Case Digest (G.R. No. 170956)
Facts:
Felisa R. Ferrer v. Domingo Carganillo, Sergio Carganillo, Soledad Agustin and Marcelina Solis, G.R. No. 170956, May 12, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Felisa R. Ferrer filed four separate ejectment-and-damages complaints before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) against different respondents; each complaint was assigned a DARAB docket number and later appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and then to the Court of Appeals (CA). The four cases are DARAB Case No. 7862 (against Domingo and Sergio Carganillo), DARAB Case No. 7863 (against Soledad Agustin), DARAB Case No. 7864 (filed in representation of Rosa Pajarito, Elvira Madolora and Anastacia Lagado against Marcelina Solis), and DARAB Case No. 7865 (filed by Irene Aguinaldo and Felisa Ferrer against Marcelina Solis).
DARAB Case No. 7862: Felisa alleged ownership of a 6,000 sq.m. agricultural lot tenanted by Domingo, who allegedly subleased or mortgaged his possessory rights to his brother Sergio for P15,000; petitioner relied on a MARO investigation report by Legal Officer Dionisio Estimada, an affidavit of Angela Clarion, and later produced an original document dubbed the "Katulagan" (an agreement/acknowledgment of indebtedness). PARAD Rodolfo A. Caddarao dismissed the complaint (April 8, 1998) for lack of clear and convincing proof of subleasing; DARAB (Jan. 27, 2004) affirmed; petitioner sought review in the CA via Petition for Review—CA (Aug. 22, 2005) affirmed the DARAB decision. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
DARAB Case No. 7863: Felisa claimed that the late tenant Isabelo Ramirez subleased to Soledad without the landowner’s consent. PARAD dismissed (Apr. 13, 1998); DARAB (Jan. 7, 2004) dismissed the appeal; CA (Aug. 22, 2005) affirmed. Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration and submitted new evidence (affidavits, survey plan) in a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration to DARAB, which the DARAB did not consider; these proceedings were included in the consolidated appeals raised before the CA and thereafter the Supreme Court.
DARAB Cases No. 7864 and 7865 (against Marcelina Solis): Felisa (representing other co-owners in No. 7864 and co-owner in No. 7865) alleged nonpayment of lease rentals for several years and failure to deliver shares from a purported third cropping. PARAD dismissed both complaints (Apr. 14, 1998); DARAB dismissed on appeal; CA affirmed. Petitioner consolidated the four appeals at various stages and sought relief in this Cou...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the DARAB and the Court of Appeals correctly exclude the "Katulagan" as inadmissible evidence?
- Did petitioner prove by the required quantum of proof that Domingo subleased or mortgaged his tenancy to Sergio in DARAB Case No. 7862, thereby warranting their ejectment?
- May new evidence attached to a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration before the DARAB be admitted at that stage?
- Did petitioner establish subleasing in DARAB Case No. 7863 (the case against Soledad Agustin)?
- Must the appeals/cases against Marcelina Solis (DARAB Case Nos. 7864 and 7865) be dismissed for procedural defects and/or on the merits for fai...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)