G.R. No. 137881 - Delgado vs. Court of Appeals

Plaintiffs alleged that they were duly registered and recognized as tenants by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Region VIII, Tacloban City, on rice lands owned by defendant Isaac Delgado and managed by his son, defendant Fernando Delgado.
The tenure relationship commenced around 1962 with the plaintiffs authorized to cultivate the lands under a 50-50 sharing arrangement of the produce with defendant Isaac Delgado.
Sometime in 1982, the sharing scheme was modified to a 1/4-3/4 basis in favor of the plaintiffs, in accordance with Republic Act (RA) 3844 as amended by Republic Act (RA) 6389, though this revision was not accepted by the defendants.

Following the change of sharing arrangement, and subsequent sale of their share with proceeds deposited at the Philippine National Bank (PNB), the plaintiffs were later identified by the DAR as qualified beneficiaries under Operation Land Transfer initiated after the effectivity of Presidential Decree (PD) 27 on October 21, 1972.
Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) were generated and issued to the respective plaintiffs, and later, in January 1987, Emancipation Patents (EPAs) were issued as recognition that the plaintiffs were the de jure tenant-beneficiaries.

In January 1985, defendants allegedly destroyed and razed newly planted rice crops and resorted to threats, including the pointing of a gun by defendant Fernando Delgado, to force the plaintiffs’ ejectment from the land.
These acts resulted in the plaintiffs being deprived of the fruits of their labor and their rights to possess and cultivate the subject land.

Plaintiffs initially filed an action for Reinstatement with Damages against the defendants, seeking the reinstatement of possession and compensation for damages.
The case was first filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palompon, Leyte, and later, a similar action was filed before the Lower Board, where the Provincial Adjudicator initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on July 27, 1993.
On a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendants, the Lower Board modified its decision on February 9, 1994, holding that the plaintiffs had forfeited their rights, effectively ordering the reallocation of the land.
Respondents (defendants) appealed to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), which reversed the reconsidered decision and reinstated the July 27, 1993 decision of the Provincial Adjudicator, confirming the plaintiffs as lawful tenant-beneficiaries.

Petitioners (the appellants in the CA review) filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court against the resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 49074.
The CA dismissed the petition outright on November 18, 1998, citing deficiencies both in form and substance—specifically, errors in the verification, lack of proper affidavit of service, and inadequate supporting documentation.
Petitioners subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which the appellate court denied due to the failure to adequately cure the procedural deficiencies.

In their respective memoranda, petitioners raised issues concerning the coverage of their property under PD 27, the entitlement to the right of retention, and the subsistence of the respondents’ right of possession.
Respondents raised issues on several procedural grounds, including the frivolous and dilatory nature of the petition, the abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition, the appropriateness of the remedy given the lost appeal, and substantive issues such as ownership rights and entitlement to damages.

Whether or not the strict application of the Rules of Court in requiring perfection of the appeal under Rule 45 was proper, despite the substantive merits of the underlying tenant-beneficiary case.
Whether the dismissal of the petition due to procedural deficiencies (insufficiency in form and substance) was justified and not amounting to grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the petitioners’ only property, measured at 2.9320 hectares, falls under the mandate of PD 27.
Whether petitioners are entitled to the right of retention as enshrined in PD 27.
Whether the respondents’ right of possession continues to subsist if the coverage of the property under PD 27 is determined to be erroneous.

Whether the present petition is frivolous and dilatory.
Whether the CA’s dismissal of the petition due to failure in complying with the mandatory requirements constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Whether the petition, filed in lieu of the lost remedy of appeal, can be taken cognizance of by the higher court.
Whether the res judicata principle applies in this case given the previous dismissal and the procedural posture of the earlier actions.
Whether respondents are the absolute owners of the land as awarded by the government under the land reform law and if they are entitled to claim damages.