FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197263. April 7, 2014.]
GREGORIO VALLEJO, petitioner, vs. BEATERIO DEL SANTISSIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 7, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 197263 — GREGORIO VALLEJO, Petitioner, versus BEATERIO DEL SANTISSIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents.
The instant petition assails the Resolutions dated February 9, 2010 1 and May 12, 2011 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP-UDK No. 0305 which denied the petition for review of Gregorio Vallejo (petitioner) under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court for being substantially and procedurally infirmed.
Antecedents
The subject of litigation is a portion of the landholding with an area of 3.68 hectares, out of the 22.0286 hectares, owned and registered in the name of Beaterio del Santisimo Rosario de Molo (Beaterio) known as Lot 1788 located at North Fundidor Molo, Iloilo City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10080.
Lot 1788 was placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by virtue of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27. In an Order 3 dated January 14, 1998, however, Lot 1788 was exempted from the CARP's coverage after investigations conducted by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARAD) of Iloilo City which resulted to the finding that Lot 1788 was formerly planted with rice and remained uncultivated for 10 years. 4 CAHaST
The petitioner, being one of the workers of the nuns of Beaterio, filed a complaint for maintenance, damages with prayer for issuance of injunction against Beaterio, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Barangay Captain Elizer Villanueva alleging, among others, that: (1) he has a tenancy relationship with Beaterio; (2) that he has been religiously paying his rentals equivalent to 60 sacks of palay per agricultural year; (3) that Beaterio's landholding was placed under the coverage of the Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. No. 27 by reason of which a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) was issued to a certain Dominador Reforma, who never cultivated the land; (4) that the landholding was re-allocated to the petitioner and a certain Romeo Layson; (5) in 1991, Beaterio made the petitioner sign a document and promised to give him 400 square meters provided that the petitioner returns his possession of the landholding to Beaterio; (6) the petitioner continued cultivating the land knowing that the document he signed was illegal; (7) the DAR refused to issue a CLT to the petitioner despite the Regional Director's order allocating a portion of the landholding to him; and (8) the petitioner's possession was disturbed when he was ejected from the property by a Beaterio's engineer and was threatened to be expelled from the community by the barangay captain. 5
In answer, the DAR invoked its immunity from suit for being a governmental department and averred that: (1) the petitioner ceased working on the landholding since 1989; (2) on December 21, 1993, the petitioner executed an affidavit to the effect that the landholding was no longer suitable for agricultural production as it has been intruded by sea water and has become saline and unproductive for crops; (3) that the petitioner was already old and incapable of working in the field; (4) that due to the petitioner's surrender of the land, he was given a disturbance compensation in the form of 200-sq.m. portion in Lot 1679-H plus P100,000.00 in the form of proceeds in the eventual sale of Lot 1679-G; (5) that the petitioner subsequently executed an affidavit admitting that he was an agricultural worker and not a lessee; (6) that since 1989, the landholding remained vacant; (7) that the petitioner, together with other complainants, was in fact an illegal settler occupying the premises by mere tolerance of Beaterio and was later on ejected from the area; (8) that the petitioner was only being made to transfer to the 200-sq.m. lot he agreed to have as part of his disturbance compensation; and (9) the petitioner was not entitled to the issuance of a CLT or even an Emancipation Patent since he has already surrendered the lot upon his acceptance of the aforesaid disturbance compensation. 6
In its Decision dated October 4, 2000, the PARAD ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered Beaterio, its agents and assigns to maintain the petitioner in peaceful possession of the subject landholding. 7
On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed 8 the PARAD's decision after finding that a tenancy relationship existed between the petitioner and Beaterio. The DARAB explained that the petitioner was entitled to security of tenure for being a de jure tenant; that the petitioner has not been paid his disturbance compensation, as agreed upon with Beaterio, because it was subject to an expectancy or future sale of Lot 1679-G; and, that the fact that the petitioner was still in possession and cultivation of the subject landholding negates Beaterio's claim that the former has voluntarily surrendered said landholding. acCDSH
However, acting on Beaterio's motion for reconsideration, the DARAB reversed 9 its decision. According to the DARAB, Lot 1788 was already classified as residential land, parks and open space zones per Zoning Ordinance No. 212, Series of 1977 of Iloilo City; 10 and "the petitioner was already paid his disturbance compensation by the [sic] reason of which he surrendered/vacated subject landholding." 11 If he miscalculated the advantages/disadvantages of such surrender for an agreed consideration, he must assume the consequence of his error. He cannot be allowed to reject them and undo what he has done. 12
This time, the petitioner sought reconsideration 13 arguing that the re-classification of the land to non-agricultural does not defeat vested rights of tenant-farmers like him over lands subject of leasehold. 14 In the Resolution 15 dated October 22, 2009, the DARAB denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The petitioner appealed to the CA. On December 18, 2009, he filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review. 16 The motion stated that he received the Notice of Resolutions 17 of the DARAB dated October 22, 2009 on December 3, 2009; that pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, he has until even date to appeal from the assailed DARAB decision and resolution; and that he is requesting for an additional 15-day period, or until January 2, 2009, within which to file the petition for review. The motion for extension was sent to the CA viaLBC Express, Inc., a private courier. 18
The petition for review to the CA was filed through registered mail on January 4, 2010. 19
On February 9, 2010, the CA resolved 20 to deny the petition for review for being belatedly filed. Citing Section 1 (d), Rule III 21 of the Internal Rules of the CA, it was explained that the motion for extension (MOTEX) of the petitioner was filed three days late because even if it was dated December 18, 2009 and sent on even date, it was actually filed on December 21, 2009, the date of receipt by the CA of the MOTEX from the LBC.
The CA added that the petitioner failed to indicate the date of receipt of the DARAB Resolution dated April 20, 2009 and the date when he filed a motion for reconsideration thereof, which are both material and required to be stated in the petition. Also, only the last pages and not each of the pages of Resolutions dated October 22, 2009 and April 20, 2009 were certified as true copies thereof in violation of Section 6, Rule 43. 22
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 23 invoking substantial compliance with the period for filing of the MOTEX; that filing by registered mail was not resorted to because December 18, 2009 24 was a holiday in Iloilo City; hence, the government post was closed; that it is a DARAB procedure to stamp as certified only the last or only page of the document emanating from its office; and that all documents enumerated in the petition were sufficiently discussed in the subsequent pleading.
Beaterio and the DAR opposed the motion saying that the petition was filed out of time because it is deemed filed on the date it was received in the Court (for having been filed through a private courier). Thus, the dismissal of the petition is sanctioned by Sections 4, 6 and 7 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
In a Resolution 25 dated May 12, 2011, the CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration for finding it bereft of merit.
Hence, this petition.
The petition is devoid of merit. cCESaH
The CA correctly discussed that the petitioner's MOTEX was filed after the lapse of the period sought to be extended. Based on the records, the motion for extension dated December 18, 2009 was sent on even date via LBC, a private courier. The date of its filing shall be the date of its actual receipt by the CA which was on December 21, 2009 pursuant to the CA's Internal Rules of Procedure. As discussed by the CA, it is a basic rule of remedial law that a MOTEX must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. 26 Moreover, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court explicitly requires that the petitioner must not only state the material dates of receipt of the assailed decision and resolution in order to determine the timeliness of the petition, but also to attach certified true copies of pertinent pleadings which are material portions of the record. All these, the petitioner failed to do.
In exceptional cases, the Court has in fact relaxed the period for perfecting an appeal on grounds of substantial justice or when there are other special and meritorious circumstances and issues. 27 Here, the petitioner failed to present any exceptional, special or meritorious circumstances that may excuse the belated filing of his MOTEX to file the petition for review before the CA. The fact that December 18, 2009 (last day of filing) was a holiday in Iloilo City where the petitioner's counsel resides, as claimed by the petitioner, is not a cogent reason for this Court to warrant the relaxation of the rules.
Moreover, it has been consistently held that "the bare invocation of the interest of substantial justice is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Strict compliance with the Rules of Court is indispensable for the orderly and speedy disposition of justice. The Rules must be followed; otherwise, they will become meaningless and useless." 28
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-35.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring; id. at 9-13.
3. Id. at 203-206.
4. Id. at 166.
5. Id. at 86-88.
6. Id. at 88-89.
7. Id. at 86.
8. Id. at 86-92.
9. Id. at 93-95.
10. Id. at 94.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 96-102.
14. Id. at 99.
15. Id. at 44-45.
16. Id. at 36-38.
17. Id. at 41-43.
18. Id. at 39.
19. Id. at 33.
20. Id. at 32-35.
21. Sec. 1. Manner of Filing; . . . —
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Pleadings, motions and other papers may also be filed by ordinary mail, private messengerial service or any mode other than personal delivery and registered mail as may be allowed by law of the Rules. However, they shall be deemed filed on the date and time of receipt by the Court, which shall be legibly stamped by the receiving clerk on the first page thereof and on the envelope containing the same, and signed by him.
22. Rollo, pp. 34-35.
23. Id. at 114-121.
24. Last day of filing the petition for review.
25. Rollo, pp. 9-13.
26. Id. at 12.
27. Anita Ramirez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197832, October 2, 2013.
28. Id., citing Mapagay v. People, G.R. No. 178984, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 470 and Dimarucot v. People, G.R. No. 183975, September 20, 2010, 630 SCRA 659, 668-669.