G.R. No.

194417, November 23, 2016 (respondents) for reinstatement of possession as farmer

tenants.ch an rob lesvirt u alla wlib rary

HEIRS OF TEODORO CADELIÑA, REPRESENTED BY

SOLEDAD CADIZ VDA. DE The Facts
CADELIÑA, Petitioners, v. FRANCISCO CADIZ,
CELESTINO DELA CRUZ, ANTONIO VICTORIA, Respondents filed complaints for reinstatement of
HEIRS OF TELESFORO VILLAR REPRESENTED BY possession as farmer tenants against petitioners with the
SAMUEL VILLAR, FRANCISCO VICTORIA AND DARAB-Region 2, San Fermin, Cauayan, Isabela
MAGNO GANTE, Respondents; ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
docketed as DARAB Cases Nos. II-2063-ISA 2000 and II-
2064-ISA 2000.8 Respondents alleged that they were the
HON. JOSE C. REYES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS farmers/tillers of portions9 of Lot No. 7050, Cad. 211,
PRESIDING JUSTICE, HON. NORMANDIE PIZARRO, Santiago Cadastre (properties), "ownership then claimed
IN HIS CAPACITY AS MEMBER, AND HON. RICARDO by Nicanor Ibuna, Sr. [who is] their landowner," since
R. ROSARIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE 1962 until around the end of 1998 when they were
COURT OF APPEALS SPECIAL FORMER THIRD deprived of their respective possessions, occupations and
DIVISION, Public Respondents. tillage of the properties.10 This was allegedly brought
about by the execution of the decision of the CA in a
DECISION previous case (CA-G.R. CV No. 42237)11 ordering the
transfer of the properties to Teodoro Cadeliña (Teodoro)
JARDELEZA, J.: and his heirs, petitioners herein.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the

This is a petition for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the
ground that respondents cannot be considered as tenants
Revised Rules of Court seeking to nullify the Court of
under land reform law because they were instituted by
Appeals' (CA) May 25, 2009 Resolution2 and September
Nicanor Ibuna, Sr. (Ibuna) whose rights were declared
22, 2010 Resolution3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 108414
by the court illegal and unlawful in CA-G.R. CV No.
(collectively, Assailed Resolutions). The Assailed
42237 and that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to
Resolutions dismissed the petition for review under Rule
entertain the case for lack of tenancy relationship
43 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by the Heirs of
between the parties.12
Teodoro Cadeliña represented by Soledad Cadiz Vda. De
Cadeliña (petitioners), against the July 5, 2006
In its Decision13 dated October 24, 2000, the DARAB,
Decision4 and the March 11, 2009 Resolution5 of the
Region 2, San Fermin, Cauayan, Isabela ruled in favor of
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
respondents. The DARAB declared Ibuna as legal
(DARAB) in DARAB Cases Nos. 10543 and 10554.6 The
possessor of the properties who had the right to institute
DARAB granted the complaint7 filed by Francisco Cadiz,
respondents as tenants of the properties. The DARAB
Celestino Dela Cruz, Antonio Victoria and heirs of
said, "[w]hile the title of the late Nicanor Ibuna was
Telesforo Villar, represented by Samuel Villar,
subsequently declared null and void by the [CA in CA-
G.R. CV No. 42237], he is deemed considered as legal Hence, this petition filed on November 26, 2010,19 where
possessor of the subject land" and "[a]s legal possessor, petitioners argue that the CA committed grave abuse of
the late Ibuna has the right to grant to the herein discretion in dismissing the petition based on procedural
plaintiffs the cultivation of the land pursuant to Section 6 grounds, and for ignoring the merits of the petition.
of [Republic Act (RA) No.] 3844, as amended, otherwise According to them, there is a conflict between the
known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code."14 As a decision in CA G.R. CV No. 42237 annulling the titles of
result, respondents are entitled to security of tenure in respondents and declaring the homestead patents of
working on the properties. Thus, the DARAB: (1) Teodoro lawful, and the DARAB Decision dated October
declared respondents the tenants of the properties; (2) 24, 2000 declaring respondents as tenants.20
ordered petitioners, their heirs, agent, or any person(s)
acting on their behalf to vacate the land in issue and to The Issue
deliver the possession and cultivation of said lands to
respondents; (3) ordered respondents to pay lease Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in
rentals to petitioners in accordance with Section 34 of RA dismissing the petition for review based on procedural
No. 3844; and (4) ordered petitioners to pay grounds.ch an rob lesvirt u allawlib rary

respondents attorney's fees and honoraria in the amount

of P20,000.00.15 Our Ruling

This was appealed before the DARAB Quezon City We grant the petition.
(DARAB Cases Nos. 10543-10544) which denied the
appeal in its Decision dated July 5, 2006. A motion for Technical rules of procedure may be set aside in order to
reconsideration was also denied in the March 11, 2009 achieve substantial justice.
Resolution. Thereafter, petitioners filed the petition for
review under Rule 43 before the CA. It does not escape us that the right recourse against the
dismissal of petitioners' appeal with the CA is an appeal
On May 25, 2009, the CA dismissed the petition for not by certiorari under Rule 45, and not certiorari under Rule
being sufficient in form and in substance.16 In their 65, of the Revised Rules of Court.21 The Assailed
Motion for Reconsideration,17 petitioners attached the Decisions were final and appealable judgments, which
missing special power of attorney in favor of Enor C. disposed of petitioners' appeal in a manner left nothing
Cadeliña and the certified original copies of the pertinent more to be done by the CA.22 As a rule, the existence
DARAB decisions and resolution, and cited inadvertence and availability of this right to appeal precludes the
and excusable negligence for the other procedural lapses. resort to certiorari since a petition for certiorari under
The CA, however, denied the motion in the September Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court may only be
22, 2010 Resolution which petitioners received on resorted to in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy
September 29, 2010.18 and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.23 Corollarily, we have repeatedly ruled disposition of every action and proceeding."26 (Emphasis
that certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for supplied.)
a lost appeal. As such, this case would have been The record shows that the facts of this case are
dismissed outright for failure of petitioners to avail of the undisputed and we are only presented with questions of
proper remedy. law which we are readily able to decide. The issues only
involve the determination of whether respondents are de
Nevertheless, when we are convinced that substantial jure tenants entitled to security of tenure under our land
justice will be defeated by the strict application of reform laws, and consequently, of the jurisdiction of the
procedural rules that are, ironically, intended for the just, DARAB to order the restoration of possession of
speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases on the petitioners' properties to respondents. After review, we
merits, we will not hesitate to overlook the procedural hold that since the merits of the petition far outweigh the
technicalities. While ordinarily, certiorari is unavailing rigid application of the rules, there is a need to suspend
where the appeal period has lapsed, there are the rules in this case to achieve substantial justice.
exceptions, as when: (a) the public welfare and the
advancement of public policy dictates; (b) the broader This is all the more true when the strict application of
interest of justice so requires; (c) the writs issued are technical rules of procedure will result in a decision that
null and void; or (d) the questioned order amounts to an will disturb already settled cases. We are mindful of the
oppressive exercise of judicial authority.24 Thus, we said impact that the dismissal of this petition may have on
in Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo:25 ch an rob lesvirt u all awlib rary

the final and executory decisions not only in CA-G.R. CV

We also observe that the rule that a petition should have No. 42237 (declaring Ibuna's title as void, and upholding
been brought under Rule 65 instead of under Rule 45 of petitioners' homestead over the properties), but also in a
the Rules of Court (or vice versa) is not inflexible or rigid. much earlier case involving the denial of the free patent
The inflexibility or rigidity of application of the rules of application of Ibuna over the properties (which also
procedure is eschewed in order to serve the higher ends declared his title void) in Department of Agriculture and
of justice. Thus, substance is given primacy over form, Natural Resources (DANR) Case No. 2411.27 We take
for it is paramount that the rules of procedure are not notice that we affirmed this order of the Secretary of
applied in a very rigid technical sense, but used only to DANR in DANR Case No. 2411 in our Resolution in G.R.
help secure, not override, substantial justice. If a No. L-30916 dated April 25, 1988.28
technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is
made, their aim is defeated. Verily, the strict Respondents are not agricultural leasehold lessees
application of procedural technicalities should not entitled to security of tenure.
hinder the speedy disposition of the case on the
merits. To institute a guideline, therefore, the Rules of We first address petitioners' claim that there is
Court expressly mandates that the rules of procedure inconsistency between respondents' position of claiming
"shall be liberally construed in order to promote their ownership in CA-G.R. CV No. 42237, and their claim of
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive tenancy relationship in this case. While we have
previously held that "[t]enancy relationship is establishing such relationship in cases before us have
inconsistent with the assertion of ownership,"29 this is not been the same for both laws.
applicable in the case of respondents. Records show that
respondents were previously issued title (albeit nullified For agricultural tenancy or agricultural leasehold to exist,
in CA-G.R. CV No. 42237) under Section 330 of the following requisites must be present: (1) the parties
Presidential Decree No. 152,31 which gives a share tenant are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
actually tilling the land the preferential right to acquire (2) the subject matter of the relationship is an
the portion actually tilled by him.32 Respondents' agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the
assertions of ownership over the properties in CA-G.R. parties to the relationship; (4) the purpose of the
CV No. 42237 were only but a consequence of their relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5)
previous status as alleged tenants of Ibuna; their claims there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
of tenancy status and ownership were successive, and agricultural lessee; and (6) the harvest is shared
not simultaneous. Thus, particular to the circumstances between landowner and tenant or agricultural
of their case, there was no conflict between their lessee.36 The absence of any of the requisites does not
assertion of ownership in CA-G.R. CV No. 42237 and of make an occupant, cultivator, or a planter, a de
tenancy in this case. jure tenant which entitles him to security of tenure or to
coverage by the Land Reform Program of the
Nevertheless, respondents' claim of tenancy relationship government under existing tenancy laws.37
fails.
In Cunanan v. Aguilar,38 we held that a tenancy
Under RA No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agriculture
33
relationship can only be created with the true and lawful
Land Reform Code, which superseded RA No. 1199,34 the landowner who is the owner, lessee, usufructuary or
determination of the existence of an agricultural legal possessor of the land, to wit:cral awl aw lib rary

leasehold relation is not only a factual issue, but is also

an issue determined by the terms of the law. RA No. Under the foregoing factual milieu, private respondent's
3844 provides that agricultural leasehold relation is claims-(1) that petitioner was not agricultural tenant,
established: (1) by operation of law in accordance with and (2) that the recognition by the Court of Agrarian
Section 4 of the said act as a result of the abolition of the Relations of his alleged tenancy status has been secured
agricultural share tenancy system under RA No. 1199, thru misrepresentation and suppression of facts-must
and the conversion of share tenancy relations into prevail.
leasehold relations; or (2) by oral or written agreement, (1) By petitioner's own claim filed with the CAR in 1970
either express or implied.35 While petitioners Cadiz and he was constituted as tenant on the land by Pragmacio
Victoria claim to be instituted as tenants in 1962 or Paule. Paule was, however, ordered to vacate the holding
during the effectivity of RA No. 1199, and petitioners and surrender the same to private respondents herein,
Villar and Dela Cruz claim to be instituted in 1972 or the heirs of Ciriaco Rivera, as early as December 8, 1964
during the effectivity of RA No. 3844, the principles in by the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No.
1477. Therefore, Paule's institution of petitioner as decision of the CA.
tenant in the holding did not give rise to a tenure
relationship. Tenancy relationship can only be There being no agricultural tenancy relationship between
created with the consent of the true and lawful petitioners and respondents, the DARAB acted beyond its
landowner who is the owner, lessee, usufructuary jurisdiction when it ordered petitioners, among other
or legal possessor of the land. It cannot be created things, to restore possession of the lands to respondents.
by the act of a supposed landowner, who has no
right to the land subject of the tenancy, much less WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The DARAB
by one who has been dispossessed of the same by Quezon City Decision dated July 5, 2006 and the
final judgement.39 (Emphasis supplied; citations Resolution dated March 11, 2009 in DARAB Cases Nos.
omitted.) 10543 and 10544, as well as the affirmed Decision of the
In this case, Ibuna's institution of respondents as tenants DARAB-Region 2 dated October 14, 2000, are
did not give rise to a tenure relationship because Ibuna is hereby SET ASIDE. The complaints in DARAB Case Nos.
not the lawful landowner, either in the concept of an 11-2063-ISA 2000 and 11-2064-ISA 2000
owner or a legal possessor, of the properties. It is are DISMISSED.
undisputed that prior to the filing of the complaint with
the DARAB, the transfers of the properties to Ibuna and No costs.
his predecessor, Andres Castillo, were declared void in
separate and previous proceedings.40 Since the transfers
were void, it vested no rights whatsoever in favor of
Ibuna, either of ownership and possession. It is also for
this reason that the DARAB erred in declaring Ibuna as a
legal possessor who may furnish a landholding to
respondents. That which is inexistent cannot give life to
anything at all.41
cr ala wred

Notably, upholding Ibuna as the legal possessor of the

properties is inconsistent with petitioners' homestead
since a homestead applicant is required to occupy and
cultivate the land for his own and his family's benefit,
and not for the benefit of someone else.42 Also, it must
be recalled that the CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 42237,
ordered respondents to reconvey the properties to
petitioners herein.43 Upholding respondents' claim for
tenancy, and consequently their possession of the
properties, would frustrate this final and executory