G.R. No. 182375 - Suib vs. Ebbah

Petitioner Hadja Rawiya Suib’s late husband owned a parcel of land measuring 12.6220 hectares in Sapu Masla, Malapatan, Sarangani Province, covered by OCT No. P-19714, acquired through a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale from Sagap Hadji Taib on December 14, 1981.
A controversy arose when, in March 1990, Suib filed a criminal case of qualified theft against respondent Emong Ebbah for allegedly harvesting coconuts illegally from the subject property.

As a defense, Ebbah claimed that he had been a tenant on the property since 1963, instituted by Suib’s deceased husband, thereby asserting a right to harvest fruits from the lands.
Suib countered that her husband could not have instituted tenancy in 1963 since he had only acquired the property in 1981.

Suib had previously filed a criminal case of qualified theft against Ebbah before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Malapatan (Criminal Case No. 1793-M), which was dismissed.
Ebbah subsequently filed a case against Suib before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) in Region XI (Case No. XI-0330-SC-90) on January 31, 1990, seeking immediate reinstatement and damages.
The PARAB, upon finding no tenancy relationship, dismissed the case for lack of merit. Later, on appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed the PARAB decision and ruled in favor of Ebbah, establishing an implied tenancy relationship based on longstanding occupancy, sharing of produce, and past conduct.

After the DARAB Decision (dated September 10, 1993, and later revised on June 5, 1998) and a denial of her Motion for Reconsideration (December 21, 1998), Suib filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals on April 7, 2006.
The Court of Appeals directed Suib to submit various documents, notably a legible, certified copy of the DARAB Decision, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43 in relation to Section 1(g), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
Suib complied partially by submitting supplements, but the DARAB Decision was not attached until nearly two months later, prompting the Court of Appeals to dismiss her petition due to her non-compliance with the procedural requirement.

It is noted that Suib filed her appeal eight (8) years after receiving the adverse DARAB Decision and Resolution, a delay which far exceeded the reglementary period provided under the Rules of Court.
Additionally, rather than filing a petition for review under Rule 45, Suib filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which is only available where no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.
The petition for certiorari was challenged on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in dismissing the appeal for failure to attach the required DARAB Decision.

Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy in place of a petition for review under Rule 45.
Whether the dismissal of Suib’s appeal by the Court of Appeals constitutes grave abuse of discretion or an excess or lack of jurisdiction due to her failure to attach the required DARAB Decision within the prescribed period.
Whether the eight-year delay in filing the appeal, after having received the adverse DARAB Decision, negatively affected Suib’s right or opportunity to invoke the remedy.
Whether procedural non-compliance — particularly the failure to furnish a complete record with the mandated attachments — justified the dismissal of the petition.