ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 148824.
SPOUSES VICTORIA P. CABRAL AND ISMAEL YANGA vs. CA, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated
G.R. No. 148824(Spouses Victoria P. Cabral and Ismael Yanga vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.)
The spouses Victoria Cabral and Ysmael Yanga via the instant petition for certiorari filed on July 24, 2001 assail and seek to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 7, 1998 as well as its denial resolution dated May 28, 2001 which petitioners received on June 22, 2001.
The present controversy stemmed from an action for cancellation of an emancipation patent, and ejectment with damages filed by petitioners. The Darab-Region III in Malolos, Bulacan, dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action and the Board of Adjudication of the Department of Agrarian Reform affirmed.
Petitioners Victoria Cabral and Ismael Yanga are the registered owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Bulacan consisting of 12,299 square meters covered by OCT No. 1670. The said property was originally tenanted by a certain Jose Donato, now deceased.
On
Sometime in 1992, petitioners discovered that private respondent Juan Orbe, had occupied the landholding and enjoyed its produce to their prejudice.
Hence, on
Notwithstanding petitioner's written manifestation, an emancipation patent (NO. 154113) was issued to Jose Donato covering the 12,299 sq. m. land.
Petitioners, seeking the recovery of their rights over the land, filed a complaint for cancellation of emancipation patent and ejectment with damages against the heirs of Jose Donato, their tenant, and Juan Orbe.
In their answer, the heirs of Donato denied the allegations in the complaint and instead averred DARAB's lack of jurisdiction.
Juan Orbe for his part, also alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the DARAB since petitioner-spouses failed to resort to pre-conciliation proceedings as required under Republic Act No. 6657. Further alleged was lack of cause of action on the part of petitioners.
In an order dated
In essence, petitioners before the appellate court questioned the issuance of Emancipation Patent No. 154113 to the then tenant Jose Donato.
The Court of Appeals in its now assailed decision, reversed the ruling of DARAB. It annulled Emancipation Patent No. 154113 issued in favor of Jose Donato but held that such title to the property pertains to the government. It held that the emancipation patent issued is void because when the patent was issued, the farmer-beneficiary was no longer qualified because he had already voluntarily waived his right to the same. The appellate court held that Orbe is merely an intruder to the land.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a motion for modification of judgment which was treated as a motion for reconsideration. They prayed that the land be declared beyond the ambit of the agrarian reform program and that the ownership revert to them.
The motion was denied. Hence, the instant petition.
In the main, petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals when it failed to revert the ownership of the land to them after it ordered the cancellation of the emancipation patent. They maintain that the Court of Appeals should have returned the lot to them since it cannot again be declared as under the agrarian reform program.
The petition is devoid of merit.
At the outset, it must be stressed that abuse of discretion does not necessarily follow just because there is a reversal by the Court of Appeals of the DARAB's decision. An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been done in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction (Miranda vs. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617 [1999]). This does not seem to appear in the case at bar.
A perusal of the petition seems
to indicate that the remedy availed of is a last ditch effort of petitioners to
frustrate the decision rendered by the appellate court. It must be noted that
certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of
appeal. In fact, if petitioners indeed believed that there was a valid ground
for appeal then they should have resorted to the filing of a timely petition
for review under Rule 45 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. An
examination of the record shows that the petition was filed on
Moreover, the Court of Appeals erred not when it held that the title of the land pertains to the government. The fact that the patent was declared void does not ipso facto result in the ownership of the land reverting to its previous owner. The pertinent law on the matter, Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended by Republic Act 6657, does not contain any provision to this effect, hence petitioners' argument has no legal basis whatsoever.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, petition is DENIED DUE COURSE.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
