G.R. No. 106615 , G.R. No. 108591, G.R. No. 109452, G.R. No. 109978, G.R. No. 139379 March 20, 2002
Spouses Eligio P. Mallari and Marcelina I. Mallari, petitioners, vs. Ignacio Arcega, Percasio Catacutan, Ben Garcia, Alfredo de Guzman, Marieta Jacinto, Celestino Magat, Vicente Mallari, Rafael Manalo, Lorenzo Manarang, Emilio de Mesa, Juan Pangilinan, Torobia Serrano, Celestina Torno, and Juanito Vital, respondents. ( G.R. No. 106615 )

Ignacio Arcega, Percasio Catacutan, Ben Garcia, Alfredo de Guzman, Marieta Jacinto, Celestino Magat, Vicente Mallari, Rafael Manalo, Lorenzo Manarang, Emilio de Mesa, Juan Pangilinan, Torobia Serrano, Celestina Torno, and Juanito Vital, petitioners, vs. Honorable Norberto C. Ponce, Regional Trial Court Judge, Branch XLVI, San Fernando, Pampanga and Spouses Eligio Mallari and Marcelina Mallari, respondents. (G.R. No. 108591)
Spouses Eligio P. Mallari and Marcelina I. Mallari, petitioners, vs. Ignacio Arcega, Alfredo de Guzman, Percasio Catacutan, Rafael Manalo, Emilio de Mesa, Juanito Vital, Torobia Serrano, Celestino Magat, Vicente Mallari, Lorenzo Manarang, Marieta Jacinto, Ben Garcia, Celestina Torno, and Juan Pangilinan, respondents. (G.R. No. 109452)
Spouses Eligio P. Mallari and Marcelina I. Mallari, petitioners, vs. Ignacio Arcega, Percasio Catacutan, Ben Garcia, Alfredo de Guzman, Marieta Jacinto, Celestino Magat, Vicente Mallari, Rafael Manalo, Lorenzo Manarang, Emilio de Mesa, Juan Pangilinan, Torobia Serrano, Celestina Torno, and Juanito Vital, respondents. (G.R. No. 109978)
Spouses Eligio P. Mallari and Marcelina I. Mallari, petitioners, vs. Ignacio Arcega, Percasio Catacutan, Ben Garcia, Alfredo de Guzman, Marieta Jacinto, Celestino Magat, Vicente Mallari, Rafael Manalo, Lorenzo Manarang, Emilio de Mesa, Juan Pangilinan, Torobia Serrano, Celestina Torno, and Juanito Vital, respondents. (G.R. No. 139379)

FACTS

The case involves an agricultural lot, Lot No. 3664, formerly owned by spouses Roberto Wijangco and Asuncion Robles. The Wijangcos mortgaged the lot to the Philippine National Bank (PNB), which foreclosed and acquired the property after the Wijangcos failed to redeem it. On July 10, 1980, PNB executed a Deed of Promise to Sell the lot to spouses Eligio and Marcelina Mallari. The tenants-cultivators of the lot, led by Ignacio Arcega et al., offered to redeem it at P5,000.00 per hectare, but the Mallari spouses declined. On July 22, 1981, 27 tenants filed a petition for redemption (Agrarian Case No. 1908) before the Court of Agrarian Relations (later absorbed by the RTC). Thirteen tenants eventually withdrew, leaving 14 tenants as petitioners. The RTC initially dismissed the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed this, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-61093 (May 25, 1988), which held that the right of redemption had not prescribed due to lack of written notice and that a Certification from the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to finance the redemption sufficed as compliance with the law. Despite this final ruling, the RTC, upon remand, again dismissed the petition in 1990. The tenants (Arcega et al.) appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the petition and ordered the RTC to determine the redemption price. The Mallari spouses filed multiple petitions with the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s decisions, while Arcega et al. also filed a petition (G.R. No. 108591) assailing certain RTC orders.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the tenant-cultivators (Arcega et al.) are entitled to redeem the agricultural land under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), as amended, and whether the proceedings before the RTC complied with the Supreme Court’s final ruling in G.R. No. L-61093.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tenant-cultivators. The Court held that its Decision in G.R. No. L-61093 (May 25, 1988) had long become final and executory, constituting the law of the case. It conclusively settled that the tenants’ right of redemption had not prescribed and that the LBP Certification was a valid compliance with the requirement for financing the redemption. The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding this final ruling and in issuing orders that contravened it, such as ordering the payment of back rentals. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decisions reinstating the petition for redemption and remanded Agrarian Case No. 1908 to the RTC for further proceedings with dispatch. The RTC was ordered to implead the LBP as a necessary party and to submit progress reports to the Supreme Court. The petitions of the Mallari spouses (G.R. Nos. 106615, 109452, 109978, 139379) were denied, and the petition of Arcega et al. (G.R. No. 108591) was granted.