Delgado vs. Court of Appeals

Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not a substitute for a lost appeal; the perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, and the failure to comply with formal requirements of Rule 45 (such as verification signed by the parties, affidavit of service, and submission of certified true copies) warrants dismissal of the petition. Additionally, a dismissal of a case "without prejudice" under Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court does not constitute res judicata, and abandonment of agrarian rights requires both intent to abandon and an external act expressing such intention.

The case involves a long-standing agrarian dispute between landowners (the Delgados) and their tenants (respondents) over ricelands in Barangay Tabunok, Palompon, Leyte. The tenants were appointed in 1962 and later identified as beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 (Operation Land Transfer), receiving Certificates of Land Transfer and Emancipation Patents. In 1985, the landowners allegedly ejected the tenants and prevented them from cultivating the land. The tenants initially filed a case in the Regional Trial Court which was dismissed without prejudice, and subsequently filed an administrative case before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) seeking reinstatement and damages.

• Respondents Zacarias Limpangog, Remegio Laguna, Santiago Baloro, Camilo Evangelista, Nemesio Amores, and Rustico Ruizo were registered tenants of ricelands owned by petitioner Isaac Delgado and administered by his son, petitioner Fernando Delgado, located at Barangay Tabunok, Palompon, Leyte, since 1962.
• From 1962 to 1981, the parties shared produce on a 50-50 basis; in 1982, the arrangement was changed to 1/4-3/4 in favor of respondents pursuant to Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, but petitioners refused to accept this.
• After the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972, the subject land being devoted to rice production was covered by Operation Land Transfer, and respondents were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as qualified beneficiaries.
• Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) were issued to respondents in their respective names, followed by Emancipation Patents (EPs) issued in 1987, registered with the Register of Deeds of Leyte.
• In January 1985, petitioners allegedly destroyed the rice plants cultivated by respondents and threatened them with a firearm, resulting in respondents' ejectment from the land.
• Prior to the DARAB case, respondents filed a case for Reinstatement with Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palompon, Leyte (Agrarian Case No. PK-0001) on June 18, 1987, which was dismissed on June 28, 1988, on motion of the plaintiffs (respondents), without stating that it was without prejudice.
• On May 27, 1987, respondents filed the same action before the Provincial Adjudicator (DARAB).
• Petitioners claimed that respondents abandoned their landholdings (three left for Butuan in 1971, three left in 1984 after receiving P3,000 each), and that respondents acquired CLTs and EPs fraudulently.
• The Provincial Adjudicator initially ruled for respondents (July 27, 1993), then reversed on reconsideration (February 9, 1994) holding that the RTC dismissal constituted abandonment and res judicata.
• The DARAB reversed the Provincial Adjudicator (January 9, 1998), finding no abandonment and that the RTC dismissal was without prejudice.
• Petitioners filed a petition for review in the CA which was dismissed for: (1) verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by counsel, not parties; (2) lack of affidavit of service and explanation on mode of service; and (3) submission of a mere Xerox copy of the assailed decision.

• The Court of Appeals should not have strictly applied procedural rules notwithstanding petitioners' meritorious case.
• The subject land with an area of 2.9320 hectares is covered by the mandate of PD 27.
• Petitioners are entitled to the right of retention as provided for by PD 27.
• Respondents' right of possession does not subsist if the coverage of the land under PD 27 was erroneous.
• The dismissal of the RTC case constituted res judicata, barring the subsequent DARAB complaint.
• Respondents abandoned their landholdings and voluntarily left in 1971 and 1984, forfeiting their rights as tenant-beneficiaries.
• Respondents acquired CLTs and EPs fraudulently and in bad faith.

• The instant petition is frivolous and dilatory.
• The dismissal of petitioners' petition for review for failure to comply with mandatory requirements of the Rules of Court was not done with grave abuse of discretion.
• The present petition could not be taken cognizance of as it is filed in lieu of the lost remedy of appeal.
• Res judicata has not set in because the RTC dismissal was without prejudice.
• Respondents are the absolute owners of the land awarded to them by the government through Operation Land Transfer.
• Respondents are entitled to damages for the unlawful acts of petitioners.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review under Rule 45 for insufficiency in form and substance due to: (a) verification signed by counsel instead of parties; (b) lack of affidavit of service; and (c) submission of a mere Xerox copy of the decision.
  • Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be treated as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the dismissal of the prior RTC case constituted res judicata barring the subsequent DARAB proceeding.
  • Whether respondents abandoned their rights as tenant-beneficiaries.
  • Whether petitioners are entitled to the right of retention under PD 27.
  • Whether the subject land is covered by PD 27.

• Procedural:
  • The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review. The perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision final and executory.
  • The right to appeal is a statutory privilege to be exercised only in accordance with law. The failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 45 (verification signed by parties, affidavit of service, certified true copies of material portions of records) is not a mere technicality but raises a jurisdictional problem as it deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal.
  • Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for lost appeal. The petition, originally filed as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, should be considered as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 since there was nothing to review on the merits due to the outright dismissal by the CA.
  • The doctrine that rules of technicality must yield to substantial justice does not apply where the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is involved, as this is jurisdictional.
• Substantive:
  • The dismissal of the RTC case did not constitute res judicata. Under Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court (then prevailing), a dismissal upon motion of the plaintiff is presumed to be without prejudice unless the order specifies otherwise. The RTC order merely stated "On motion of the plaintiffs, let this case be dismissed with cost de oficio" without specifying that it was with prejudice.
  • Res judicata does not apply when the dismissal of the earlier complaint was made without prejudice to its refiling at a future date or in a different venue. The dismissal without prejudice indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action.
  • Respondents cannot be held guilty of abandonment. Abandonment requires concurrence of two elements: (1) intent to abandon a right or claim, and (2) external act by which that intention is expressed and carried into effect. There must be an actual, not merely projected, relinquishment with the avowed intent of never returning.
  • The inference of abandonment is belied by the fact that respondents filed the proper case in the Provincial Adjudication Board immediately after the RTC dismissal. Abandonment is inconsistent with the filing of the same action in the appropriate forum.
  • The Court declined to rule on the issues of retention rights under PD 27 and coverage of the land reform law, as certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal and petitioners failed to perfect their appeal.

• Res Judicata — The principle that a matter once adjudicated by a competent court must be deemed finally disposed of and cannot be relitigated between the same parties. The Court held that this doctrine does not apply when the dismissal of the earlier case was "without prejudice" as it indicates the absence of a decision on the merits.
• Abandonment of Agrarian Rights — The relinquishment of a right or claim with the intent to permanently discontinue possession and cultivation. Requires both internal intent and external act. Mere departure from the landholding or dismissal of a prior case without prejudice does not constitute abandonment; filing a subsequent action for the same claim negates any inference of abandonment.
• Certiorari as Substitute for Appeal — Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. It is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment or procedure in the exercise of jurisdiction.
• Perfection of Appeals — The compliance with procedural requirements for appeals (verification, certification against forum shopping, mode of service, form of copies) is mandatory and jurisdictional, not merely technical. Failure to comply deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction.

• "Certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal."
• "The perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and that the failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision of the trial court final and executory."
• "While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problem as it deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal."
• "Abandonment may be said to result where there is concurrence of two (2) elements: the first being the intent to abandon a right or claim and the second being the external act by which that intention is expressed and carried into effect."
• "The principle of res judicata does not apply when the dismissal of the earlier complaint, involving the same plaintiffs, same subject matter, same theory and the same defendants, was made without prejudice to its refiling at a future date."

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals (322 SCRA 81) — Cited for the principle that the perfection of appeals is mandatory and jurisdictional, and certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal.
• Vallangca vs. Court of Appeals (173 SCRA 42) — Cited for the rule that a dismissal order silent as to whether it is with or without prejudice is presumed to be without prejudice.
• Barcelona vs. CA (412 SCRA 41) — Cited for the principle that dismissal without prejudice does not constitute res judicata.
• Roxas vs. Court of Appeals (363 SCRA 207) — Cited for the rule on dismissal without prejudice and res judicata.
• Segura vs. Segura (165 SCRA 368) — Cited for the principle that dismissal without prejudice allows refiling.
• Meliton vs. Court of Appeals (216 SCRA 485) — Cited for the rule that discontinuance of a case not on the merits does not bar another action.
• Estolas vs. Mabalot (381 SCRA 702) — Cited for the definition of abandonment requiring intent and external act.
• Corpus vs. Grospe (333 SCRA 435) — Cited for the elements of abandonment.
• Medrana vs. Office of the President (188 SCRA 818) — Cited for the requirement of actual relinquishment in abandonment.
• Donato vs. Court of Appeals (417 SCRA 216) — Cited for the distinction between Rule 45 and Rule 65 remedies.

• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court; cited regarding requirements for perfection of appeals.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Governs certiorari; cited as the proper remedy when assailing jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion, but not as substitute for lost appeal.
• Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court (Old) — Provided that unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal upon plaintiff's motion shall be without prejudice; cited to determine that the RTC dismissal was without prejudice.
• Presidential Decree No. 27 — The Code of Agrarian Reform (Operation Land Transfer); cited regarding coverage of ricelands and issuance of Certificates of Land Transfer and Emancipation Patents.
• Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), as amended by Republic Act No. 6389 — Cited regarding the 75-25 sharing arrangement in favor of tenants.