FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 168252 : July 28, 2008]

EUGENIO MABAGOS, Petitioner, v. ORLANDO MANINGAS,

HERMAN MANINGAS and EDWIN MANINGAS represented by
MARIANO SERRANO as their Attorney-in-Fact, Respondents.

RESOLUTION

CORONA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 of the March 9, 2005

decision2 and May 17, 2005 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 86440.

On November 28, 1997, petitioner Eugenio Mabagos filed a petition

for pre-emption and/or redemption4 against respondents Orlando,
Herman and Edwin Maningas in the Regional Office of the Department
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Region III,
Cabanatuan City. The case was docketed as DARAB Case No.
03183-SNE-97.

Petitioner alleged that he was a tenant of an agricultural land

described as Lot No. 2531 in Barrio Sinasajan, Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija,
with an area of around 100,930 sq. m. The subject land was
previously covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 23198 which was
cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-264442 registered in
the names of Bienvenido Padilla, Belen P. Bartilad and Armando
Padilla. He claimed that he had been in possession of such land for 35
years, cultivating it and paying leasehold rentals to the registered
owners. However, he discovered that the land was sold to
respondents for the amount of P120,000 on July 11, 19975 without it
first being offered to him as tenant.6

On March 30, 1999, the provincial adjudicator of Region III of the

DARAB rendered a decision declaring that petitioner was a tenant but
only of five hectares of the subject land.7 On reconsideration, the
decision was set aside and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office
(MARO) investigation report dated August 29, 1997 was adopted in a
resolution dated September 29, 2000.8 This report stated that the
land was grassland/grazing land and therefore not
tenanted. Petitioner filed an appeal in the DARAB.
9

In a decision dated November 17, 2003, the DARAB reversed and set
aside the September 29, 2000 resolution and declared petitioner
the bona fide tenant of the land and recognized his right of
redemption.10 It denied reconsideration on August 6, 2004.11

Aggrieved, respondents filed an appeal in the CA docketed as CA-G.R.

SP No. 86440.12 In a decision dated March 9, 2005, the CA set aside
the DARAB decision and resolution and dismissed petitioner's petition
for pre-emption and/or redemption. It denied reconsideration in a
resolution dated May 17, 2005.

Hence this petition raising the sole issue of whether or not petitioner
was the tenant of the subject landholding who had the right of
redemption under Section 12 of RA 3844, as amended.13