GR 137881; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137881 December 21, 2004
ISAAC DELGADO and FERNANDO DELGADO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ZACARIAS LIMPANGOG, REMEGIO LAGUNA, SANTIAGO BALORO, CAMILO EVANGELISTA, NEMESIO AMORES and RUSTICO RUIZO, respondents.
FACTS
The respondents claimed to be tenants on petitioners’ riceland since 1962. After Presidential Decree No. 27 took effect, they were identified as qualified beneficiaries and were issued Certificates of Land Transfer and, later, Emancipation Patents. They alleged that in 1985, the petitioners destroyed their crops, threatened them with a gun, and ejected them from the landholding. This prompted the respondents to file an action for reinstatement with damages. The petitioners countered that the respondents had either abandoned their landholdings or voluntarily left after receiving monetary consideration. They also argued that the issuance of the CLTs and EPs was fraudulent and raised the defense of res judicata, pointing to a prior similar case filed by the respondents in the Regional Trial Court which was dismissed without prejudice.
The Provincial Adjudicator initially ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them lawful tenant-beneficiaries and ordering their reinstatement. Upon reconsideration, the Adjudicator reversed, holding that the dismissal of the RTC case constituted an abandonment of the respondents’ rights, leading to a forfeiture of their titles. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) later reinstated the original decision in favor of the respondents. The petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review, but the CA dismissed it outright for insufficiency in form and substance and denied their motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition and whether the defense of res judicata or abandonment is applicable to bar the respondents’ agrarian case.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the DARAB decision. On procedural grounds, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CA’s dismissal, as the petition failed to comply with the requisite contents and formalities under the Rules of Court. On substantive merits, the defense of res judicata does not apply. The prior RTC case was dismissed without prejudice, which is not an adjudication on the merits. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the refiling of the action, as it leaves the parties free to litigate the same matter in a subsequent proceeding.
Furthermore, the elements of abandonment are not present. Abandonment requires a clear intent to relinquish a right and an overt act carrying that intent into effect. The mere dismissal of the RTC case without prejudice does not demonstrate a deliberate intent to abandon the claim permanently. This is especially true given that the respondents promptly filed the proper case before the Provincial Adjudication Board. Their act of refiling the action is utterly inconsistent with any notion of abandonment. Therefore, the DARAB correctly reinstated the original decision recognizing the respondents as lawful tenant-beneficiaries entitled to possession and cultivation of the land.