Dycoco v. Siapno-Sanchez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Jesus and Joela Dycoco filed a complaint for ejectment, cancellation of certificates of land transfer, damages, and injunction against private respondents Nelly Siapno-Sanchez and Inocencio Berma, among others. The Dycocos alleged they were the registered owners of Lot No. 216 and that the respondents had unlawfully entered, occupied, and cultivated the property, registering themselves as tenants for agrarian reform purposes without paying rentals. They further claimed the respondents subleased their portions in violation of agrarian reform laws. Procedural History: The Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB initially ruled in favor of the Dycocos, ordering the ejectment of Siapno-Sanchez and Berma and finding them not worthy as beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27. However, the DARAB later reversed this decision, finding that Siapno-Sanchez and Berma were indeed owners of their respective portions by virtue of Operation Land Transfer under PD 27, and thus ejectment would not lie. The Dycocos appealed this DARAB decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the Dycocos' appeal due to late filing, despite granting an extension. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: The Spouses Dycoco filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of their appeal. They argued that the CA gravely abused its discretion by dismissing their petition for review due to late filing, claiming compelling reasons such as deprivation of property without just compensation and denial of due process. They invoked liberality in the construction of procedural rules. The Supreme Court, however, found that certiorari under Rule 65 was the wrong remedy, as an appeal under Rule 45 was available, and that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to comply with the prescribed filing periods.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review due to late filing. Whether petitioners were deprived of property without just compensation. Whether petitioners were denied due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. It held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45. The Court found that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for late filing, as petitioners admitted to filing beyond the extended period. The Court also ruled that the issues of just compensation and due process were belatedly raised and not substantiated, and that petitioners had ample opportunity to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Supreme Court held that petitioners availed of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action that may only be resorted to in the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals were final and appealable judgments. Therefore, the proper recourse was to file an appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence. The failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period cannot be remedied by merely alleging grave abuse of discretion. On grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for late filing. The Court of Appeals granted petitioners a 15-day extension to file their petition, which was in accordance with Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners, however, admitted to filing their petition five days after the expiration of this extended period. The Court stated that the Court of Appeals simply applied the rules, and petitioners failed to observe them. Grave abuse of discretion requires a showing that the respondent court acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner, which was not demonstrated by the petitioners. The petitioners merely framed the issue as grave abuse of discretion without substantiating it. On deprivation of property without just compensation: The Supreme Court noted that while petitioners are entitled to just compensation, they did not raise this issue in the lower courts and only brought it up for the first time on appeal. The settled rule is that issues not raised in the proceedings below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the DARAB has primary, original, and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving payments for lands awarded under Presidential Decree No. 27. The Court also clarified that the right to just compensation does not include the reacquisition of ownership and possession of property transferred under PD 27, as such landholdings do not revert to the original owner. On denial of due process: The Supreme Court found no denial of due process. Petitioners had ample opportunity to defend their interests and were heard on the matter of the timeliness of the private respondents' notice of appeal. They submitted comments and oppositions in the lower courts, arguing that the appeal was filed out of time. The Court also pointed out that the finding that the notice of appeal was filed on time, particularly for Siapno-Sanchez, was a question of fact that could not be raised in a certiorari proceeding. Regarding Berma, the Court found that service of the Provincial Adjudicator's decision was not properly completed upon him, thus his notice of appeal was also timely filed.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45. The Court of Appeals' dismissal of a petition for late filing, when the rules are clear and the petitioner admits to the delay, does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.