HUGO ADOPTANTE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition^[1] for
review assailing the decision^[2] dated
May 15, 1998 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the orders^[3]
of the Regional Trial Court of Nasugbu, Batangas, Branch 14, in Civil Case No.
191, citing petitioner Hugo Adoptante in contempt of court.

It appears from the records that Felisa Abellera was the owner of
a parcel of agricultural land with an area of 11,532 square meters, situated at
Sitio Calumpit, Barangay Prenza, Lian, Batangas. Sometime in 1971, Abellera leased to petitioner Hugo Adoptante
the one-half southern portion of the land for sugarcane production under
agricultural tenancy, while she retained the northern half portion for her
personal cultivation reserved for palay production.

On June 2, 1974, Abellera filed with the now defunct Court of
Agrarian Relations in Lipa City a complaint for ejectment against petitioner,
docketed as CAR Case No. 1668. She
alleged that petitioner caused to harvest and mill the sugarcane crop of
1973-1974 without her consent, to her damage and prejudice. On June 18, 1982, the CAR decided in
Abellera’s favor and ordered petitioner to vacate the southern half portion of
the land, thus:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Ordering the
defendant to vacate the landholding in question containing an area of one and
one-half hectares (1½), more or less, situated at Sitio Calumpit, Prenza,
Lian, Batangas, and to restore the physical possession thereof to the
plaintiff;

2. Ordering the
defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) by
way of attorney’s fees;

3. Dismissing all other
claims and counterclaims of both parties for insufficiency of evidence;

4. Ordering the
defendant to pay the costs of suit.^[4]

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
decision of the CAR. After the same
became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued on December 27,
1989.

Subsequently, on August 18, 1981, Abellera filed another
complaint against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Balayan,
Batangas, Branch 10, praying for the determination of farm tenancy over the
northern portion of the subject landholding. The complaint was docketed as CAR Case No. 2308. Abellera alleged that sometime in 1973,
petitioner forcibly entered into the said northern portion of the land and
cultivated the same without complainant’s knowledge and consent.

On January 27, 1986, the Regional Trial Court rendered its
decision in favor of Abellera, decreeing as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring plaintiff
as the landowner of the parcel of land described in the complaint;

2. Declaring the
non-existence of tenancy relationship between plaintiff and the defendant over
the one-half (1/2) northern portion of the said parcel of land and ordering his
ejectment therefrom;

3. Ordering the
defendant to deliver to the plaintiff thirty (30) cavans of palay from 1971 and
every year thereafter until he vacates the premises or the equivalent value
thereof computed in accordance with the government’s price support for palay
with legal rate of interest per annum from the filing of the complaint until
said sum is fully paid.

4. Ordering the
defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00) PESOS as
attorney’s fees;

5. All other claims are
denied from paucity of evidence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.^[5]

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
aforequoted decision. On November 21,
1987, the judgment attained finality and entry of judgment was made on December
14, 1987. On May 25, 1989, the court of
origin issued an alias writ for the execution of the said judgment.

Pursuant to the writs of execution issued by the trial court, the
landholding subject of the controversy was turned over to Abellera, as
evidenced by Certificate of Turnover dated February 1, 1990.

On February 26, 1990, Abellera filed an action to cite and
declare petitioner in contempt of court on the ground that the latter, in
conspiracy with other persons, re-entered the property in question and, through
threats and intimidation, prevented Abellera’s workers from entering the same,
in disregard of the decisions and writs of the trial court. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 191
of the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas, Branch 14.

On February 5, 1991, the trial court rendered its decision
finding petitioner in contempt of court and imposing upon him a fine of P500.00
with a warning that further disobedience to the court’s order may warrant a
higher fine and imprisonment. Notwithstanding the decision, petitioner refused to vacate the
landholding. Thus, he was again
declared guilty of contempt of court on August 7, 1991 and sentenced to ten
(10) days of imprisonment with a warning that a further disobedience may
warrant a heavier penalty. Upon release
from jail, petitioner again re-entered the property and prevented Abellera from
cultivating the land.

On May 13, 1993, Abellera filed another motion to order
petitioner to vacate the controverted area and to prevent him from re-entering
and cultivating the same or any portion thereof. Petitioner was again cited for contempt on June 2, 1993 for
wantonly disregarding lawful court processes and to turn over the possession of
the landholding to Abellera. Petitioner continued to be adamant. Consequently,
he was repeatedly cited for contempt on July 17, 1993 and May 13, 1994.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
trial court’s contempt orders.^[6] Hence, this petition, based on the following
errors:

I. THE TRIAL COURT AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT, WHO NEVER YIELDED POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, IS GUILTY OF
CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR OPEN DEFIANCE OF THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT.^[7]

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW, JUSTICE AND EQUITY IN HOLDING ERRONEOUSLY THAT
POSSESSION WAS ALREADY WRESTED FROM DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND FULLY RESTORED AND
DELIVERED TO THE PLAINTIFF AND THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ALLEGEDLY RETURNED TO
THE PROPERTY IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.^[8]

The petition has no merit.

A close reading of the assigned errors reveals that at the core
of the controversy is a question of fact, i.e.,
whether or not possession of the property had been partly transferred to
Abellera.

Our jurisdiction in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to
reviewing only errors of law.^[9]
Factual findings of the appellate court are binding on the Supreme Court except
where, inter alia, the judgment is
premised on a misapprehension of facts, or when the appellate court failed to
consider certain relevant facts which if considered would justify a different
conclusion.^[10]

We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no
cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner claims that the Sheriff who
implemented the writ was not able to successfully restore Abellera in
possession of the property in question. However, apart from this assertion, petitioner failed to present
evidence to substantiate the same. On
the other hand, the records are replete of evidence that the writ was
effectively implemented.

The sheriff’s return states that Aristeo Madrid, the Deputy
Sheriff of Nasugbu, Batangas, together with Abellera and her counsel, served
the writ and explained its contents to petitioner, over his vehement
objection. Thereafter, they went to the
land subject of the writ and, after Abellera pointed to Madrid the boundaries,
the latter caused bamboo posts to be erected thereon. In the presence of two police officers, namely, Pfc. Guillermo
Jonson and Pfc. Ricardo Granados, and Abellera’s counsel, Madrid formally
turned over the physical possession of the land to Abellera. This formal turn-over was attested to in the
certificate of turn-over executed by Madrid, and signed by the two police
officers and Abellera’s counsel.

Suffice it to state that the return and certificate of turn-over
are presumed to have been regularly executed, pursuant to Section 3(m), Rule
131 of the Rules of Court.^[11]
Further, petitioner admitted during his cross examination that the events
narrated in the return really transpired.^[12]

Petitioner’s admission strongly militates against his claim that
there was no effective turn-over of the property. His contention that the fact that he was not evicted from his
place of residence indicates that possession of the land was not effectively
restored to her is untenable. Moreover,
it appears from the records that petitioner’s house was not located within the
property, hence, he did not have to be physically ejected from it. The act of erecting bamboo posts to
delineate the property was a symbolic act of announcing to the whole world that
the property in question was owned and controlled by Abellera, and anyone who
enters the same without her consent shall be properly dealt with under the law.

WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision dated May 15, 1998 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 16015, and the Orders of the Regional Trial Court
of Balayan, Batangas, Branch 14, declaring petitioner in contempt of court, are
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 9-17.

^[2] Ibid., at 19-23.

^[3] RTC Record,
pp. 564-566, 583-590; CA Records, pp. 52-57.

^[4] RTC
Records, p. 188.

^[5] Ibid., at pp. 100-101.

^[6] Rollo, p. 23.

^[7] Ibid., at 13.

^[8] Id., at 14.

^[9] Maglucot-Aw v. Maglucot, 329 SCRA 78, 88 (2000).

^[10]
BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 330 SCRA 507,
514 (2000).

^[11]
Rule 131, Section 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence:

x x x         x x x         x x x

(m) That official duty has been regularly
performed.

^[12]
TSN, June 2, 1993, pp. 12-14.