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…

Abaga versus De Guzman

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by tenant-farmers of the hacienda El Porvenir in Pangasinan against the Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations who ordered their ejectment for non-payment of rentals. The tenants ask the Supreme Court to annul the agrarian court's decision, invoking the pendency of an expropriation proceeding over the hacienda. The case matters for two reasons: it fixes the correct mode of review of decisions of the Court of Agrarian Relations, and it insists that a petition must state definite issues, because the Court will not search the record for errors the pleader has not specified.

Procedural History

The landowners, the Lichaucos, filed six separate cases for ejectment and collection of unpaid rentals before the Court of Agrarian Relations. The Land Tenure Administration intervened, contending that the agrarian court had no jurisdiction because an expropriation case over the hacienda was pending in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. That expropriation case was partially settled by an agreement for the sale to the government of certain portions of the hacienda, and as to the portions retained by the landowners the expropriation case was dismissed.

The agrarian court, through respondent Judge Pastor L. de Guzman, then rendered its decision ordering the ejectment of the tenants who had failed to show that their non-payment of rentals was caused by fortuitous events beyond their control, while dismissing the ejectment case against those whose landholdings fell within the portion purchased by the government, and ordering all of them to pay their full rentals. The tenants received a copy of the decision, filed a notice of appeal, withdrew it in order to file a motion for reconsideration, and filed that motion within the extended period. The motion was denied. Instead of appealing within the remaining period, the tenants filed this original action for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

Facts

The Lichaucos owned the hacienda El Porvenir in Pangasinan. They sued their tenants, among them the petitioners, in six cases before the Court of Agrarian Relations for ejectment and collection of unpaid rentals. The Land Tenure Administration intervened, pointing to a pending expropriation case over the hacienda and invoking the statutory bar on ejectment proceedings against tenants of land covered by such a petition.

The expropriation case was partially settled: the parties agreed on the sale to the government of certain portions of the hacienda at prices to be fixed by the Court, and the expropriation case was dismissed as to the portions the Lichaucos retained.

The agrarian court then decided the six ejectment cases. It ordered the ejectment of the tenants who had not shown that their failure to pay rentals was caused by fortuitous events and circumstances beyond their control, dismissed the ejectment case against those whose landholdings were within the portion purchased by the government, and ordered all of them to pay their full rentals. The tenants moved for reconsideration; it was denied. They then came to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari states sufficient allegations of lack or excess of jurisdiction, or of grave abuse of discretion, on the part of the respondent Judge.
• Whether or not certiorari is the proper remedy to review a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, in light of the procedure prescribed for such review.
• Whether or not the petition may be entertained despite the petitioners' failure to file their brief or memorandum within the period prescribed by the Rules.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20 of Republic Act Number 1400, the provision invoked by the Land Tenure Administration, provides:

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 pursuance 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.

This is the provision on which the tenants and the Land Tenure Administration relied to challenge the jurisdiction of the agrarian court over the ejectment cases.

Section 1 of Rule 44, which governs the review of decisions of the Court of Agrarian Relations, provides:

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 days from notice of the award, order or decision appealed from.

This fixes the remedy and the period for questioning an agrarian court decision, and it is the procedure the petitioners did not follow.

Section 2 of Rule 44 provides:

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.

This requires the petition to set forth definite issues of law, which the petitioners' petition failed to do.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was insufficient for want of necessary allegations. It contained only bare and summary references, in chronological order, to the pleadings and incidents below, with the texts annexed, but there was no allegation that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and no allegation of errors constituting such lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. All it alleged was that there was no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the procedure to obtain review of a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations is that provided in Rule 44, made available for that purpose by the Court's resolution of January 5, 1956. The instant petition was not an appeal under that Rule but an original action for certiorari, and as such it was insufficient for want of the necessary allegations. Even if, despite the mistake in the choice of remedy, the petition were considered as an appeal by certiorari, it was still incumbent upon the petitioners to file their brief or memorandum within ten days from receipt of the answers of the respondents, which they failed to do.

On the third issue, the Court held that dismissal was in order. Under whichever concept the petition was regarded, the petitioners had raised no definite issues for the Court to resolve, whether errors of law corrective by appeal or lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The Court stressed that the formulation of issues devolves upon the petitioners; without them the respondents would be at a loss to frame their answers, and the Court cannot wade through the mass of materials laid before it in search of points on which the respondent Judge may have erred and which the petitioners failed to specify.

Doctrine

A decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations is reviewed by appeal by certiorari under Rule 44, perfected by filing with the agrarian court a notice of appeal and with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari within ten days from notice of the decision, and the petition must contain a summary statement of the issues involved and the reasons relied on for the allowance of the writ, raising only questions of law distinctly set forth.

A petition that merely narrates the proceedings below, without alleging lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, states no cause for certiorari; and the formulation of the issues devolves upon the petitioner, for the Court will not search the record for errors not specified.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, with costs, for failure of the petitioners to file a brief or memorandum within the period prescribed by the Rules; the respondents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the formulation of issues devolves upon the petitioners, and the Court cannot wade through the record in search of errors not specified. Examiners use this case on the proper mode and period of review of agrarian court decisions, and on the requirement that a petition for certiorari allege lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.