SILVESTRE MASA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUAN A. BAES, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 7TH REGIONAL DISTRICT, BRANCH I, LOS BAñOS, LAGUNA, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OR HIS DE…

Petition for certiorari to set aside two orders of the Court of
Agrarian Relations (7th Regional District) dated 11 June and 5 November 1968,
issued in Cases Nos. 923, 926 and 959 of said court, setting aside a
supplemental decision, rendered on 4 March 1968, and denying reconsideration.

Against a decision rendered in 1963 by Judge Pastor de Guzman in
cases Nos. 923, 926 and 959 of the Court of Agrarian Relations (Sta. Cruz,
Laguna, Branch), dismissing the first two for lack of sufficient evidence, and,
in Case No. 959, authorizing the landholder, Jose Tan Kapoe,
to eject the tenant, Silvestre Masa, and ordering
that the standing crop be divided 50-50 (copy of which decision was received by
his counsel on 6 May 1963), the tenant aforesaid filed a motion to reconsider,
dated 8 May 1963, sending copy thereof to counsel for the landlord by
registered mail.  For lack of proof of
service of the motion, Judge Artemio Macalino, then presiding over the court, on 20 November
1963, directed the clerk of court to furnish counsel for the landlord, Tan Kapoe, a copy of the tenant’s motion to reconsider.  After lapse of 10 days for filing an
opposition, on 20 February 1964, Judge Macalino
issued a resolution reconsidering and setting aside the decision of Judge de
Guzman, and rendered another denying the landholder’s peti­tion for the ejectment of tenant, Silvestre Masa;
ordering the landholder to maintain Masa in peaceful
possession and cultivation of the land­holding; and declaring a leasehold
system of tenancy between both parties.

Landholder Tan Kapoe, through counsel,
petitioned for reconsideration of judge Macalino’s
resolution of 20 February 1964, which Masa opposed;
and on 9 May 1964, reconsideration was denied by the court (Petition, Annex B).

On 20 May 1964, Tan Kapoe’s counsel
filed a notice of appeal; but thereafter, no steps were taken to prosecute the
same; hence the appeal lapsed.

Three and a half years later, on 23 January 1968, counsel for the
tenant, Masa, prayed for a supplemental decision to
specify the rentals that had to be paid to the landholder and for a return of
the deposits made during the pendency of the case;
and on 4 March 1968 the court rendered the supplemen­tal decision prayed
for.  Upon receipt thereof on 12 March,
counsel for the landholder, Tan Kapoe, filed on 2
April 1968 a motion for reconsideration, not only of the supplemental decision
of 4 March but also of the resolution of Judge Macalino
Issued as far back as 20 February 1964. 
The landholder further prayed that the original decision of 23 April
1963 of judge de Guzman be executed on the ground that the reversing resolution
of Judge Macalino was null and void, as it had been
rendered long after the De Guzman decision, decreeing the tenant’s ouster, had
become final and executory.

Despite opposition by the tenant, the court, on 11 June 1968,
granted the landholder’s motion, on the ground that the tenant’s petition for
reconsi­deration of 8 May 1963 had not arrested the course of the period for
the finality of the de Guzman decision, as the tenant’s motion violated section
1 of Rule 17 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations, requiring that
motions for reconsideration be accompanied by proof of service of one copy
thereof upon the adverse party. 
Subsequently, the court ordered the execu­tion of the De Guzman decision
of 1963.  Unable to move the court from
its last resolutions, the tenant resorted to this Court, which gave his
petition due course.

We find the petition meritorious.

In the first place, the assumption of the court below (Judge Juan
A. Baez presiding), that the landholder, Tan Kapoe,
or his counsel had not been served copy of the tenant’s motion to reconsider
judge De Guzman’s decision, is belied by the record.  In his motion of 8 July 1968, asking for
reconsideration of the Court of Agrarian Relation’s resolution of 11 June 1968
revoking the de­cision of Judge Macalino and
restoring that of Judge de Guzman (Petition, Annex G), the tenant, through his
counsel, Atty. Gonzalo Padua, attached photostat
copies of “registry receipt No. 42983 dated 9 May 1963, and re­gistry
return card showing that the registered matter was received by Atty. P.B. Timog^[1]
on the 10th day of May, 1963, marked annexes “A” and
“B” respectively”, and charged that “landholder Tan Kapoe concealed and hid the fact that he received a copy of
tenant Silvestre Masa’s motion dated 8 May
1963″.  Nowhere in the record before
us is this charge traversed or denied. 
The mere fact that this evidence of service was not attached to the
original of the tenant’s motion of 8 May 1963 is of no moment, for it is a fact
that postal registry return cards are not delivered to the sender until an
appreciable (sometimes a considerable) lapse of time after the mailing.

Secondly, we hold that the landholder, herein private respondent
Tan Kapoe, is in estoppel
to deny his receipt of the copy of petitioner Masa’s
motion of 8 May 1963 by (a) his failure to call judge Macalino’s
attention to that fact; (b) his receipt without protest of the copy of the
motion sent to him by the clerk of court, by order of Judge Macalino;
(c) his failure to set up this particular claim after receipt of the 20
February 1964 resolution reconsidering and revoking the 1963 decision of Judge
Pastor de Guzman, for the resolution of Judge Macalino
(under date of 9 May 1964) enumerates the grounds for reconsideration then
posed by Tan Kapoe (Petition, Annex B), and it
positively appears therein that the said landholder never claimed non-receipt
of the tenant’s motion to reconsider and set aside Judge De Guzman’s original
decision, nor did he urge that the latter decision had become final and executory; (d) Tan Kapoe’s
failure to perfect his appeal from the revocatory
resolution of Judge Macalino; and (e) his silence and
inaction, from 1964 to 1968, of almost four years, during which he refrained
from raising the issue that he (Tan Kapoe) invoked
before Judge Baes, who had apparently acted as his
counsel in a case before elevation to the bench (See Opposition to Motion for
Inhibition, Annex C of petitioner’s Urgent Motion dated 21 April 1969).

In the third place, in relying on the technical point that no
proof of service had been attached to the original of Masa’s
motion to reconsider the decision of Judge de Guzman, and ignoring the evidence
that copy of the motion had in fact been received, the respondent Judge openly
ignored section 155 of the Land Reform Act, Republic Act No. 3844, providing
that in the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or
controversy the Court of Agrarian Relations shall not be bound strictly by the
technical rules of evidence and procedure, except in expropriation cases.  Respondent Judge’s reliance on our ruling in
Esquivel-Cabatit vs. Court of Agrarian Relations,
L-19756, 25 May 1964, is not warranted, for that case arose prior to the Land
Reform Act, although decided after said law came into effect.  In the Cabatit
case, furthermore, we held that the motion for reconsidera­tion did not arrest
the finality of the decision sought to be set aside because the certification
at the foot of the motion showed that copy had been sent to one Atty. Amado Evangelista when the adverse party’s attorney of
record was Rodrigo V. Fontelera; so that it became
indisputable that the motion had not been served upon the adverse party.  In the case at bar, contrarywise,
the certification was that a copy of Masa’s motion to
reconsider Judge de Guzman’s decision had been sent to Tan Kapoe’s
counsel of record, Atty. Timog.  And, as previously observed, the said Tan Kapoe is not now in a position to deny receipt of the copy
of Masa‘ s
motion.  The only conclusion derivable
from the record is that Judge Macalino acted within
his powers in reconsidering and reversing Judge De Guzman’s 1963 decision; and
because no action was taken to appeal Judge Macalino’s
own decision, the same became final, and is the law of the case.  Hence, Judge Bees acted in abuse of
discretion in setting aside Judge Macalino’s 1964
decision (that had superseded that of Judge de Guzman) and in reviving the
latter.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, We declare that the operative
decision is that of 20 February 1964 rendered by Judge Artemio
Macalino and the supplemental decision of 4 March
1968.  Hence, the orders of Judge Baes now under review are annulled and set aside, and the
case is ordered remanded to the court of origin, with instruc­tions to set
aside the execution of the 1963 decision of Judge de Guzman; to restore
possession to the petitioner, Silvestre Masa; to
adjudge said tenant entitled to recover his share of the products conformably
to Judge Macalino’s decision; and to take such
further steps as may be required, conformably to this decision.  Costs in all instances
against private respondent Jose Tan Kapoe.

Dizon, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., did not take part.

Concepcion, C.J., and Ruiz Castro, JJ.,
on official leave.

^[1]
Counsel for Tan Kapoe.