ESTANISLAO ABAGA, ALEJANDRO COSTA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, FIRST REGIONAL DISTRICT, LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN, RE…

In six cases filed in the Court of Agrarian Relations, herein respondent
Lichaucos, owners of the hacienda El Porvenir in Pangasinan, sued their tenants
for ejectment and collection of unpaid rentals (CAR Nos. 115, 116, 117, 118, 120
and 165). Among those tenants are the present petitioners. The Land Tenure
Administration intervened on the ground that the hacienda El Porvenir was the
subject of a complaint for expropriation it had instituted and which was then
pending in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Sp. Civil Action No.
T-434), and that consequently respondent Court of Agrarian Relations had no
jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment cases against the tenants in view of
section 20 of Republic Act No. 1400^*

“Section 20.—Prohibition Against Alienation.—Upon the filing of the
petition referred to in sections 12 and 16, the landowner cannot alienate any
portion of the land covered by such petition except in irarsuance of the
provisions of this Act; or enter into any form of contract to defeat the
purposes of this Act, and no ejectment proceedings against any tenant or
occupant of the land covered by the petition shall be instituted; or prosecuted
until it becomes certain that the land shall not be acquired by the
Administration.”

The expropriation proceeding, however, was partially settled when the parties
therein filed a joint motion in which they presented an agreement for the sale,
at prices to be fixed by this Court, of certain portions the hacienda, excluding
other portions which were to be retained by the Lichaucos. As to the portions
thus excluded the expropriation proceeding was accordingly dismissed.

On March 29, 1962 respondent Judge Pastor L. de Guzman of the Court of
Agrarian Relations rendered his decision, ordering that the respondents there
(among them petitioners herein) who “have not shown to the satisfaction of the
court that their failure to pay their rentals as found in the part of the
decision (sic) was caused by the fortuitous events and circumstances beyond
their control justifying their failure to complete the payment of their
respective rentals are all hereby ordered ejected from their respective
landholdings described in the petition except the respondents-tenants whose
landholdings are within the area of the portion of the hacienda purchased by the
government, through the Land Tenure Administration, which landholdings were
segregated on account of the agreement of the landholders and the government,
the case of ejectment against them is dismissed, but they are all ordered to pay
their landholders (this should be landowners) their full rentals as found by the
court.”

A copy of the decisioix was. received by petitioners on April 12, 1962. They
filed a notice of appeal on April 24, but moved to withdraw the same on April
26, stating that they wished to file a motion for reconsideration, for which
they asked for an extension of 10 days. The withdrawal was granted and on May 4,
1962, within the extended period, they filed the motion for reconsideration,
which was denied for lack of merit on the following June 25. Petitioner received
a copy of the order of denial on July 5, 1962, two days before the expiration of
the period within which to appeal.

Instead of appealing, however, petitioners, filed before os this special
civil action for certiorari. The petition contains only bare and summary
references, in chronological order, to the different pleadings and other
incidents in the court below in the six cases aforementioned, including the
decision and the order denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. The
texts of said proceedings are annexed to the petition, but there is no
allegation that respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion. Much less does the petition allege any errors
committed by respondent Judge which would constitute such lack or express of
jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion. All it alleges, after the summary
statement of the proceedings in the lower court, is that there is no appeal, nor
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except the
petition for certiorari.

The procedure to obtain a review of a decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations is that provided in Rule 44, which 4& made available for that
purpose by our resolution of January 5, 1956. This Rule says in section 1: “An
appeal by certiorari from an award, order or decision (of the Court of Agrarian
Relations) shall be perfected by filing with said Court a notice of appeal and
with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari against the adverse party
within ten (10) days from notice of the award, order or decision appealed from
“; and in section 2: “the petition shall contain a summary statement of the
issues involved and the reasons relied on for the allowance of the writ . . .
Only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth, may be raised
in the petition.”

The instant petition is not in accord with the Rule above quoted. It is not
an appeal but an original action under Rule 67. Under this Rule, however, the
petition is insufficient for want of necessary allegations, as already pointed
out. But even if, despite petitioners’ mistake in the choice of remedy, the
petition be considered as an appeal by certiorari, it was still incumbent upon
them to file their brief or memorandum within 10 days from receipt of the
answers of respondents (Sec. 4, Rule 58). This petitioners have failed to do,
and hence dismissal of the petition is in order, as prayed for by said
respondents. Under whichever concept the petition is regarded petitioners have
not raised any definite issues for this Court to resolve—whether errors of law
corrective by appeal under Rule 44, or lack or excess of jurisdiction, or grave
abuse of discretion, under Rule 67.

The record before us, in the form of annexes to the petition, is uncommonly
voluminous. The decision alone runs to 304 typewritten pages. The formulation of
issues devolves upon petitioners. Without them respondents would be at a loss to
frame their answers, except to point out, as they did, the procedural lapse of
petitioners. This Court, on its part, cannot wade through the mass of materials
laid before it in search of points on which respondents Judge may have erred and
which petitioners have failed to specify.

For failure of petitioners to file a brief or memorandum within the period
prescribed by the Rules, the petition is dismissed, with costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.

---

* Section 20 of Republic Act No. 1400 provides: