GR L 45114; (October, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45114 and L-45192 October 26, 1987
APOLONIO SUMBINCO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents. JEPTE DEMERIN, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Jepte Demerin and his co-plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Court of Agrarian Relations against landowner Apolonio Sumbingco. They alleged they were tenants on two haciendas under the previous owner, Ricardo Nolan, and continued as tenants after Sumbingco purchased the land. They claimed Sumbingco progressively converted their landholdings to citrus plantations, eventually ousting them completely from cultivation in 1964. They sought reinstatement and damages. The agrarian court dismissed their complaint, finding their evidence of tenancy implausible and inconsistent.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. It ruled that given the admission the plaintiffs were tenants prior to Sumbingco’s purchase, it was reasonable to assume their tenancy continued under the new owner, as Sumbingco’s overseer should have informed him of their presence. The appellate court awarded damages to Demerin et al. but denied reinstatement because the land was already fully planted with citrus. Both Sumbingco and the Demerin group filed separate petitions for review with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied both petitions, affirming the Court of Appeals decision. The Court emphasized that appeals from the Court of Appeals via certiorari are not a matter of right but rest on the Supreme Court’s sound discretion, granted only for special and important reasons. The prescribed review is limited to questions of law distinctly set forth, and the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive.
A thorough review of the record revealed no such special reasons to justify the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The issues raised were principally factual in nature. Any legal issues presented were deemed not sufficiently weighty or substantial to warrant consideration. The petitioners failed to demonstrate a strong case of serious error by the appellate court. Consequently, the Court declined to wield its power of review, finding the petitions without merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed and declared immediately executory.