ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 168126.� August 10, 2005]
MARTINEZ vs. MENDOZA
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 10 2005.
G.R. No. 168126 (HRS. OF DOMINADOR MARTINEZ, Rep. by ARMOGASTES MARTINEZ vs. MARIANO MENDOZA.)
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Resolutions [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals dated 28 July 2004 and 11 May 2005, in CA-G.R. SP No. 82564 entitled, "Heirs of Dominador Martinez, Rep. by Armogastes Martinez v. Mariano Mendoza."
On 01 December 1995, petitioner instituted an action for ejectment against respondent in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Region III.
The antecedents of this case have been summarized by the DARAB as follows:
In a verified complaint dated November 5, 1995, Plaintiffs-Appellants (Plaintiffs) alleged that they are the heirs of the deceased Dominador Martinez, owner of the subject landholding, located at Bunducan, Bocaue, Bulacan, containing an area of 7,091 square meters and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10242.
Defendant-Appellee (Defendant) is the tenant of the subject landholding with an agreed lease rental of twelve (12) cavans per year. However, since 1988 up to the filing of this complaint, Defendant failed to pay his rental to herein Plaintiffs, a clear violation of agrarian reform laws which may justify his ejectment from the subject landholding.
Plaintiffs also alleged that they brought this matter with the BARC, but no settlement had been arrived at between the parties. Plaintiffs now pray that judgment be rendered ordering the Defendant and all those claiming rights under him to vacate the subject landholding and surrender possession of the same to the Plaintiffs, and for him to pay his unpaid rentals from 1988 up to the time he shall have vacate the same.
Defendant filed his Answer on December 21, 1995 denying all the
material allegations in the complaint and as a defense, he alleged that after
the harvest season in November 1988, his brother brought the yearly leasehold
rental of palay to the residence of the deceased landowner, Dominador Martinez,
in the presence of his wife, Teofila Mendoza, and the said rentals were
accepted. However, the next day, the deceased landowner went to Defendant's
residence and told him to retrieve the same because his son, Armogastes
Martinez is angry. [I]n compliance, Defendant hired a jeepney and retrieved the
said palay from the deceased landowner's house. Defendant also said that in the
year 1989, he, having no intention to evade his obligation, deposited his lease
rentals to the Brgy. Captain, Alfredo M. dela Cruz, consisting of thirteen (13)
cavans of palay with a total weight of 604 kilos representing his lease rental
for the years 1988 to 1989 as evidenced by a receipt dated November 10, 1999
which was sealed and duly signed by the said Brgy. Captain (hereto attached
Annex "A"). In the year 1991, Defendant again deposited his two (2) years'
(1990-1991) leasehold rental consisting of fifteen (15) cavans of palay to the
Sanguniang Barangay of Lolomboy. This fact could be affirmed by the document,
"Paglalagak" dated November 1, 1991, which was duly signed by the then Brgy.
Captain of Lolomboy, Mario M. Roxas, and attached herewith as Annex "C".
Defendant further stated that after several months, he was informed by then
Brgy. Captain Mario Roxas that all the palay deposited were being eaten by rats
at the Brgy. Hall so he was advised to sell the same. He approached their BARC
Chairman at Bunducan, Bocaue, Bulacan, Mr. Ciriaco Gonzales, and asked the
latter if he could deposit it to his care the equivalent cash amount of his
yearly rental intended to the deceased landowner which was accepted by the
latter as evidenced by a certification attached as Annex "D"; so that the total
amount of the palay which was deposited is Five thousand Nine Hundred
Seventy-Five Pesos (P5,975.00), excluding the two years deposit which
was received by then Brgy. Captain Alfredo M. dela Cruz; however, Defendant
admitted that he was not able to give the rental for the year 1995 due to crop
failure which was damaged by the previous typoon as confirmed by the
"Pagpapatunay" attached as Annex "F".
On 30 July 1996, Provincial Adjudicator Erasmo SP. Cruz rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1.����� DISMISSING the Complaint for lack of merit;
2.����� MAINTAINING the defendant of his actual and peaceful possession of the subject landholding as a bonafide tenant therein;
3.����� ORDERING the plaintiff to withdraw the palay deposited with the then, Bgy. Chairman Alfonso dela Cruz consisting of thirteen (13) cavans covering the rental for the year 1988-1989 and the cash amount deposited to Ciriaco Gonzales, ARBA-President, BARC-President, Bgy. Bundukan, Bocaue, Bulacan, as the payment for rental intended for the year 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994;
4.����� ORDERING the herein defendant to pay the remaining balance of twenty (20) cavans; eleven (11) cavans for the 1988-1989 and nine (9) for 1990-1991 as the additional and exact rental intended for the year 1988-1991. Defendant likewise is hereby ordered to make an accounting to determine if there are still remaining balance as to the amount of rental covering the year 1992 up to 1994 (besides those already deposited before the BARC Chairman) and if there is any, defendant is ordered to pay the same including the lease rental for 1995.
5.����� ORDERING the plaintiffs and defendants to enter a new leasehold contract with the assistance of MARO of Bocaue, Bulacan over the subject landholding and fixing a new lease rental subject to existing rules and regulations in accordance with the prevailing price (per kilos) of palay for every agricultural year.
Claims and counterclaims are hereby DISMISSED.
Respondent appealed to the DARAB. On 09 February 2004, the DARAB rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the questioned Decision dated July 30, 1996 is hereby AFFIRMED for lack of merit (sic).
Aggrieved therefrom, petitioner went up to the Court of Appeals on petition for review. On 28 July 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered the first assailed resolution dismissing the petition on procedural and substantive grounds. The Court of Appeals held that the petition was procedurally infirm as petitioner failed to specify the full names of the heirs of Dominador Martinez whom he is allegedly representing in violation of Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and he failed as well to attach a special power of attorney in behalf of the heirs authorizing him to file the petition. On the substantive issue, the Court of Appeals held that the petition was patently bereft of merit.
On 11 May 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered the second assailed resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner thus poses the following issues for the consideration of the Court:
1.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GROSSLY ERRED IN THE APPRECIATION OF FACTS LEADING TO ITS RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT GUILTY OF DELIBERATE NON-PAYMENT OF RENTALS
2.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING FOR THE PETITIONERS
In disposing of the case on the merits, the Court of Appeals ratiocinated as follows:
(T)he petition is patently without merit (Section 8, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). Petitioners raise the same issue of nonpayment of rental, which had been squarely resolved in the negative by Provincial Adjudicator Cruz and the DARAB. We find no cogent reason to reverse or modify their decisions. We quote with approval the pertinent portions of the DARAB decision, to wit:
It is settled rule in this jurisdiction that the nonpayment of lease rentals to warrant the ejectment of the tenant from the land in question must be made in a deliberate manner. The mere failure of the tenant to pay the landholders' share does not necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former "when there is lack of deliberate intent on the part of the tenant to pay, or there is a crop failure due to fortuitous event (Rozaa y Cia vs. Cabatuando, G.R. No. L-16963, 26 April 1961).
. . .
It is evident from the records that Plaintiff-Apellant had already deposited before then Brgy. Captain Alfredo dela Cruz thirteen (13) cavans for the year 1988-1989 and another fifteen (15) cavans to Brgy. Captain Mario M. Roxas for the year 1990-1991, belying appellant's claim that appellee failed or deliberately refused to pay his lease rentals. The Board is of the considered opinion that there is substantial compliance on the part [of] Defendant-Appellee to pay his obligation and that the failure to pay the remaining balance was not deliberately incurred to deprive the landowner of his rightful share due to fortuitous events.
The Defendant-Appellee does not deny his obligation, neither does he intend to stop paying altogether, He is willing to pay the balance if only given a reasonable time. This Board is not convinced that Defendant-Appellee deliberately refused to pay the rentals due as to persuade it to impose the supreme penalty of ejectment.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED.
We find no reversible error in the ruling of the Court of Appeals anchored as it is on the findings of fact of the Provincial Adjudicator of the Province for Bulacan and by the DARAB it self, an administrative body which has acquired expertise on the matter. As we held in Padunan v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board: [2] cralaw
It is a well-settled rule that only questions of law may be reviewed by the Supreme Court in an appeal by certiorari. Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme court, more so if the factual findings of the Court of Appeals coincide with those of the DARAB, an administrative body with expertise on matters within its specific and specialized jurisdiction. The only time this Court will disregard the factual findings of the Court of Appeals (which are ordinarily accorded great respect) is when these are based on substantial evidence. In the case at bar, no reason exists for us to disregard the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. The factual findings are borne out by the record and are supported by substantial evidence.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 28 July 2004 and 11 May 2005, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes with Associate Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring
[2] cralaw G.R. No. 132163, 28 January 2003, 396 SCRA 196, 201-202 (citations omitted).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
