Sobremonte v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a 15.4954-hectare lot in Colonia, Tuburan, Cebu, co-owned by the petitioners-heirs of Julio and Felipa Sobremonte. This lot was placed under the government's Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program in 1972. Felipa Sobremonte, the registered owner, filed protests arguing the property could not be acquired under OLT because it had been partitioned and sold/donated to her children prior to the OLT coverage and that no tenancy relationship existed with the identified farmer-beneficiaries. Procedural History: The Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) dismissed Felipa's protests, finding the transfers invalid for lack of registration and affirming the OLT coverage. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Director affirmed this dismissal, ruling that the unregistered deeds of sale/donation and the farmers' disclaimer of tenancy were insufficient grounds for exemption. The DAR Secretary later denied Felipa's appeal, affirming the OLT coverage but allowing Felipa to retain seven hectares and directing the issuance of Certificates of Agricultural Leasehold and Emancipation Patents for the tenants. The Petition: The petitioners, heirs of Julio and Felipa Sobremonte, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the DAR Secretary's order. The CA dismissed their petition, deeming certiorari the wrong remedy and stating a petition for review under Rule 43 was appropriate. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that certiorari was the proper remedy to address the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the DAR and the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of being the wrong mode of appeal. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail resolutions of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing its assailed resolutions. The resolutions dated January 25, 2011 and September 8, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 05016 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Propriety of Remedy and Grave Abuse of Discretion): The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA in dismissing the certiorari petition, as it was supported by law and jurisprudence. The Court reiterated that certiorari requires the tribunal to be exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and lacking any other adequate remedy. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to act. The petitioners' claim that certiorari was the only sufficient remedy was rejected, as the proper procedural avenue was clearly defined. On Issue 2 (Correct Mode of Appeal): The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the wrong mode of appeal. Citing Section 60 of R.A. No. 6657, R.A. No. 7902, and Supreme Court Circular No. 1-95, the Court held that Rule 43 of the Rules of Court governs judicial review of DAR Secretary's decisions. Pursuing certiorari under Rule 65 instead of the mandatory petition for review under Rule 43 constitutes opting for the wrong mode of appeal, warranting dismissal.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail resolutions of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary; the correct remedy is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Resorting to the wrong mode of appeal warrants dismissal.