Case Digest (G.R. No. 214241)
Facts:
Spouses Ramon and Ligaya Gonzales v. Marmaine Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 214241, January 13, 2016, Supreme Court First Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Spouses Ramon and Ligaya Gonzales filed a Complaint on October 30, 1997 before the Provincial Adjudicator, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Region IV (PARAD) for Recognition as Tenant with Damages and a Temporary Restraining Order against respondent Marmaine Realty Corporation (Tenancy Case). Marmaine filed a motion to dismiss, then an Answer with Counterclaim; the PARAD issued a writ of preliminary injunction on January 6, 1998. Petitioners thereafter caused a Notice of Lis Pendens to be recorded on September 26, 2000 on Marmaine’s certificates of title.
After trial, the PARAD issued a Decision dated June 27, 2002 dismissing petitioners’ complaint; its denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was entered August 7, 2002. Petitioners appealed to the DARAB, which affirmed in a Decision dated October 17, 2008; a motion for reconsideration was denied on March 23, 2009. The DARAB decision became final and executory on May 7, 2009, and an Entry of Judgment was issued on January 19, 2012.
Following finality of the DARAB ruling, Marmaine moved on January 31, 2012 for cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens. The PARAD initially denied the motion as premature in an Order dated May 15, 2012 because a separate civil case (Civil Case No. RY2K‑052) between the parties remained pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Rosario, Batangas, Branch 87. On reconsideration, however, the PARAD set aside its earlier order by Order dated December 4, 2012 directing the Register of Deeds of Batangas to cancel the lis pendens annotation, reasoning that cancellation was warranted in view of the final and executory judgment in the Tenancy Case and that the cancellation related only to that Tenancy Case and not to Civil Case No. RY2K‑052. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied October 16, 2013.
Petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA) on December 13, 2013. The CA, in a Resolution dated April 24, 2014, dismissed the petition for non‑exhaustion of administrative remedies, holding that the proper recourse from a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for review on the ground of non‑exhaustion of administrative remedies?
- Did the PARAD correctly order the cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens annotated on Marmaine’s certif...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)