(GR No. 173329, Dec 21, 2009) Susan G. Po V. Omero Dampal

[ GR No.
173329, Dec 21, 2009 ]
SUSAN G. PO v. OMERO DAMPAL +
On December 19, 1984, two farm lots located in Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon which were covered
by OCT No. P-4146 and OCT No. 4147, with an approximate area of 2.5773 and 2.0651
hectares, respectively, were mortgaged for P33,000.00 by the spouses Florencio and Ester
Causin, through their attorney-in-fact Manuel Causin, to the now-defunct Rural Bank of
Tagoloan, Inc.
For failure to pay the obligation, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold the lots at public
auction on July 8, 1992 to petitioner Susan G. Po (Susan) who was the highest bidder. OCT No.
P-4146 and OCT No. 4147 were subsequently cancelled and TCT No. T-39280 and TCT No.
39281 were, in their stead, issued in Susan's favor, following the spouses Causin's failure to
redeem the property.
On September 13, 1993, Susan sold the lot covered by TCT No. 39281 to her herein co-
petitioner Lilia G. Mutia (Lilia) who was issued TCT No. T-40193.
On September 29, 1994, the spouses Causin and their tenant-herein respondent Omero Dampal
(Dampal) filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich a complaint against the bank
for Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and Sale, docketed as Civil Case No. 94-280 (the civil
case).
While the civil case was pending or on June 16, 1997, Dampal filed a complaint against Susan
and Lilia before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Region X,
for Legal Redemption with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, docketed as DARAB Case No. X-05-
361.
By Decision[1] of September 16, 1997, the Regional Adjudicator of DARAB Region X disallowed
the redemption prayed for on the ground of prescription, albeit he declared that Dampal is
entitled to security of tenure as a tenant; and that although Dampal was not given notice in
writing of the public auction sale, he was deemed to have knowledge thereof because of the
civil case for annulment, hence, there was substantial compliance with the rules.
Petitioners maintain that Dampal's right of redemption has prescribed, he having admitted
Susan's acquisition of title to the property as early as 1993 but that it was only in 1997 that he
filed the action for redemption before the DARAB. They thus conclude that the need for
sending him notice in writing could be dispensed with; and that Dampal's inaction estopped
him from asserting his right as a tenant.
ISSUE:
Jurisdiction
RULING:
The earlier-quoted Sec. 1 of Rule XIV of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure dwells
on how appeals to the DARAB Board from the decisions, resolutions or final orders of
the Adjudicator are to be taken. How petitioners could have been misled to file their appeal
from the DARAB's Decision to the Court of Appeals via certiorari escapes comprehension.
Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, appeals from the decisions of the DARAB should be filed
with the Court of Appeals by verified petition for review. Thus, Sec. 1 of Rule 43 provides:
SECTION 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the
Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized
by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these
agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social
Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and
Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board,
National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic
Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission,
Agricultural
Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of
Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators
authorized by law.
SECTION 2. Where to appeal. - An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of
Appeals within the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
SECTION 3. How appeal taken. - Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for
review x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Sec. 1, Rule XV of the 2003 DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure provides:
Section 1. Appeal to the Court of Appeals. - Any decision, order, resolution, award or ruling of the
Board on any agrarian dispute or any matter pertaining to the application, implementation,
enforcement, interpretation of agrarian reform laws or rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder, may be brought on appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof,
to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Rules of Court. (underscoring supplied)
While a petition for certiorari, when availed of as a wrong remedy, is dismissible, there are
exceptions thereto, viz: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates;
(b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void;
or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
[8]
None of these circumstances is present in the case at bar, however.
Technicality aside, on the merits, petitioners failed to establish that in deciding the case, the
DARAB committed grave abuse of discretion.
In its disquisition, the DARAB held that absence of written notice to the tenant of the sale, as
well as to the DAR, is indispensable, particularly in view of Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844,
as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, which mandates that the 180-day period must be
reckoned from the notice in writing upon registration of the sale.
Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, as amended by
Republic Act No. 6389, otherwise known as the Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines,
provides:
Sec. 12. Lessee's right of redemption. - In case the landholding is sold to a third person without
the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the
same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more
agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the
area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised
within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall
be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform
upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal
redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the
sale. (emphasis supplied)
The admitted lack of written notice on Dampal and the DAR thus tolled the running of the
prescriptive period. Petitioners' contention that Dampal must be considered to have had
constructive knowledge thereof fails in light of the express requirement for notice to be in
writing.

(GR No. 173329, Dec 21, 2009) Susan G. Po V. Omero Dampal

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

(GR No. 173329, Dec 21, 2009) Susan G. Po V. Omero Dampal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(GR No. 173329, Dec 21, 2009) Susan G. Po V. Omero Dampal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[ GR No.

173329, Dec 21, 2009 ]

SUSAN G. PO v. OMERO DAMPAL +

Sec. 1, Rule XV of the 2003 DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure provides:

You might also like