ISMAEL CALMA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS AND BEATRIZ VDA. DE FELICIANO, RESPONDENTS.

Respondent Beatriz Vda. de Feliciano was the owner of a parcel of
riceland situated at San Agustin, Magalang, Pampanga, a portion of
which, having an area of about 3-1/2 hectares, seeded to 3-1/2 cavans
of palay, was tenanted by the petitioner Ismael Calma. On September 25,
1959, respondent Vda. de Feliciano presented with the Court of Agrarian
Relations, Third Regional District, Sala, stationed in Tarlac, Tarlac,
a verified petition for ejectment and damages, against petitioner
Calma. claiming abandonment of the portion, consisting of negligence in
the fulfillment of the obligations as tenant, such as preparation of
the landholding; the haphazard cultivation of the fields and the
seedbeds; delay in. the transplanting of the seedlings, all of which
prejudiced the owner, respondent Vda. de Feliciano.

Before the filing of the ejectment case, on September 23, Vda. de
Feliciano sought the intervention of the Court of Agrarian Relations to
see the condition of the landholding. Atty. Jose L. Santiago, of the
CAR, was designated to conduct the mediation proceedings and on
September 24, 1959, he rendered a report, concluding that Calma was
indeed negligent.

On September 25, 1959, the very date the petition was presented by
respondent Feliciano, a hearing was held for the purpose of determining
whether an interlocutory order may issue, as prayed for in the
petition. After the hearing, the Commissioner entered an Order, the
dispositive portion of which read –

“WHEREFORE, pending the final disposition of this
case on the merits, petitioner is hereby authorized to administer the
planting and cultivation of the landholding in question by having it
worked by hired laborers. However, petitioner is hereby required to
file a bond in the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) to answer for
whatever damages the tenant may suffer as a result of this order.”

The above Order was, however, amended upon ex-parte petition of respondent Feliciano, on October 7, 1959, to wit —

“x x x that the herein petition is hereby authorized
to continue cultivation of the ‘landholding by administration thru
hired laborers. The petitioner is hereby restrained from employing or
appointing a £ tenant on the landholding in question until otherwise
ordered by the Court. The respondent-tenant is likewise hereby enjoined
not to disturb the cultivation and administration of the landholding by
the herein petitioner until otherwise directed by the Court. x x”

On October 7, 1959, petitioner Calma presented his Answer to the
complaint for ejectment, making admissions and denials of the
allegations contained therein and interposed defenses.

Commissioner Yumul conducted a hearing and on March 8, 1961, he
submitted a Commissioner’s report, recommending the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merits, the continuance of the possession of the
land by the tenant and payment to him (tenant) the sum of P150.00, as
attorney’s fees. The CAR, however, in a decision on the merits,
rendered on March 27, 1961, disposed of the controversy:

(1) authorizing the herein petitioner Beatrix Vda.
de Feliciano, (Secs. 49 and 50, letters b, c, and f of Republic Act No.
1199, as amended) to eject the herein respondent from the landholding
in question situated at San Agustin, Magalang, Pampanga; this authority
to eject be not subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Section 22
of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, in relation to Rule 18 of the CAR
Rules of Court, as amended, because since September 25, 1959, the
landholding has already been in the actual cultivation by the
petitioner;.

(2) the interlocutory order issued on September
25, 1959, as modified and amended by the Order of October 7, 1959 by
the Court, thru Commissioner Quintin A. Yumul, is hereby made permanent
with the modification that the herein petitioner, Beatriz Vda. de
Feliciano, is hereby authorized to appoint another person to be her
agricultural tenant, if she so desires, in lieu and to take the place,
of the herein respondent-tenant, Ismael Calma; and

(3)
directing petitioner-landholder to pay the herein respondent another
amount of forty pesos (P40.00) Philippine tender in payment of his farm
labor over one-third (1/3) of the landholding in addition to the amount
of P37.80 already paid to him as evidenced in Exhibits “3” and “4”.

Respondent Judge, in overruling the recommendation of the
Commission, found as a fact that herein petitioner Calma had been
negligent in the performance of his duties as tenant and had caused
serious injury to the landholding that necessarily impaired its
productive capacity and would continue to lie idle and cause greater
damage to the owner if he would not be checked in his negligence and
abandonment of his work; and that there were points and important facts
of record and significant evidence which were overlooked by the
Commissioner.

Petitioner moved to reconsider the decision of respondent Judge, but
which was denied, and the matter is now before Us on a petition for
Certiorari, on mixed questions of fact and law. Respondents, who
presented separate Answer to the petition, resisted the appeal on
various grounds, ranging from lack of jurisdiction of this Court to
take cognizance thereof, for having been filed out of time; propriety
of the interlocutory order and the sufficiency (substantiality) of the
evidence to support the appealed decision.

Respondent assails the jurisdiction of this Court in taking
cognizance of the case, claiming that the petition was presented
outside the reglementary period. The decision appealed from was
received by petitioner’s counsel on April 3, 1961 (Exh. 3). On April
15, 1961, a motion for reconsideration was presented by counsel. From
April 3 to 15, 1961, eleven (11) days had elapsed. The motion for
reconsideration was denied on May 6, 1961 and copy thereof served to
counsel on May 11, 1961. The period within which to take an appeal
started to run again on May 12, 1961 and should end on May 15, 1961.
The petition for certiorari was filed in this Court on May 18, 1961,
which is three (3) days late. The decision, subject of review, had
already become final before it was elevated to this Court. Obviously,
therefore, We did not acquire jurisdiction or possess authority to
review the issues presented herein.

The petition should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J. Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.