G.R. NO. 153850 - JOVENDO DEL CASTILLO, VS. ABUNDIO ORCIGA, EMELINA ORCIGA-VOLANTE, PILAR ORCIGA CLEMENA, ADELAIDA ORCIGA GENIO, NENITA ORCIGA ELEDA, YOLANDA ORCIGA TAKASAN AND ALBERTO ORCIGA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition for reinstatement is hereby dismissed for lack of cause of action. Rolando Orciga is therefore given until the next cropping season of 1994 to personally cultivate said farmholding, subject to payment of arrearages on rentals. [13] Believing that the Provincial Adjudicator had erred in his Decision, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 1, 1994, claiming that the Provincial Adjudicator's Decision was "contrary to law and not in accordance with the provisions and intent of MAR Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1978, in relation to A.O. 4, series of 1988" ; [14] but in his August 22, 1994 Resolution, the Provincial Adjudicator rejected the plea for reconsideration. [15] Consequently, on September 1, 1994, respondents filed an appeal before the DARAB which was docketed as DARAB Case No. 3992 (Reg. Case No.05-437-CS-94). On March 9, 1998, the DARAB rendered its judgment, thus: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby ANNULED [sic] AND A NEW DECISION is hereby rendered: Placing the disposition of subject landholding with the DAR, particularly the PARO of Camarines Sur, for the implementation of Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1988; Ordering defendant-appellee, and/or any person/s acting in his behalf, to vacate subject landholding for the proper disposition of the DAR. Let the records of this case be remanded to the sala of the Provincial Adjudicator a quo for the issuance of a writ of execution. [16] On April 16, 1988, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the DARAB, in its February 7, 2001 Resolution, [17] rejected petitioner's motion. Undaunted, del Castillo, on July 18, 2001, interposed a petition for review before the CA, [18] which was docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 66122. Ruling of the Court of Appeals The appellate court concluded that petitioner del Castillo had no right to take possession of the farmland being disputed even if the heirs had failed to deliver the agricultural lessor's share. It held that when the beneficiary abandons the tillage or refuses to gain rights accruing to the farmer-beneficiary under the law, it will be reverted to the government and not to the farm lot owner. [19] The dispositive portion of the CA's November 26, 2001 Decision reads: WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The petitioner is hereby ordered to vacate the premises in question. The DARAB is hereby directed to immediately reinstate possession of the landholdings to respondents. Costs against the petitioners. [20] [sic, "petitioners" should be "petitioner"] On December 13, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Decision, but the CA discarded the said motion for lack of merit in its May 7, 2002 Resolution. [21] Persistent, petitioner now seeks a fourth and final review of his case through a Petition for Review on Certiorari [22] before this Court. The Issue The mai