ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 134445.� January 10, 2005]
SARMIENTO vs. AGUILAR
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 10 2005 .
G. R. No. 134445 (Norma Sarmiento vs. Armando Aguilar.)
For resolution is the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision [1] cralaw dated June 29, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42272, "NORMA SARMIENTO, Petitioner, vs. THE ADJUDICATION BOARD of the Department of Agrarian Reform and ARMANDO AGUILAR, Respondents."
Records show that petitioner Norma Sarmiento is the owner of a 1� hectare rice land in Barangay Calintan, Talisay, Camarines Norte. She leased it to Armando Aguilar, respondent, who agreed to pay her 30 cavans of rice for the rainy season (July to October, or during "habagat"); and 30 cavans of rice for the dry season (December to March, or during "tambay"). There would be no rental between the dry and rainy seasons (April to July). [2] cralaw
However, respondent failed to pay the rentals (cavans of rice) for the following crop seasons:
���������������������������������������� 1976�������������� -���������������������� 3 cavans
���������������������������������������� 1978�������������� -���������������������� 40 cavans
���������������������������������������� 1980�������������� -���������������������� 4.5 cavans
���������������������������������������� 1986�������������� -���������������������� 3 cavans
���������������������������������������� 1989�������������� -���������������������� 3.5 cavans
���������������������������������������� 1990�������������� -���������������������� 7 cavans [3] cralaw
This prompted petitioner to file with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication (PARAD) a complaint for illegal detainer against respondent, docketed as PARAD Case No. 082. Aside from non-payment of rentals, the other ground raised by petitioner in the complaint is that respondent mortgaged portions of the land to Aida Yanto and Ely Rivera without her (petitioner's) knowledge and consent in violation of the lease agreement.
In his answer, [4] cralaw respondent specifically denied the allegations in the complaint, claiming that he had paid the rentals corresponding to all the periods stated in the complaint. With respect to the alleged mortgages, he submitted the affidavits of Aida Yanto and Ely Rivera, the supposed mortgagees, declaring that respondent merely obtained loans from them which he already paid.
On December 29, 1994, the PARAD rendered a Decision dismissing petitioner's complaint "for lack of merit and/or cause of action."
On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the PARAD Decision, holding that respondent had paid the subject rentals and that "there was no mortgage that took place. Herein, defendant-appellee only borrowed money from the alleged mortgagor and did not actually mortgage the subject land in question." [5] cralaw
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. She then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review but it was likewise dismissed. [6] cralaw
Thus, the instant petition ascribing to the Court of Appeals the following errors:
"1. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'S ACTION TO EJECT PRIVATE RESPONDENT ON ACCOUNT OF HAVING MORTGAGED THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING IS GROUNDLESS, AND HAS PRESCRIBED.
"2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RENTAL ARREARAGES BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE DID NOT INVOLVE AN ADMISSION OF INDEBTEDNESS BUT REFER TO PETITIONER'S SHARE FOR THE COMING HARVEST.
"3. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER TO REBUT THE TESTIMONY OF SOLEDAD AGUILAR, WIFE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT THAT THE LATTER'S ARREARAGES HAVE BEEN PAID, CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE ARREARAGES HAD BEEN PAID."
In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the jurisdiction of this Court is ordinarily confined to reviewing errors of law committed by the Court of Appeals, its finding of fact being conclusive on this Court. [7] cralaw As a rule, it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed in the lower courts [8] cralaw or quasi-judicial bodies. The rule, however, is not iron-clad. [9] cralaw One of the recognized instances of review by this Court is when the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. [10] cralaw
Petitioner avers that the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are not supported by evidence. Hence, we take cognizance of her petition.
We reviewed closely the records and found that the findings of the Court of Appeals are sustained by the records.
Soledad Aguilar, respondent's wife, testified before the PARAD that the rental arrearages have been paid by her husband.
Petitioner utterly failed to rebut Soledad's testimony.
On the issue whether respondent mortgaged portions of petitioner's landholding, suffice it to state that petitioner failed to present any evidence to prove the same. The best evidence would have been the contracts of mortgage, but there is none.
We have consistently held that findings of administrative agencies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts, when their actions are exercised with due regard to the jurisdictional boundary set by their enabling law, [11] cralaw as in this case. The only function then left for the Court of Appeals to determine is whether the findings of fact of the DARAB are supported by substantial evidence, [12] cralaw which we found to be present.
Significantly, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is not at variance with those of the FARAD and the DARAB. Indeed, we are not inclined to disturb the same.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Assistant Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo at 41.
[2] cralaw Annex "B" of the Complaint; Rollo at 9, 49-50.
[3] cralaw Rollo at 49-50.
[4] cralaw Id. at 69.
[5] cralaw Id. at 45.
[6] cralaw Id. at 48.
[7] cralaw Floro vs. Llenado, G.R. No. 75723, June 2, 1995, 244 SCRA 713.
[8] cralaw Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 81524, February 4, 2000, 324 SCRA 713.
[9] cralaw Gabriel vs. Mabanta, G.R. No. 142403, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 573, citing Borlongan vs. Madrideo, 323 SCRA 248 (2000).
[10] cralaw Siasat vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129382, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 326; Misa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97291, August 5, 1992, 212 SCRA 217; Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 171 (1996).
[11] cralaw Nuesa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132048, March 6, 2002, 378 SCRA 351, citing Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals, �281 SCRA 657 (1997).
[12] cralaw Reyes vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 140164, September 6, 2002, 388 SCRA 471, citing Malate vs. Court of Appeals, 218 SCRA 572, 576 (1993).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
