ENRIQUETA S. TY, CANDELARIA C. LUMAGBAS, FELIPE LUMAGBAS, TIBURCIO LUMAGBAS AND MELECIO LUMAGBAS, PETITIONERS, VS. EUSTAQUIA ELALE, CONSORCIO ELALE, SOTERA ELALE-TULBO, MACARIO …

Ty versus Elale

The Case

This is a petition brought by Enriqueta Ty and the Lumagbas family against Eustaquia Elale and her relatives, arising from a dispute over who are the rightful tenants of two parcels of coconut land in Guiuan, Eastern Samar. The Agrarian Court ordered the petitioners to reinstate the Elale family as tenants and to pay damages, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court, but they arrived too late. The case matters for two reasons: it teaches the strict, non-extendible route of appeal in agrarian cases under Presidential Decree Number 946, and it clarifies that the Court of Appeals may decide an agrarian appeal without requiring memoranda, because the filing of memoranda is discretionary and not mandatory.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of Agrarian Relations at Catarman, Northern Samar. In a decision dated December 15, 1980, that court ordered the reinstatement of Eustaquia Elale, her son Consorcio, her daughter Sotera Tulbo, her grandson Macario Tulbo, and one Moises Balais as tenants of the coconut land. It also required Enriqueta Ty and the Lumagbas spouses and their two sons to pay actual damages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

The petitioners seasonably appealed to the Court of Appeals. The record was received there on February 16, 1981, and the case was raffled on March 24, 1981. Without requiring memoranda, the Court of Appeals decided the appeal on April 22, 1981, affirming the lower court on the ground that its judgment was supported by substantial evidence. The petitioners' counsel received a copy on May 8, 1981, and four days later filed a motion to set aside the decision, claiming they were never given the chance to file a brief or memorandum. The Court of Appeals denied that motion on July 24, 1981. Thirty-two days after receiving notice of the denial, the petitioners mailed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for having been filed late, and also denied the first motion for reconsideration. A second motion for reconsideration followed, and that is what the Court resolved here.

Facts

Eustaquia Elale, an octogenarian who claimed to have been a tenant on the land since 1917, and her son Consorcio were allegedly ejected from the coconut land after they were arrested on a charge of qualified theft. To secure their release from imprisonment, they thumbmarked a memorandum agreeing to vacate the land.

Enriqueta Ty, on the other hand, recognized a different set of tenants on the same land, namely the spouses Felipe and Candelaria Lumagbas and their two sons Tiburcio and Melecio. The Elale family brought the agrarian case, and the Agrarian Court ruled in their favor, finding that they had been unlawfully ejected and awarding them damages.

The petitioners appealed, insisting that if they had been allowed to file a memorandum they could have shown that the Elale family were merely tools of one Jose Abuda, who wanted to use their occupation to support his own civil action against Alberto Ty for recovery of the land. They also pointed out that Alberto Ty, the landowner, was never impleaded, and that Enriqueta Ty was only his overseer. The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed without requiring memoranda, and the petitioners' subsequent motions failed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals may decide an agrarian appeal without requiring the parties to file memoranda.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in resolving the appeal without memoranda.
• Whether or not the petitioners' petition for certiorari was filed on time, and whether the decision of the Court of Appeals had already become final and executory.

Applicable Provisions

Section 18 of Presidential Decree Number 946 governs appeals in agrarian cases and provides:

Section 18. Appeals. The Court of Appeals shall affirm the decision or order or the portions thereof appealed from if the findings of fact in the said decision or order are supported by substantial evidence as basis thereof, and the conclusions stated therein are not clearly against the law and jurisprudence. Upon receipt of the records of the case from the Court of Agrarian Relations, the Court of Appeals may, if it deems necessary, require the parties to file simultaneous memoranda within a non-extendible period of fifteen days from notice; the appellate court shall decide the case within thirty days from receipt of said records or memoranda. No motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be allowed in the Court of Appeals.

This provision is decisive because it makes the filing of memoranda discretionary upon the Court of Appeals, and it expressly bars motions for reconsideration in agrarian appeals.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Presidential Decree Number 946 does not make it mandatory for the Court of Appeals to require memoranda. The word "may" in the provision confirms that the appellate court is empowered, in the interest of the expeditious administration of justice, to dispense with memoranda in deciding agrarian cases. In this case, the Court of Appeals presumably concluded after perusing the record that the appeal was manifestly without merit or palpably frivolous and dilatory, since the lower court's findings were supported by the evidence.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition could not be treated as a special civil action of certiorari, because the Court of Appeals did not act with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction, and did not depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, in resolving the appeal without first requiring memoranda.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioners committed a mistake in filing a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals. They should have appealed right away to the Supreme Court within the reglementary thirty-day period, because in agrarian cases a motion for reconsideration is not allowed in the Court of Appeals by Section 18 of Presidential Decree Number 946. By the time the petition reached the Supreme Court, the decision of the Court of Appeals had already become final and executory and could no longer be reviewed.

Even so, the Court offered guidance for the future: to dispel any impression that a litigant in an agrarian case has been denied due process, it is advisable that if the Appellate Court finds memoranda unnecessary, it should at least issue a notice to the parties that the case is submitted for decision without memoranda. It is likewise advisable that an appellant who desires to file a memorandum should manifest that intention to the Court of Appeals when remitting the docket and legal research fees.

Doctrine

Under Section 18 of Presidential Decree Number 946, the Court of Appeals may, if it deems necessary, require the parties in an agrarian case to file simultaneous memoranda. The filing of memoranda is discretionary, not mandatory, and the appellate court may decide the appeal immediately upon receipt of the records if it finds the appeal manifestly without merit.

No motion for rehearing or reconsideration is allowed in the Court of Appeals in agrarian cases. An aggrieved party must appeal directly to the Supreme Court within the reglementary thirty-day period; filing a motion for reconsideration below does not toll that period and will cause the appeal to be lost.

A petition for certiorari will not lie where the Court of Appeals merely exercised a discretion expressly granted to it by law. There is no grave abuse of discretion, no excess of jurisdiction, and no departure from the usual course of judicial proceedings when the appellate court dispenses with memoranda in an agrarian appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' second motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, without costs, because the decision of the Court of Appeals had already become final and executory.

Remember This

In agrarian appeals, the Court of Appeals may dispense with memoranda, and no motion for reconsideration is allowed there, so the losing party must go straight to the Supreme Court within thirty days. Examiners use this case to test the discretionary nature of memoranda under Presidential Decree Number 946 and the fatal consequence of filing a prohibited motion for reconsideration instead of appealing on time.