ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 117098.February 12, 2001]

VALENZUELA, JR. vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 12 2001.

G.R. No. 117098(Abelardo D. Valenzuela, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), and Apolinario Antonio.)

This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 11, 1994, in CA GR SP No. 31084, which affirmed the judgment of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in a land transfer case involving petitioner and private respondent.

The factual antecedents of this case are as follows:

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos Inc. (RCBMI), a corporation sole, was the owner of a tract of agricultural land situated at Pandayan (formerly Ibayo), Meycauayan, Bulacan, consisting of 86,544 square meters. On May 7, 1971, RCBMI sold the entire property to Abelardo Valenzuela, Jr. (herein petitioner) for P866,050.00. Thereafter, petitioner lodged registration proceedings involving the said property with the then Court of First Instance. On June 26, 1972, the court ordered the registration of the land in the name of petitioner. On February 16, 1973, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-6061 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Bulacan to petitioner and his wife. It was registered in their names on March 1, 1973.

There were three tenants occupying the land, namely: Isidro Filoteo (3.8 hectares); Pilar Montaos (1 hectare); Severino delos Santos (1 hectare). There was an untenanted area of 3 hectares. The untenanted portion is the same area surrendered by Leon Concepcion to petitioner in 1972.

Sometime in 1979, private respondent, Apolinario Antonio occupied the 3-hectare portion, claiming that he is a tenant of the Roman Catholic Church of Meycauayan, Bulacan. On July 22, 1981, he was issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) Nos. 0-042714 and 0-42715 covering the said 3-hectare landholding. On October 8, 1982, Emancipation Patent No. A-287425 was likewise issued to him.

Whereupon, petitioner sought the cancellation of the CLTs issued to private respondent. The case was transferred to the DAR Adjudication Board in Region III. Subsequently, a full-blown trial ensued. Petitioner submitted, among others, the following evidence: Exhibit A - Copy of the Original Certificate of Title No. 0-6061 issued in the names of spouses Abelardo Valenzuela, Jr. and his wife; Exhibit A-I - Judgment granting judicial titling of subject property; and Exhibit E - Copy of Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the RCBMI in favor of Abelardo Valenzuela, Jr., covering subject property. Andres Rodriguez and Bonifacio Holgado also testified. Their affidavits were presented in evidence. Rodriguez, 82 years old, declared that he worked as overseer for the RCBMI from pre-war era until his retirement in 1978 and that private respondent had never been a tenant of RCBMI. According to Holgado, overseer of petitioner from 1971 until 1973, the latter had no tenant named Apolinario Antonio.

For his part, private respondent presented, among others, the following evidence in support of his claim that he is a legitimate tenant of the subject landholding: Exhibit 1 - Masterlist of Farmer Beneficiaries listing the name Apolinario Antonio as tenant of the landholding; Exhibit 6 - Certification issued by Fe Jacinto, DAR Team Leader, that Apolinario Antonio is holder of CLT Nos. 0-042714 and 0-042715 covering two parcels of land situated in Pandayan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, formerly owned by Roman Catholic Church, now by Abelardo Valenzuela; and Exhibit 15 - Certification issued by Fe Jacinto, DAR Municipal Operation Officer, that Apolinario Antonio is a bona fide tenant-tiller over a parcel of land owned formerly by the Roman Catholic Church, now registered in the name Abelardo Valenzuela, under Operation Land Transfer.

On June 14, 1990, the Regional Adjudicator rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. The Regional Adjudicator ruled that private respondent is not a bona fide tenant of petitioner or of the RCBMI of the subject landholding. He declared the CLTs issued in favor of private respondent null and void. Private respondent was ordered to vacate the said property.

On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed the Regional Adjudicator's decision. The DARAB declared appellant as a bona fide tenant of the landholding in question considering that most documents presented, by private respondent were issued by the government and therefore there is reason to believe these to be true. It also declared as valid CLT Nos. 0-042714 and 0-042715 and Emancipation Patent No. A-287425 issued to private respondent. On the other hand, DARAB did not admit petitioner's Exhibits A and E for being mere photocopies. Accordingly, DARAB held that petitioner failed to prove his ownership of the land in question and therefore cannot claim any interest therein sought to be protected by the CLTs issued to private respondent.

On review, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of DARAB. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner contends that he was able to prove his ownership over the subject land by the evidence he presented. 1 Rollo , p. 38.He maintains that public respondent should have not rejected his Exhibits A and E on the ground that these were mere photocopies. 2 Id . at 44.

Petitioner also alleges that private respondent's certificates of land transfer and emancipation patent were spurious. 3 Id . at 50.He insists that the authenticity and probative value of private respondent's evidence must be determined. 4 Id. at 56, 57.

The resolution of the issues raised by petitioner necessitates a review of the evidence of the parties in relation to the central issue of whether or not private respondent is a bona fide tenant of the landholding in question. Actually, petitioner wants this Court to re-assess the probative value of the evidence upon which DARAB based its finding that private respondent is a bona fide tenant of the said land. This will entail an inquiry into the correctness of the evaluation of the letters, certifications, affidavits and other documents presented by the parties which are the bases of the administrative body in reaching its decision which, in turn, was affirmed by the appellate court. In other words, we are being asked by the petitioner to review the facts and the evidence in the instant case.

Clearly, this is not the function of this Court in the review of cases elevated from the Court of Appeals. We are tasked to review only errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, considering that its findings of fact are deemed conclusive. The only exceptions are: (1) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. 5 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phil). Inc., 305 SCRA 70, 74-75 (1999).

We have thoroughly reviewed the instant petition, but we find that petitioner's case does not fall among the foregoing exceptions. Nor does petitioner's bare allegation of alleged grave errors committed by the appellate court provide us a compelling reason to override the general rule favoring the conclusive character of its findings of fact. We are thus constrained to uphold both the DARAB's and the appellate court's finding that private respondent is bona fide tenant of the land in question and that the certificates of land transfer and emancipation patent issued in his name are valid.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)TOMASITA M. DRIS
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