THIRD DIVISION
INOCENCIO
ALIMBOBOYOG, G.R. No. 163655
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
- versus
- Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
and
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
PAZ NOBLE-NOBLEFRANCA,
Respondents. Promulgated:
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
In this Petition for Certiorari[1]
dated
In October 1995, private respondent
Paz Noble-Noblefranca (Noblefranca)
instituted an action before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB) Office of the Provincial Adjudicator against Alimboboyog
for collection of rentals and ejectment with
damages. The complaint was later amended
to reflect the correct technical description of the property. Noblefranca prayed
therein that Alimboboyog be directed to pay back
rentals representing her share as landowner amounting to 156 cavans of palay or its money
equivalent covering the period from 1988-1995.
Alimboboyog filed an answer claiming that he was
no longer obliged to remit the landowner’s share because he had already
acquired the property by operation of law through the issuance of a Certificate
of Land Transfer (CLT) in the name of his father, Domingo Alimboboyog.
On
Alimboboyog’s Notice of Appeal was denied due
course in an Order dated
Four (4) years later or on
Noblefranca questioned the reversal on petition
for review with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the DARAB was devoid of authority
to assume appellate jurisdiction over a case which had already attained
finality. The appellate court granted Noblefranca’s petition and set aside the decision of the
DARAB for being contrary to the facts of the case as found by the Provincial
Adjudicator. This Decision is the
subject of the instant case.
According to Alimboboyog,
despite the fact that he was represented by counsel in the proceedings before
the Provincial Adjudicator and the DARAB, Noblefranca
deliberately omitted to serve a copy of her petition for review on Alimboboyog’s counsel. Instead, she served it upon the
DARAB and Alimboboyog himself at his address in Camarines
Noblefranca filed a Comment[4]
dated
Alimboboyog filed a Reply[5]
dated
The records reveal that Alimboboyog was represented by counsel in the proceedings
before the Provincial Adjudicator. It
was, in fact, a lawyer from the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of the
Department of Agrarian Reform who filed on Alimboboyog’s
behalf an answer to Noblefranca’s complaint. It also appears that the same counsel
represented Alimboboyog in his appeal before the
DARAB.
Noblefranca, however, served a copy of her
petition with the Court of Appeals on Alimboboyog
himself and not the latter’s counsel.[6] She insists that Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court, under which her petition was filed, does not require that the same be
served upon respondent’s (petitioner Alimboboyog)
counsel but merely that it be served on the adverse party, which is what she
did.
This was a flawed procedural step in
view of the requirement under Sec. 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court[7] and
pertinent jurisprudence that service of notice when a party is represented by
counsel should be made upon counsel and not upon the party.[8] However, we cannot close our eyes to the
fact that Alimboboyog had not previously brought this
matter to the attention of the Court of Appeals prior to filing the instant
petition.
By his own admission, Alimboboyog actually received a copy of the appellate
court’s Decision in late March 2004 and communicated his receipt thereof to his
counsel on
The unquestioned rule in this
jurisdiction is that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against
the acts of respondent. In this case,
the plain and adequate remedy was a motion for reconsideration of the assailed
Decision and the resolution thereof, which was not only expected to be but
would actually have provided an adequate and more speedy remedy than the
present petition for certiorari.[9]
The filing of a motion for
reconsideration would have afforded the Court of Appeals the opportunity to correct
the errors attributed to it and allowed Alimboboyog
to ventilate his side. His failure to
file such motion deprived the appellate court of its right and opportunity to
review and purge its decision of any oversight.[10]
In view of the fact that Alimboboyog failed to take advantage of the procedural
remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration without any concrete, compelling
and valid explanation, we cannot allow him to now seek relief by
certiorari.
As a final note, we add that although
the merits of the case are not in issue in this petition, the same having been
filed solely to question Noblefranca’s failure to
serve a copy of the petition which she filed with the Court of Appeals on Alimboboyog’s counsel, we nonetheless reviewed the
substantive conclusions reached by the appellate court and found them to be in
accord with the facts of the case, law and pertinent jurisprudence.
It appears that Alimboboyog,
as affirmed by the Provincial Adjudicator’s Decision, pins his cause on the CLT
issued to his father. However, a CLT merely
evinces that the grantee thereof is qualified to avail of the statutory
mechanisms for the acquisition of ownership of the land tilled by him as
provided under Pres. Decree No. 27. It is not a muniment
of title that vests upon the farmer/grantee absolute ownership of his tillage.[11]
Moreover, the subsequent cancellation of the said CLT on the ground that Noblefranca’s property is exempt from the coverage of
Operation Land Transfer invalidates Alimboboyog’s
claim of full ownership of the property.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[2]
[6]
[7]Sec. 2. Filing and service, defined.—Filing is
the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of
the pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared by counsel, service
upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the
party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several
parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by
the opposite side.
[8]Mancenido v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 627
(2000); See also National Power
Corporation v. Tac-an, 445 Phil. 515 (2003).
[9]Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78591, March 21, 1989, 171 SCRA 415, 424; See also D.C. Crystal, Inc. v. Laya, G.R. No. 53597, February 28, 1989, 170 SCRA 734.