APOLONIO SUMBINGCO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Jepte Demerin, Rogelio Argel, Demetrio Jongco and Alfonso Demerin filed
with the Court of Agrarian Relations a complaint against Apolonio
Sumbingco, seeking their reinstatement as tenants on
the latter’s two (2) haciendas and the payment to them of damages for their ouster therefrom.  According to them, prior to the purchase by Sumbingco of the haciendas in question from Ricardo Nolan, they were already tenants of the
latter, planting the areas occupied by them with rice; that even after Sumbingco acquired the land they continued as tenants
thereon by permission of Sumbingco’s administrator;
that Sumbingco caused the planting of their
landholdings to citrus little by little, thus progressively depriving them of
possession thereof until the time came when their landholdings were completely
planted to citrus and they were effectively divested of any area to cultivate;
that in view thereof, they asked Sumbingco to
compensate them for the loss of
their tenancy rights but although the former promised to do so, he never did;
that instead, in 1964, Sumbingco told them to vacate
their landholdings.

The Court of Agrarian Relations dismissed their complaint.  It declined to give credence to the evidence
proffered by them to substantiate their claim of being Sumbingco’s
tenants, declaring that evidence to be both implausible and tainted by material
inconsistencies.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of
the Court of Agrarian Relations.  It
ruled that in the light of the
admission that Jepte Demerin
and his co-plaintiffs were tenants in at least one of the haciendas prior to
the sale to Sumbingco, it was difficult to believe
the latter’s protestation that he had never seen them; at the very least, Sumbingco’s overseer should have apprised him of their
presence on the land; hence, it was safe to assume that Demerin
and his companions continued as tenants on the land under the new owner.  The Appellate Court accordingly ordered the
payment to Demerin,
et al. of damages by Sumbingco but not their reinstatement on the ground
that the landholdings had already been completely planted to citrus.

Both Sumbingco and the Demerin group have taken an appeal by certiorari to this
Court, the former’s being docketed as G.R. No. 45114
and the latter’s, G.R. No. 45192.

It is axiomatic that appeals from the Court of Appeals are not a
matter of right but of sound
judicial discretion on the part of this Court, and will be granted only when
there are special and important
reasons therefor.^[1]
In other words, appeals from the Court of
Appeals are not entertained as a matter of routine; they may be rejected
out of hand in the exercise of this
Court’s sound judicial discretion.  The prescribed
mode of appeal is by certiorari,^[2] limited only to issues or questions
of law which must be distinctly set forth in the petition for review on certiorari.^[3] The findings of fact of the Appellate Court are conclusive even on this
Court, subject only to a few well defined exceptions (none
of which is present in the instant case).1 It is incumbent on the appellant to make out
a sufficiently strong demonstration of serious error on the part of the Court
of Appeals, and adduce special and important reasons to justify the exercise by
this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction,2 failing in
which this Court will decline to wield its invoked power of review and will
dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is without merit, or is prosecuted
manifestly for delay, or the questions raised are too unsubstantial to require
consideration.3

A thoroughgoing review of
the record discloses that contrary to this Court’s first impression, which
initially led it to give due course to both petitions in this case, there is no
special and important reason to justify this Court’s exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.  The issues raised are
principally factual, and such of those issues as may be characterized as legal
are not sufficiently weighty or substantial to warrant consideration and
review.

WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. No. 45114 and G.R. No.
45192 are DENIED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be thereby
reviewed is affirmed.  This decision is
immediately executory, and no motion for extension of
time to file a motion for reconsideration will be entertained.

Teehankee, C.J., Cruz, Paras*,
and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Sec. 4, Rule 45, Rules of Court

^[2]
Sec. 1, id.

^[3]
Sec. 2, second par., id.

1 De la Cruz v. Sosing, 94
Phil. 26; Chacon Enterprises v. C.A.,
124 SCRA 784; Castillo v. C.A., 124
SCRA 808; Peo. v. Grafiel,
125 SCRA 102; Peo. v. Royeras, 130 SCRA 259; Chase v. Buencamino,
Sr., 136 SCRA 365; Arevalo Gomez Corp. v. Lao Hian Liong, 148 SCRA 372

2 Sec. 4, Rule 45, Rules of Court

3 Sec. 3, id.

* Designated as Special Member of the First Division