Po v. Dampal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Florencio and Ester Causin mortgaged two farm lots in Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon to the Rural Bank of Tagoloan, Inc. for ₱33,000.00. Due to non-payment, the bank foreclosed the mortgage, and petitioner Susan G. Po (Susan) emerged as the highest bidder at the public auction sale on July 8, 1992. Consequently, the original certificates of title were cancelled, and transfer certificates of title were issued in Susan's name. Subsequently, Susan sold one of the lots to petitioner Lilia G. Mutia (Lilia). Procedural History: On September 29, 1994, the spouses Causin and their tenant, respondent Omero Dampal (Dampal), filed a complaint against the bank for the annulment of the real estate mortgage and sale. While this case was pending, Dampal filed a complaint with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Region X on June 16, 1997, seeking legal redemption with a preliminary mandatory injunction. The Regional Adjudicator denied Dampal's redemption claim, citing prescription but acknowledging his security of tenure and deeming substantial compliance with notice rules due to the pending annulment case. Dampal's motion for reconsideration was denied. He appealed to the DARAB Central Office, which reversed the Adjudicator's ruling, holding that Dampal, as a tenant, had the right to redeem the property and that the right had not prescribed due to the lack of written notice. The DARAB Central Office ordered the cancellation of the titles in the names of Susan and Lilia and the issuance of new ones in Dampal's favor upon payment of the redemption amount. Susan and Lilia's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners Susan and Lilia appealed the DARAB Decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed their petition, holding that they should have appealed under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, not Rule 65. Their subsequent motion for leave to amend their petition was also denied, as was their motion for reconsideration. Hence, they filed the present petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing their case on a technicality and that Dampal's right of redemption had prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of improper remedy. Whether respondent Omero Dampal's right of legal redemption had prescribed. Whether the lack of written notice to Dampal and the DAR regarding the sale of the landholding affects the prescriptive period for legal redemption.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Respondent Dampal's right of legal redemption had not prescribed due to the lack of written notice. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the DARAB Central Office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the improper remedy: The Court held that the petitioners' resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to appeal the DARAB Decision to the Court of Appeals was an incorrect mode of appeal. Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and Section 1, Rule XV of the 2003 DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure, appeals from decisions of the DARAB should be filed with the Court of Appeals through a verified petition for review. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not mere technicalities and should not be disregarded to suit the convenience of a party, as they ensure the orderly and speedy administration of justice. The Court found no exceptional circumstances, such as public welfare or the broader interest of justice, that would warrant treating the certiorari petition as a petition for review. On the issue of prescription of the right of legal redemption: The Court affirmed the DARAB Central Office's ruling that Dampal's right of legal redemption had not prescribed. This was based on the express requirement under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, which mandates that the 180-day period for exercising the right of redemption must be reckoned from the notice in writing served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon registration of the sale. The admitted lack of written notice to Dampal and the DAR meant that the prescriptive period had not commenced to run. On the issue of the lack of written notice: The Court reiterated that the absence of written notice to the tenant and the DAR is indispensable for the running of the prescriptive period for legal redemption. Petitioners' contention that Dampal had constructive knowledge of the sale due to the pending civil case for annulment was rejected because the law specifically requires notice in writing. The express requirement for written notice overrides any claim of constructive notice or substantial compliance. Therefore, the tolling of the prescriptive period due to the lack of written notice was correctly applied by the DARAB.
Main Doctrine
The failure to provide written notice to the agricultural lessee and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) regarding the sale of the landholding tolls the running of the prescriptive period for the exercise of the right of legal redemption. Reliance on constructive notice is insufficient when the law expressly requires written notice.