ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No.126499.November 26, 2001]

RAMON YU PONG TING vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS DAR et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentleman :

Quoted hereunder , for your information ,is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 26 2001.

G.R. No. 126499(Ramon Yu Pong Ting vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Department of Agrarian Reform, Diliman, Quezon City and Eduardo Pascual.)

This petition for review seeks reversal of the resolution dated August 15, 1996, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41506, dismissing the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for being the inappropriate and erroneous mode of appeal, as well as the resolution dated October 3, 1996, denying reconsideration of the first resolution for lack of merit.

It appears that spouses Eduardo and Remy Pascual obtained a loan from the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Tarlac Branch (BPI-Tarlac), secured by several parcels of land. They defaulted in their payment and the mortgage was consequently foreclosed and the properties sold to BPI as the highest bidder. Before the redemption period expired, private respondent Eduardo Pascual approached petitioner Ramon Yu Pong Ting to ask for help in redeeming the properties. The latter, in his capacity as president and general manager of Northern Star Ricemill, Inc., agreed and paid the loan in the amount of P486,000, for which a promissory note was executed. Private respondent also requested and was granted additional loans for which he executed a real estate mortgage covering the same properties redeemed from BPI-Tarlac. In said mortgage, private respondent warranted that the properties were not tenanted.

On June 29, 1987, Northern Star Ricemill, Inc., initiated a judicial foreclosure proceeding against the Pascual spouses with preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, docketed as Civil Case No. 141-P-'87.

In turn, herein private respondent Pascual filed on February 23, 1989, a petition before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) in San Fernando, Pampanga, docketed as DARAB Case No. 032-T-'89, in connection with the properties. The PARAD dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule XVII, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, which provides:

All agrarian cases pending before the regular courts of law at the time of the effectivity of these Rules shall remain with such courts until their final determination.

Moreover, Pascual was estopped from invoking the jurisdiction of the PARAD after he warranted in the mortgage contract that the properties were not tenanted.

Private respondent elevated the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Quezon City, where it was docketed as DARAB Case No. 0459, entitled "Eduardo E. Pascual vs. Ramon Yu Pong Ting".

Meanwhile, on November 12, 1991, the RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 141-P-'87 in favor of Northern Star. Mr. Pascual appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the same on October 28, 1994.

On April 10, 1996, the DARAB in Quezon City reversed the decision of the PARAD in DARAB Case No. 0459 and remanded the case for reception of evidence.

Petitioner Yu Pong Ting elevated the DARAB case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As stated earlier, the appellate court dismissed the petition on August 15, 1996, for being the wrong mode of appeal. The motion likewise denied. Hence, this instant petition where it is averred that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error and grave abuse of discretion.

The rule in force at the time the petition was filed was Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (Revised Circular No. 1-91), governing appeals to the Court of Appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies, including the Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657. Said circular repealed and

superseded the provisions of Rule 43 and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.

Paragraph 5 of said circular clearly provides:

5. How Appeal Taken. -- Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals... (Underscoring supplied.)

What petitioner should have filed was a petition for review under Administrative Circular No. 1-95, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Under Circular No. 2-90: paragraph 4, an appeal to the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED, and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41506, dated August 15, 1996 and October 3, 1996, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE