Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Requirements of liberal construction FACTS

Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure


Private respondents are the heirs of the late Guillermo Sarenas,
who died intestate onJune 27, 1986. During his lifetime,
DAMASO SEBASTIAN and Guillermo owned agricultural landholdings, all located inSamon
TOMASA CARDENAS, petitioners, and Mayapyap Sur, Cabanatuan city. Guillermo was also the
vs. registered owner of parcelof agricultural land located in San
Ricardo, Talaver, Nueva Ecija having a total area of
HON. HORACIO R. MORALES, Secretary of the
4.9993hectares, which was tenanted by Manuel Valentin and
Department of Agrarian Reform, LEONILA SARENAS[1],
Wenceslao Peneyra. The said tenants tilling the said farm lots had
JOSEPHINE SARENAS-DAYRIT, EVANGELINE
already been issued emancipation patents pursuant to PD No
SARENAS, ESTRELITA SARENAS TAN, CECILIO
27.The private respondents filed an application with the DAR
MARCOS SARENAS, MANUEL DEL SARENAS, DAISY
Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, for retention over
RITA SARENAS, and JOY SARENAS, respondents.
the five hectares of the late Guillermos landholdings.

G.R. No. 141116 Among the lots which the private respondents sought to retain
under Section 6 of the CARP (RANo. 6657).On June 6, 1997, The
February 17, 2003
DAR Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga granted the
Ponente: Quisimbing, J.: private respondents application.

Petitioner, Sebastian moved for reconsideration of the said


forgoing order before the DAR Regional Director. The DAR
NATURE OF CASE Regional Director found out that the order was contrary to law
violating Section 6 of RA No. 6657 and its implementing Rules
Appeal by certiorari
and Regulations. He, the DAR Regional Director, then issued a
new order dated October 23, 1997, which then instead allowed
BRIEF private respondents to retain a parcel of the said land with an area
of 4.9993 hectares, covered by TCT No. 143564, located in San
Ricardo, Talavera, NuevaEcija.

The privaterespondents then appealed the order to the DAR


secretary.

On June 18, 1998, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform set aside the
order dated October 23, 1997. Petitioner Sebastian then filed a
motion for reconsideration, but this motion was denied by the
DAR Secretary. T Yes, the CA's dismissal of the case is valid and proper.

he petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
prohibition, with prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle to
injunction with the Court of Appeals. On March 9, 1999, the Court effect substantial justice.1a\^/phi1.net Thus, litigations should, as
of Appeals, without going into the merits, dismissed the case. It much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on
found that the orders of the DAR Secretary sought to be reviewed technicalities. This does not mean, however, that procedural
were final orders for they finally disposed of the agrarian case and rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the
left nothing more to be decided on the merits. Hence, the proper convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in
remedy available to petitioners was a petition for review pursuant the orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the
to Rule 43, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a
not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or
whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to
The Petitioners moved for reconsideration but was subsequently suppose that substantive law and procedural law are contradictory
denied the same court. Hence, this petition. to each other, or as often suggested, that enforcement of
procedural rules should never be permitted if it would result in
Petitioners admit that there was error in the remedy resorted to prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants.
before the Court of Appeals. They contended that procedural rules
are but a means to an end and should be liberally construed to Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be
effect substantial justice. prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that
issues may be properly presented and justly resolved. Hence, rules
On the other hand, private respondents argue that while it is true of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for
that the Rules of Court should be liberally construed, it is also persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
equally true that the Rules cannot be ignored. injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal application of the
ISSUE/s of the CASE rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party
whether or not the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules.
petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288 is valid and proper.
SUPREME COURT RULING
ACTION OF THE COURT WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed
DAR: Granted motion of the private respondents decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288 dated
CA: Dismissed the case without going into the merits of the case March 4, 1999, as well as the resolution of the appellate court
SC: Affirmed CA. dated December 10, 1999, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as
to costs.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
SO ORDERED.
Aspect of Jurisdiction Wenceslao Peneyra. The said tenants tilling the said farm lots had
already been issued emancipation patents pursuant to PD No
27.The private respondents filed an application with the DAR
BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC., Petitioner, Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, for retention over
vs. the five hectares of the late Guillermos landholdings.
COURT OF APPEALS AND LOLITA G. TOLEDO
Among the lots which the private respondents sought to retain
G.R. No. 173946 under Section 6 of the CARP (RANo. 6657).On June 6, 1997, The
DAR Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga granted the
June 19, 2013
private respondents application.
Ponente: PEREZ, J :
Petitioner, Sebastian moved for reconsideration of the said
forgoing order before the DAR Regional Director. The DAR
NATURE OF CASE Regional Director found out that the order was contrary to law
Petition for Review on Certiorari violating Section 6 of RA No. 6657 and its implementing Rules
and Regulations. He, the DAR Regional Director, then issued a
new order dated October 23, 1997, which then instead allowed
BRIEF private respondents to retain a parcel of the said land with an area
of 4.9993 hectares, covered by TCT No. 143564, located in San
Ricardo, Talavera, NuevaEcija.

The privaterespondents then appealed the order to the DAR


secretary.

On June 18, 1998, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform set aside the
order dated October 23, 1997. Petitioner Sebastian then filed a
FACTS motion for reconsideration, but this motion was denied by the
DAR Secretary. T
Private respondents are the heirs of the late Guillermo Sarenas,
he petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and
who died intestate onJune 27, 1986. During his lifetime,
prohibition, with prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory
Guillermo owned agricultural landholdings, all located inSamon
injunction with the Court of Appeals. On March 9, 1999, the Court
and Mayapyap Sur, Cabanatuan city. Guillermo was also the
of Appeals, without going into the merits, dismissed the case. It
registered owner of parcelof agricultural land located in San
found that the orders of the DAR Secretary sought to be reviewed
Ricardo, Talaver, Nueva Ecija having a total area of
were final orders for they finally disposed of the agrarian case and
4.9993hectares, which was tenanted by Manuel Valentin and
left nothing more to be decided on the merits. Hence, the proper
remedy available to petitioners was a petition for review pursuant much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on
to Rule 43, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and technicalities. This does not mean, however, that procedural
not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the
convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in
The Petitioners moved for reconsideration but was subsequently the orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the
denied the same court. Hence, this petition. effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a
system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or
Petitioners admit that there was error in the remedy resorted to whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to
before the Court of Appeals. They contended that procedural rules suppose that substantive law and procedural law are contradictory
are but a means to an end and should be liberally construed to to each other, or as often suggested, that enforcement of
effect substantial justice. procedural rules should never be permitted if it would result in
prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants.
On the other hand, private respondents argue that while it is true
that the Rules of Court should be liberally construed, it is also Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be
equally true that the Rules cannot be ignored. prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that
issues may be properly presented and justly resolved. Hence, rules
ISSUE/s of the CASE of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for
whether or not the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288 is valid and proper. injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal application of the
ACTION OF THE COURT rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party
DAR: Granted motion of the private respondents invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules.
CA: Dismissed the case without going into the merits of the case
SC: Affirmed CA. SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288 dated
March 4, 1999, as well as the resolution of the appellate court
Yes, the CA's dismissal of the case is valid and proper. dated December 10, 1999, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as
to costs.
Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, SO ORDERED.
liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle to
effect substantial justice.1a\^/phi1.net Thus, litigations should, as