Case Summary (G.R. No. 196598)
Background of the Case
Editha B. Albor served as the agricultural lessee of two parcels of land—1.60 hectares of riceland and 1.5110 hectares of sugarland—located in Barangay Dinginan, Roxas City, under Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-108 (522) registered in the name of Rosario Andrada, who had since passed away. Following the death of her lessor, Editha continued paying rent to Rosario's heirs. A dispute arose when Editha was informed by the new owners, respondents Nerva Macasil and Norma Beluso, of their acquisition of Lot 2429 from the heirs of Rosario, without any deed of sale being presented.
Proceedings Before the Departments
Editha invoked her right to redeem the property based on Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, which grants a lessee the right to redeem sold land within 180 days from notice of the sale. Editha argued that since the deed of sale had yet to be registered, the redemption period had not commenced. Respondents contended that Editha had prior knowledge of the sale and had failed to exercise her preemptive right.
Initial Decision by the PARAD
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) determined that Editha had not received proper notification of the sale under the law, ruling that her right of redemption had not expired. However, Editha's complaint was ultimately dismissed because she had only consigned P216,000.00 against the total redemption price of P600,000.00, which was not in accordance with legal requirements for redemption.
Appeal and Procedural Issues
Editha appealed the decision to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), which upheld the PARAD’s ruling. Following this, Editha sought to file a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA) but encountered procedural difficulties when issues arose regarding her previous attorney's withdrawal and her subsequent retention of new counsel. She filed two motions for extensions of time to submit her review petition.
CA Resolutions on Appeal
The Court of Appeals dismissed Editha's petition for review as having been filed out of time, citing her failure to obtain the necessary extensions. The CA rejected her claim to a second extension, deeming her reasons insufficient, and this dismissal was the focus of Editha's subsequent petition for certiorari before this Court.
Legal Basis for the Dismissal
The Court held that Editha employed the incorrect procedural reme
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 196598)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioner Editha B. Albor seeks to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals' resolutions dated September 24, 2009, and February 15, 2011.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed Editha’s appeal from the October 8, 2008, decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) due to being filed out of time.
Facts of the Case
- Editha was the agricultural lessee of a 1.60-hectare riceland and a 1.5110-hectare sugarland portion of Lot 2429 in Roxas City.
- Lot 2429 was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-108 (522) in the name of Rosario Andrada and her husband, Ramon Gardose.
- Editha had been paying rent to the heirs of Rosario Andrada.
- On September 22, 2000, Editha was invited by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) to discuss the sale of Lot 2429, which she learned had been purchased by respondents, Nerva Macasil and Norma Beluso.
- Editha later found an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Deed of Sale from the Clerk of Court, revealing the sale had occurred on June 6, 1997, for P600,000.00.
- Editha filed a complaint for redemption and damages, asserting her right under R.A. No. 3844, claiming she was not properly notified of the sale.
Proceedings Before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
- The PARAD ruled in favor of Editha regarding notification but dismissed her complaint due to insufficient redemption price consigned (only P216,000.00 wa