Puertollano v. Delavin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Juan P. Puertollano and Elena A. Puertollano filed a complaint for ejectment and damages against Delfin Delavin, Regalado Dableo, Damian Escorel, Alberto Escorel, and Jun Almodal. The Puertollanos alleged that the respondents had entered portions of their grazing land in Masbate, constructed nipa huts, and cultivated the land without permission. Efforts to have the respondents vacate through the Barangay Captain had failed. Procedural History: The respondents moved to refer the case to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, claiming they were bona fide tenants. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the referral. The Puertollanos filed an opposition, a motion for reconsideration, and subsequently a notice of appeal of the RTC's referral order. The case was elevated to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. The Puertollanos then filed the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the IAC's decision, raising three main legal issues: whether their appeal of the RTC's referral order was premature, whether the referral order was final or interlocutory, and whether the mere claim of tenancy by the respondents was sufficient basis for referral under Presidential Decrees Nos. 316 and 1038. They argue that the RTC should have first established the tenancy relationship before referring the case, citing precedent. The petition specifically questions the IAC's finding that the appeal was premature due to a pending motion for reconsideration and its characterization of the referral order as interlocutory.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners' appeal of the RTC's order of referral was premature. Whether the RTC's order of referral is interlocutory or final in character. Whether the mere claim of tenancy by the private respondents is sufficient basis to justify the referral of the ejectment case to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform pursuant to Presidential Decrees Nos. 316 and 1038.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Intermediate Appellate Court's decision dismissing the appeal is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prematurity of appeal: The Court held that while a motion for reconsideration was pending, the subsequent filing of a notice of appeal by the petitioners effectively abandoned the motion for reconsideration and opted for the remedy of appeal. Therefore, the appeal was not premature. The appellate court's observation that the appeal was premature due to a pending motion for reconsideration was superseded by the petitioners' subsequent act of filing a notice of appeal, which signifies their intent to pursue the appeal. On the character of the order of referral: The Court ruled that the order of referral is final and appealable, not interlocutory. A final order is one that finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the rights of the parties, or some definite branch thereof, and concludes them until reversed. The order settling the issue of whether the case should be referred to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform definitively concludes the matter of referral before the trial court, making it a final order. On the sufficiency of the claim for referral: The Court clarified that Presidential Decrees Nos. 316 and 1038 mandate that ejectment cases involving agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn, or cases designed to harass or remove a tenant, must first be referred to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for a preliminary determination of the landlord-tenant relationship. The trial court cannot take cognizance of such cases without this preliminary determination. The claim of tenancy by the respondents, even if not yet established, is precisely the basis for the mandatory referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform for such preliminary determination. The ruling in Castro v. Court of Appeals was distinguished, as it involved a situation where the tenancy relationship had already been determined by the trial court, rendering referral unnecessary.
Main Doctrine
An order referring an ejectment case to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform for preliminary determination of the landlord-tenant relationship is a final and appealable order, as it definitively settles the issue of referral, and the trial court cannot assume jurisdiction without such preliminary determination.