Case Summary (G.R. No. L-46073)
Factual Background
Petitioners claimed exclusive ownership and possession of the landholding. Private respondent asserted that he had been the duly instituted tenant since 1933 and that he continuously possessed and cultivated the property while sharing the harvest with the landowners on an equal basis.
In February 1964, private respondent temporarily left the landholding without the knowledge and consent of the landowner to visit a sick daughter in Jomalig, Polilio, Quezon. He stayed for about two weeks and returned to the property, leaving a standing palay crop that his son, Artemio Ibana, tended. After returning, private respondent continued to regularly cultivate the landholding up to the “tambay” cropping of 1966, which ran from November 1966 to April 1967.
Thereafter, private respondent opted to elect the leasehold system. He acted through the intervention of Atty. Arao of the Office of the Agrarian Counsel. Petitioners refused to accept the shift. Instead, petitioners filed Civil Case No. 56 before the Municipal Court as a forcible entry case, and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued enjoining private respondent from further dispossessing the landowners. When private respondent did not heed the writ, he was cited for contempt and fined P50.00. Afterward, he relinquished possession and cultivation to petitioners.
While the forcible entry case was pending, private respondent filed on March 3, 1967 with the Court of Agrarian Relations of Daet, Camarines Norte a complaint in CAR Case No. 288-CN 8 '67 for Illegal Ejectment, Reinstatement, and Damages. On petitioners’ motion, the agrarian court dismissed the case without prejudice by its Order of April 25, 1967. The dismissal was anchored on multiplicity of suits and the pendency of an action between the same parties and for the same cause.
During the same period, the Municipal Court’s decision in Civil Case No. 56 made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent. That decision was appealed to the Court of First Instance in Civil Case No. 1866, which later ruled that it was beyond its jurisdiction because the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. The appellate ruling rendered the Municipal Court’s decision, in effect, a nullity.
On July 20, 1971, private respondent filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations in Daet, Camarines Sur CAR Case No. 352-CN '71 for Illegal Ejectment, Reinstatement, and Damages. The Court of Agrarian Relations rendered judgment declaring private respondent a de jure tenant, now an agricultural lessee, and ordered reinstatement and payment of damages, including quantified loss corresponding to dispossession during the “tambay” and “habagat” croppings. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in toto. Petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
During the pendency of the petition, counsel for petitioners manifested that private respondent Pedro Ibana died on November 30, 1977, and the Court noted the fact.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment in CAR Case No. 352-CN '71
The Court of Agrarian Relations ruled that private respondent remained the de jure tenant and that petitioners’ institution of another tenant was null and void and illegal because the tenancy relationship had not been terminated or extinguished by abandonment. It ordered petitioners to vacate the landholding and deliver possession to private respondent for reinstatement and peaceful possession and cultivation.
On damages, the agrarian court ordered petitioners (the heirs of Juan Cuano) to pay palay loss corresponding to the number of cavans and gantas of palay private respondent would have received had he not been dispossessed for the ten “tambay” croppings and ten “habagat” croppings already occurring, computed at the rates stated in the decision and inclusive of the money value of the wasted seedlings prepared for transplanting. It also fixed a provisional rental for the riceland portion upon reinstatement at 25% of the harvest, subject to adjustment under Section 34 of Republic Act 3844, as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act 6382, once sufficient legal basis existed.
The agrarian court denied other claims for insufficiency of evidence and denied defendants’ counterclaims for lack of merit. It ordered defendants to pay costs.
The Parties' Contentions on Appeal and in the Petition
In their petition before the reviewing court, petitioners framed the issues as whether res judicata could apply; whether the Court of Appeals’ conclusions from facts were correct; and whether the Court of Appeals’ decision conformed with Supreme Court precedents.
Substantively, petitioners anchored their position on a claim that private respondent had abandoned the land for two years, thereby terminating the tenancy relationship. They also claimed that Artemio Ibana refused to be substituted for his father, which allegedly compelled them to procure new tenants. They contended that the first replacement tenant was Mariano Cabais, later replaced by Herculano Cereno.
Private respondent opposed the claims and maintained that he was a de jure tenant whose tenancy had not been extinguished. He also relied on the agrarian law rules entitling him to reinstatement with damages upon illegal dispossession and to change to leasehold system under statutory authority.
Res Judicata Argument and the Agrarian Court’s Earlier Dismissal Without Prejudice
A crucial part of petitioners’ res judicata theory was the dismissal of CAR Case No. 288-CN 8 '67. The Court of Agrarian Relations in that earlier case had granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss but clarified that the dismissal was without prejudice.
The reviewing court addressed the elements for res judicata: a final judgment; jurisdiction of the rendering court over the subject matter and parties; a judgment on the merits; and identity between the two cases as to parties, subject matter, and cause of action. It reiterated that a dismissal is considered a judgment on the merits when both parties have been heard, have introduced testimony or had an opportunity to do so, and the court considers the law and facts as presented before dismissing the action. It contrasted this with situations where the court does not rule on the merits and instead defers proceedings pending resolution of another case.
The Court found that in the Order dismissing CAR Case No. 288-CN 8 '67, the agrarian court did not pass upon the merits. It had instead refrained from proceeding with the case pending the final determination of the Municipal Court’s Civil Case No. 56. Because the dismissal was without prejudice and because there was no merits determination, the requisites for res judicata were held not to have been met.
Questions of Fact: Abandonment, Credibility, and the Weight of Evidence
On the merits, petitioners disputed the tenancy finding by claiming abandonment and the consequent validity of petitioners’ institution of Herculano Cereno. They relied on the assertion that private respondent’s temporary absence—after leaving for Jomalig, Polilio, Quezon—amounted to abandonment that terminated the tenancy.
The Court emphasized that the only apparent factual controversy concerned private respondent’s trip to Jomalig. Petitioners’ position was that private respondent had abandoned the land for two years. Private respondent, by contrast, maintained that his absence was temporary and not characterized by permanence sufficient to constitute abandonment. The Court of Agrarian Relations found his testimony clear and positive and supported by corroboration from witnesses, including Abraham Gallardo and Artemio Ibana.
Conversely, the testimony of petitioner Francisca Cuano was found conflicting and irreconcilable, with insufficient corroboration. The agrarian court also took note that petitioners heavily relied on the Municipal Court’s decision in the forcible entry case, but that decision had been reversed on appeal by the Court of First Instance for lack of jurisdiction.
The reviewing court applied the rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding, absent any recognized exceptions, such as findings based entirely on speculation, manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, or findings contrary to the trial court or admissions.
It held that petitioners failed to show that the Court of Appeals’ fact findings, adopting those of the agrarian court, fell under any except
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-46073)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Heirs of Juan Cuano (represented by Francisca Cuano Aguilar, Prescila Cuano Panotes, and Rafael Obusan) filed a petition for review on certiorari to assail a Court of Appeals decision.
- The assailed Court of Appeals decision affirmed in toto a Court of Agrarian Relations judgment in CAR Case No. 352-CN ’71 for Illegal Ejectment, Reinstatement and Damages.
- The Court of Agrarian Relations judgment favored Pedro Ibana, who was the plaintiff therein and the private respondent herein.
- The Court of Appeals case was CA-G.R. No. 06370-R, entitled “Pedro Ibana v. Heirs of Juan Cuano, represented by Francisca Cuano Aguilar, et al.”
- During the Supreme Court proceedings, counsel for petitioners informed the Court that Pedro Ibana died on November 30, 1977, and the Court noted the Certificate of Death.
Key Factual Background
- Petitioners asserted ownership and possession of a parcel of land partly coconut land and partly riceland, measuring four (4) hectares, located in Barrio Binanwaan, Talisay, Camarines Norte.
- Private respondent Pedro Ibana had been the tenant of the property since 1933.
- The Court of Agrarian Relations found that private respondent was the duly instituted tenant who continuously possessed and cultivated the land and shared the produce with the landowners on a 50/50 sharing basis.
- In February 1964, private respondent traveled to Jomalig, Polilio, Quezon to visit a sick daughter, stayed for two weeks, and then returned to his landholding.
- After his return, private respondent left a standing palay crop under the care of his son Artemio Ibana and thereafter continued regular cultivation up to the “tambay” cropping of 1966.
- For the “tambay” cropping of 1966 to April 1967, private respondent opted to elect the leasehold system with the intervention of Atty. Arao of the Office of the Agrarian Counsel, but petitioners refused to abide.
- Petitioners then filed a forcible entry case, Civil Case No. 56 before the Municipal Court, which resulted in a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction enjoining private respondent from further dispossessing petitioners.
- Because private respondent allegedly failed to heed the writ, he was cited for contempt of court and fined P 50.00, after which he relinquished possession and cultivation to the landowners.
- While the forcible entry case was pending, private respondent filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations CAR Case No. 288-CN 8 ’67 on March 3, 1967 for Illegal Ejectment, Reinstatement and Damages.
- On petitioners’ motion, the Court of Agrarian Relations dismissed CAR Case No. 288-CN 8 ’67 without prejudice by an order dated April 25, 1967, citing multiplicity of suits and pendency of action between the same parties and for the same cause.
- The Municipal Court decision in Civil Case No. 56 made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent, but the Court of First Instance later ruled that the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction because the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, and declared the Municipal Court decision, as effectively understood, null and void as a consequence of final determination.
- On July 20, 1971, private respondent filed CAR Case No. 352-CN ’71 for Illegal Ejectment, Reinstatement and Damages, which in effect operated as a revival of the previously dismissed agrarian case.
Trial Court’s Dispositive Findings
- The Court of Agrarian Relations declared private respondent a de jure tenant, now agricultural lessee, of the landholding described in the judgment.
- The Court ruled that petitioners’ institution of Herculano Cereno as tenant was null and void and illegal because private respondent’s tenancy relationship had not been terminated or extinguished by abandonment.
- The Court ordered petitioners to vacate and to deliver possession to private respondent and to maintain him in peaceful possession and cultivation as agricultural lessee.
- The Court awarded damages based on the period of dispossession covering ten (10) “tambay” croppings and ten (10) “habagat” croppings.
- The damages included palay amounts stated in cavans and gantas, excluding the container, with specified rates per cropping, and a stated total money value of P11,085.80, with legal interest from the date of the decision until palay was delivered or paid.
- The Court also ordered additional payments corresponding to each “tambay” and “habagat” cropping until reinstatement.
- The Court ordered payment of P60.00 as the money value of two (2) cavans of seedling already prepared for planting but destroyed due to dispossession.
- The Court absolved defendant Jesus King from damages.
- The Court fixed a provisional rental for the riceland portion at twenty-five (25%) per centum of the harvest for both “habagat” and “tambay”, after deducting deductible items allowed by law, and directed that final rental be fixed in accordance with Section 34 of Republic Act 3844, as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act 6382 if parties could not agree then the proper authorities would be approached.
- The Court denied other claims and counterclaims for lack of merit and ordered petitioners to pay costs.
Issues Raised on Certiorari
- Petitioners argued that the doctrine of res judicata should apply to bar the agrarian suit.
- Petitioners challenged whether the Court of Appeals drew correct conclusions from proven facts.
- Petitioners also claimed that the