Title
Supreme Court
Mangondaya vs. Ampaso
Case
G.R. No. 201763
Decision Date
Mar 21, 2018
Petitioner claims inherited land, disputes respondent's sale under 'Ada. SDC dismissed case without trial; Supreme Court remands for proper proceedings, citing due process violations and need for factual determination.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 158053)

Case Background and Complaints

The case arises from a dispute over a parcel of land located in Dimayon, Calanogas, Lanao del Sur. Petitioner Mangondaya filed a complaint against respondent Ampaso for restitution of the land, claiming ownership based on inheritance from his mother. The respondent, however, alleged ownership through a purchase made in 1987 and claimed to have cultivated the land under the customary law known as 'Ada, which allows cultivation of uncultivated land without the owner's consent but restricts its transfer.

Procedural History

In response to the complaint, Ampaso filed an answer asserting that the Shari'ah District Court (SDC) lacked jurisdiction and that the complaint was premature, citing absence of barangay certification. Furthermore, Ampaso claimed the petitioner's ownership was barred by laches, stating that the complaint was filed several years after the respondent’s occupation of the land. The SDC initially dismissed Mangondaya's complaint on January 31, 2011, upholding Ampaso’s assertions regarding his good faith and long-term possession.

Court's Dismissal and Findings

The SDC's dismissal focused on the claim that Mangondaya had failed to prove his ownership and emphasized Ampaso's more than twenty years of possession in good faith as indicative of ownership. The court also argued that even if Mangondaya had a valid claim, he was barred from recovery due to laches, having delayed action for an unreasonable time after becoming aware of Ampaso's occupancy.

Petitioner’s Arguments for Reconsideration

Mangondaya raised several arguments in seeking reconsideration of the SDC's rulings. He contended that the Orders violated procedural due process rights, depriving him of the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. He also emphasized the requirement of an oath from the respondent as stipulated in the Special Rules of Procedure in Shari'ah Courts, which should have been addressed in the proceedings.

Appellate Review and Legal Principles

The Supreme Court noted that its jurisdiction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law. Despite Mangondaya's framing of his issues as legal, the court determined they centered on factual issues

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.