ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 149025.September 24, 2001]

AZCUNA VDA. DE EDMILAO vs. CA

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 24 2001.

G.R. No. 149025 (Consuelo Azcuna Vda. De Edmilao vs. CA et al.)

Petitioner assails, by way of a petition for review on certiorari, the Decision promulgated on 24 November 2000, and the Resolution promulgated on 04 June 2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47787.

The antecedent facts would show that petitioner Consuelo Azcuna Vda. De Edmilao filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator a petition for Cancellation of Emancipation Patent granted to private respondent Fortunato Gemino. Azcuna claimed to be the absolute owner of a riceland, covered by OCT No. P-1406 which was placed under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT). Petitioner claimed that she was denied due process when she was not informed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of the OLT coverage and that she was not compensated therefor. She further averred that her right to retention was violated; that private respondent was not a member of, any recognized farmer's cooperative; and finally, that private respondent was always short of the 50% rental payment every season.

Private respondent countered that he received the Emancipation Patent on August 1990 and that he only stopped paying his rentals starting May 1991 because he believed that he already overpaid the value of the riceland pursuant to Executive Order No. 228.

On 05 July 1992, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Administrator granted retention rights to petitioner, ordered the cancellation of the Emancipation Patent issued to private respondent and ordered the execution of a leasehold contract between the parties.

On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) set aside the decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Administrator, upheld the validity of the Emancipation Patent issued to private respondent and declared him a bonafide tenant/farmer-beneficiary.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but in the now questioned decision, her petition was dismissed for lack of merit and the DARAB decision was affirmed in toto. In the now assailed resolution, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.

Petitioner averred that the Court of Appeals erred:

(1) In upholding the decision of the DARAB which failed to grant petitioner her right of retention;

(2) In affirming the DARAB which failed to declare that private respondent failed to comply with the mandatory Samahang Nayon requirement;

(3) In adopting the DARAB decision which failed to conclude that there was no complete payment of rental;

(4) In sustaining the DARAB decision which failed to declare that private respondent was disqualified to be a lessee;

(5) In sustaining the DARAB decision which failed to declare that petitioner was denied due process in the issuance of the emancipation patent;

(6) In upholding the DARAB decision which sustained an unconscionable and unreasonable "just compensation" and

(7) In upholding the DARAB decision which is inconsistent with its decisions in other cases.

The petition is devoid of merit.

It is axiomatic that the findings of the Court of Appeals are binding upon this Court if supported by substantial evidence, especially when the appellate court affirms the factual findings of a lower court. 1 See Lagrosa vs. Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA 298 (1999); Borromeo vs. Sun, 317 SCRA 176 1999). In the case before us, the Court of Appeals categorically stated that the factual findings of DARAB are supported by substantial evidence 2 Rollo, p. 29. and there appears to be no reason to digress therefrom.

The issues now raised before us were answered in the questioned decision, thus:

(1) Anent the retention right of petitioner, the appellate court observed that even after deducting the area awarded to private respondent to petitioner's landholdings, she would still be left with 8.7201 hectares which is over and above the retention right of 5 hectares. Hence, there was no ground to support the contention that petitioner's retention right was violated;

(2) On the alleged non-compliance by private respondent to the Samahang Nayon requirement, the appellate court declared that private respondent was able to prove that he was a member of the Samahang Nayon of Sirana Bajo, Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, a duly recognized farmer's cooperative;

(3) On the non-payment of rental and just compensation, the appellate court cited DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 1978 to the effect that the lease payments of a farmer-beneficiary should be credited to the partial payment for the land. The appellate court sustained the findings of the DARAB that the reasonable value of the land was already paid considering the number of years that private respondent had been paying rentals. In any event, it would appear from the DARAB decision that petitioner was already asked to submit pertinent documents relative to her claim for compensation to cover for any deficiency in payment.

(4) As regards the qualification of private, respondent as beneficiary, the appellate court found that private respondent was able to establish his open, peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted cultivation of the landholding since 1960;

(5) Finally, it was established that petitioner was notified of all administrative proceedings undertaken by the DARAB officials to effect the coverage of her landholdings under P.D. 27. Thus, she could not complain that she was denied due process by DARAB.

Considering the foregoing, no reversible error has been committed by the Court of Appeals in rendering the assailed decision and resolution. Consequently, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com