1. romeo reyes vs. ca, g.r. no. 96492, november 26, 1992

8/17/2019 1. Romeo Reyes vs. CA, G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992

1/4

G.R. No. 96492 November 26, 1992

ROMEO REYES, ANGEL PARAYAO, and EMILIO MANANGHAYA, petitioners,vs.THE O!RT O" APPEALS, E!"ROINA #E LA R!$ and %IOLETA #ELOS REYES, respondents.

Petitioners Romeo Reyes, Angel Parayao and Emilio Mananghaya question the respondent Court's decisionpromulgated on November , !""#, 1 $hich a%rmed $ith modi&cation the agrarian court's decisionpromulgated anuary !#, !""#, 2 $hich ordered them and the other de(endants therein to, among others,

restore possession o( the disputed landholding to private respondent, Eu(rocina )da. dela Cru*. +aidrespondent court's decision is no$ &nal and eecutory as to -lympio Mendo*a and +everino Aguinaldo, theother petitioners in the respondent court, since they did not appeal the same.

+ince petitioners do not dispute the &ndings o( (act o( the respondent Court, the same shall be quotedverbatim and are as (ollo$s

/t appears (rom the records that uan Mendo*a, (ather o( herein de(endant -lympio Mendo*ais the o$ner o( 0arm 1ots Nos. 23 and !#3, 4loc5 , Psd678297 o( the 4ahay Pare Estate4ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga, $ith an area o( 7,### square meters and !",### squaremeters, respectively. :evoted to the production o( palay, the lots $ere tenanted andcultivated by ulian dela Cru*, husband o( plainti; Eu(rocina dela Cru*. ulian died on+eptember 9, !" and that until the &ling o( the instant case, de(endants had re(used tovacate and surrender the lots, thus violating her tenancy rights. Plainti; there(ore prayed (o

=udgment (or the recovery o( possession and damages $ith a $rit o( preliminary mandatoryin=unction in the meantime.

:e(endants Reyes, Parayao, Aguinaldo and Mananghaya, duly elected and?or appointedbarangay o%cials o( 4ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga, denied inter(erence in the tenancyrelationship eisting bet$een plainti; and de(endant Mendo*a, particularly in the cultivationo( the latter's (arm lots. Claiming that they have al$ays eercised (airness, equity, reasonand impartiality in the discharge o( their o%cial (unctions, they as5ed (or the dismissal o( thecase and claimed moral damages and attorney's (ees in the total amount o( P!39,###.##@Ans$er $ith Counterclaim, Records, pp. 2869!.

0or his part, de(endant Mendo*a raised abandonment, sublease and mortgage o( the (armlots $ithout his consent and approval, and non6payment o( rentals, irrigation (ees and othetaes due the government, as his de(enses. Be also demanded actual and eemplarydamages, as $ell as attorney's (ees @Ans$er, pp.


2/4

-n the Mandatory /n=unction

!. -rdering said de(endants to restore possession o( the landholding sub=ect o( the action tothe plainti; and en=oining said de(endants and any person claiming under them to desist(rom molesting them or inter(ering $ith the possession and cultivation o( the landholdingdescriptive in paragraph 7 o( the complaint, to $it

0arm 1ots Nos. 23 and !#3, 4loc5 , Psd678297 o( the 4ahay Pare Estate,4ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga, $ith a total area o( 7,"3" square meters

more or less, o$ned by a certain uan Mendo*a, and devoted principally to theproduction o( palay, as evidenced by a Certi&cation (rom the Ministry oAgrarian Re(orm issued on uly 7#, !"82.

. a -rdering the de(endants to vacate the premises o( the t$o landholding in question andto respect the tenancy rights o( plainti; $ith respect to the same>

b -rdering de(endants, =ointly and severally to pay unto plainti; # cavans o( palay or itsequivalent in cash o( P77,###.## (rom the principal crop year o( !"82, and every harvesttime until de(endants &nally vacate and surrender possession and cultivation o( thelandholding in question to plainti;.

c the prayer (or moral damages, not having been su%ciently proved, the same is denied.

d -rdering de(endants =ointly and severally, to pay the costs o( suit.

Dhe a$ards herein provided should &rst be satis&ed (rom the deposits o( the harvestsordered by the Court (rom $hich the planting and harvesting epenses have been paid tode(endant -lympio Mendo*a> and i( said net deposits $ith the Court or the $arehouses asordered by the Court are insu%cient, then the balance should be paid by de(endants, =ointlyand severally. 4

:e(endants $ho are the petitioners in this case, in a Petition (or Revie$ on Certiorari, present (or theconsideration o( the Court

FDGhe lone issue o( $hether or not they can be held liable, =ointly and severally, $ith theother de(endants, (or the harvests o( the litigated property, 1ot No. 23, or the moneyequivalent thereo( starting (rom the principal crop years o( !"82 and every harvest timetherea(ter until the possession and cultivation o( the a(orestated landholding are &nallysurrendered to the private respondent. '

/t is the position o( petitioners that they are not liable =ointly and severally $ith -lympio Mendo*a and+everino Aguinaldo because the present petition involves 1ot No. 23, 4loc5 , Psd678297 o( the bahay PareEstate, bahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga and not 1ot No. !#3 o( the estate, $hich lot $as purchased bypetitioner Romeo Reyes (rom -lympio Mendo*a's (ather, uan, and $hich he later donated to the barangay4ahay Pare o( Candaba, Pampanga, (or the construction o( the 4ahay Pare 4arangay Bigh +chool. 6 As totheir supposed participation in the dispossession o( private respondent (rom the disputed landholdingpetitioners present the +eptember 7#, !"8< Resolution o( /nvestigating 0iscal esus M. Pamintuan, as

approved by Pampanga Provincial 0iscal )illamor /. :i*on, in /.+. No. 89


3/4

Re(orm 1a$, should be compensated (or the lost income by the petitioners $ho are solidarily liable $ith-lympio Mendo*a and +everino Aguinaldo. 11

e &nd (or the private respondents.

/t is clear that petitioners are as5ing s to re6eamine all the evidence already presented and evaluated bythe trial court and re6evaluated again by the respondent appellate court. +aid evidence served as basis inarriving at the trial court and appellate court's &ndings o( (act. e shall not analy*e such evidence all overagain but instead put fnis to the (actual &ndings in this case. +ettled is the rule that only questions o( la$

may be raised in a petition (or revie$ on certiorari under Rule 29 o( the Rules o( Court12

absent theeceptions $hich do not obtain in the instant case. 1&

e agree $ith the appellate court in its retiocination, $hich e adopt, on $hy it has to dismiss the appeal+aid the Court

/n her Complaint, plainti;6appellee alleged that she His the tenant o( 0arm 1ots Nos. 23 and!#3 4loc5 , Psd678297 o( the 4ahay Pare Estate, 4ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga, $ith atotal area o( 7,"3" square meters, more or less . . .H @Complaint, Record, vol. !, p.!.Bo$ever, during )ioleta's testimony, she clari&ed that actually only 1ot No. !#3, $hichcontains an area o( P!",### square meters, is not included in this controversy @D.+.N.August !#, !"8", p. 9> May 8, !"8", p. !. Dhis statement $as corroborated by plainti;'scounsel, Atty. Arturo Rivera, $ho in(ormed the court that the !",### square meter lot is

sub=ect o( a pending case be(ore the MDC o( +ta. Ana, Pampanga @Ibid .,p. !9. Dheinconsistency bet$een the averment o( the complaint and the testimony o( the $itnessshould not only because there $as no sho$ing that she intended to mislead de(endants andeven the trial court on the sub=ect matter o( the suit. /t $ould in the complaint sincetogether $ith 1ot !#3 had been include in the complaint since together $ith 1ot 23, it iso$ned by -lympio's (ather.

e also concur $ith the trial court's &nding on the participation o( the other appellants inthe dispossession o( appellee. Dhey not only 5ne$ -lympio personally, some o( them $ereeven as5ed by -lympio to help him cultivate the land, thus lending credence to theallegation that de(endant -lympio, together $ith his co6de(endants, prevented plainti; andher $or5ers (rom entering the land through Hstrong arm methodsH. @:ecision o( RDC, recordsvol. // p. 932.

0inally, $e rule that the trial court did not err $hen it (avorably considered the a%davits o(Eu(rocina and E(ren Decson @Annees H4H and HCH although the a%ants $ere not presentedand sub=ected to cross6eamination. +ection !3 o( P.:. No. "23 provides that the HRules o(Court shall not be applicable in agrarian cases even in a suppletory character.H Dhe sameprovision states that H/n the hearing, investigation and determination o( any question ocontroversy, a%davits and counter6a%davits may be allo$ed and are admissible inevidenceH.

Moreover, in agrarian cases, the quantum o( evidence required is no more than substantiaevidence. Dhis substantial evidence rule $as incorporated in section !8, P.:. No. "23 $hichtoo5 e;ect on une !


4/4

BERE0-RE, &nding no reversible error in the decision appealed (rom, the petition is hereby :EN/E: (orlac5 o( merit. Dhe decision o( the Court o( Appeals promulgated on November , !""# is A00/RME: intoto. Costs against the petitioners.

+- -R:ERE:.

1. romeo reyes vs. ca, g.r. no. 96492, november 26, 1992

Documents