barrio Sto. Ni�o, Talakag, Bukidnon. The land formed part of respondent's 20-hectare property. The term of the lease contract was three (3) years, renewable for another three-year period.
In October 1985, both parties renewed the lease for another three years, commencing on April 1986, with an annual rental of P4,000.00 payable between the months of April and October every year. This time, the contract provided that it may be renewed at the option of the lessor. The lessee was also given the first option to buy the property should the lessor decide to sell the same.
On March 29, 2005, respondent filed a complaint for ejectment before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Talakag, Bukidnon against petitioner, alleging that the latter never paid any rental on the land despite his repeated demands.
The MCTC ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bukidnon but the same was dismissed for lack of merit. His motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 14, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal due to petitioner's failure to submit the required memoranda after the lapse of 212 days. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the CA denied the same.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for review under Rule 45 arguing that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
The petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioner ought to know that the right to appeal is not a statutory right. The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not commit any reversible error when it decided to dismiss petitioner's appeal for his dismissal failure to comply with the CA resolution requiring him to file his memorandum. Instead of promptly complying with the said order, petitioner allowed 212 days to lapse before deciding to comply, thus showing his lackadaisical and cavalier attitude towards the court.
Moreover, petitioner's argument that it is not the MCTC but the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the issue is likewise misplaced.
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. Here, the facts do not show that a tenancy relationship existed between petitioner and respondent.
For a tenancy relationship to exist, it is essential to establish all the following indispensable elements: 1)the parties are the landowner and hte tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[1] The facts surrounding the instant case, however, fail to satisfy these indispensable elements.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Castillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161959, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 87.
