Duremdes v. Duremdes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Shirley Duremdes owned a 50,000 square meter parcel of land. While she was working abroad, her parents, Cresenciano Duremdes and Hortencia Bataga, and her brother Nelson Duremdes, administered the property. Upon her return, Shirley demanded they vacate the land as she intended to sell it, but they refused. She then agreed to sell the property to her uncle, Agustin Duremdes, executing a deed of conditional sale on May 31, 1989, for P40,000. Despite this sale and Agustin's demands, Cresenciano and Nelson continued to refuse to vacate. Cresenciano claimed the property was occupied by an agricultural tenant, Herminio Tara, who was also his brother-in-law. Agustin later discovered Herminio had been Cresenciano's tenant since 1979, confirmed by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. Procedural History: Agustin Duremdes filed a complaint for recovery of possession, ownership, and damages against Cresenciano and Nelson Duremdes. The defendants denied possession, alleging Herminio Tara was the possessor and tenant. The trial court granted Agustin's motion for judgment on the pleadings, declaring Agustin the owner and ordering the defendants to vacate and deliver possession. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the trial court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine actual possession. After Agustin's wife, Dolores Duremdes, was substituted as plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed. Following trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the defendants to deliver possession of a 3-hectare portion of the land and pay damages and attorney's fees. The defendants appealed again to the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision regarding Cresenciano Duremdes but dismissed the complaint against Nelson Duremdes, finding that Herminio Tara was Cresenciano's tenant and the actual possessor. The CA noted that while Cresenciano claimed Herminio was Agustin's tenant, evidence indicated Herminio was Cresenciano's tenant on Agustin's land. The Petition: Petitioner Cresenciano Duremdes filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that the CA's finding that Herminio Tara was his tenant, and thus remained so even after the property's ownership changed, was correct. He contended that the existence of a tenancy relationship placed the case under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board (DARAB). The petitioner asserted that the issue of jurisdiction could still be raised as the CA's decision brought it to the fore. He prayed for the CA's decision to be set aside due to lack of jurisdiction, given the property was occupied by a registered agricultural tenant not impleaded in the case. Respondent Dolores Duremdes moved for dismissal, arguing the petition was filed out of time. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding it was indeed filed late and that the petitioner's excuses were insufficient. Furthermore, the Court held that the issue of tenancy was a question of fact, not reviewable under Rule 45, and that the petitioner was barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction after participating in the proceedings without objection.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed out of time. Whether the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction over the case due to an alleged tenancy agreement. Whether the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are binding on the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto. The petition was dismissed primarily because it was filed out of time. The Court also ruled that the issue of jurisdiction could no longer be raised by the petitioner, and that the findings of fact by the lower courts were conclusive.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court found that the petition for review on certiorari was filed out of time. The petitioner's counsel was served notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration on March 24, 1999. While a motion for extension was granted, the petitioner was given only thirty (30) days from April 8, 1999, to file the petition, which expired on May 9, 1999. The petition was only filed on July 8, 1999, significantly beyond the extended deadline. The Court rejected the petitioner's counsel's excuses for the delay, emphasizing that members of the bar are presumed to know procedural rules and cannot feign ignorance. The Court reiterated that while procedural rules can be relaxed for persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant of injustice, such relaxation requires an adequate explanation for non-compliance, which was not sufficiently provided. On the jurisdiction of DARAB: The Court held that the petitioner was barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction. The petitioner had actively participated in all stages of the case before the regular courts, including filing a counterclaim and seeking affirmative relief. By invoking the jurisdiction of the RTC and CA, he could not subsequently turn around and question it. Furthermore, for DARAB to have jurisdiction, a tenancy relationship must be established with all its indispensable elements: (1) landowner and tenant; (2) agricultural land; (3) consent; (4) purpose of agricultural production; (5) personal cultivation; and (6) shared harvest. The trial court and the CA found that no such tenancy agreement existed between the respondent and Herminio Tara, and that the allegation was a mere ploy. The Supreme Court found no cogent reason to reverse this finding. On the conclusiveness of factual findings: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. The petitioner's assertion that the CA erred in its findings regarding the tenancy agreement presented a factual issue, which is beyond the purview of the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court found that the instant case did not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to this rule, such as findings based on speculation, manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, or misapprehension of facts.
Main Doctrine
A party who actively participated in all stages of a case and invoked the jurisdiction of the regular courts cannot later question that jurisdiction, especially when seeking affirmative relief. Furthermore, the Supreme Court will not disturb findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, especially when affirmed by the trial court, unless specific exceptions apply, and a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not the proper venue for re-evaluating evidence.