Facts:

• The case involves a 2.2277-hectare agricultural land in Barangay Obong, Basista, Pangasinan.
• The land was registered under TCT No. T-31822 in the name of Nicolasa Tamondong Vda. de Perez.
• Petitioners are Nicolasa's heirs: Purificacion Perez-Rosario, Federico Rosario, Ricardo Perez, Maria Paz Perez-Pasion, Gualberto Perez, Ladislao Perez, Marcelo Perez, and Teodora Perez.
• Respondents include the Court of Appeals (CA), DARAB, Mercedes Resultay, Basilio Cayabyab, Federico Baniqued, and Arturo Resultay (heir of deceased Miguel Resultay).
• On January 28, 1973, Nicolasa sold the property to Miguel Resultay with a right to repurchase.
• Miguel was cultivating the land under a 50-50 sharing basis of the rice harvest.
• After the sale, Miguel stopped delivering shares to Nicolasa.
• In 1976, Miguel sub-leased a half-hectare to Basilio Cayabyab for seven cavans per cropping season.
• Nicolasa died on July 15, 1977, and her heirs repurchased the property from Miguel on November 29, 1983, for P16,000.
• Post-repurchase, Miguel resumed delivering 50% of the rice harvest to the heirs, and Basilio continued paying lease rentals.
• In 1988, the heirs filed an ejectment complaint against the respondents for non-payment of lease rentals, unauthorized house construction, and sub-leasing without consent.
• Respondents claimed they were agricultural lessees or hired farm workers.
• The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator ruled in favor of the petitioners, but DARAB reversed this, declaring respondents as agricultural lessees.
• The CA affirmed DARAB's decision, leading the petitioners to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the CA and DARAB.
• Mercedes Resultay and Basilio Cayabyab w...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to show they had no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, as an appeal under Rule 45 was available.
• A special civil action of certiorari cannot substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.
• The findings of fact by the DARAB and CA were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive and binding.
• Petitioners d...continue reading