Case Digest (G.R. No. 241353)
Facts:
The case is Romero v. Sombrino, G.R. No. 241353, January 22, 2020, First Division of the Supreme Court, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the heirs of Lutero Romero (Danilo Romero, Victorio Romero and El Romero, collectively the petitioners Heirs of Lutero) and respondent is Crispina Sombrino.The subject is a two-hectare portion of Lot No. 23, Pls-35 (part of an aggregate 12.0717 hectares) covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-2261, registered in the name of Lutero after his homestead patent was approved in 1967. Prior litigation culminated in this Court’s final decision in Teodora Saltiga de Romero, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. (De Romero v. CA, G.R. No. 109307), which held Lutero to be the true and lawful owner and declared earlier purported sales null and void under Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the Public Land Act).
After De Romero v. CA became final, the petitioners Heirs of Lutero sought execution of the judgment; the RTC issued a writ of execution (June 16, 2003) and a writ of demolition (March 29, 2005), leading to Sombrino’s ouster on April 5, 2005. Sombrino then filed before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) a Complaint for Illegal Ejectment and Recovery of Possession (DARAB Case No. X-543-LN-2005), claiming she had been installed as a tenant by the Spouses Eugenio and Teodora Romero in 1952 and thus enjoyed security of tenure.
On October 28, 2005, the PARAD declared Crispina Sombrino a de jure tenant and ordered her reinstatement; its Motion for Reconsideration denial followed (Order Jan. 12, 2006). The petitioners appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), which on June 28, 2010 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the PARAD Decision, reasoning that an agricultural leasehold persists through transfers and binds successors (citing Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3844). A Motion for Reconsideration to the DARAB was denied in its February 26, 2016 Resolution.
The petitioners then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 07367-MIN). On January 22, 2018 the Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the DARAB (assailed Decision), and its denial of a Motion for Reconsideration was reflected in a June 8, 2018 Resolution (assailed Resolution). The petit...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court, in a Rule 45 petition, review and reverse the factual findings of the CA/DARAB/PARAD in this case?
- Was Crispina Sombrino a de jure agricultural tenant of the subject landholding entitled to sec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)