Case Digest (G.R. No. 161811)
Facts:
The City of Baguio, Mauricio Domogan, and Orlando Genove v. Francisco Nino, et al., G.R. No. 161811, April 12, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.In 1966 the Bureau of Lands awarded a parcel identified as Lot No. 10 in Baguio City to Narcisa A. Placino. Francisco Nino, one of the respondents, occupied the lot and filed a Petition Protest in 1975; the Director of Lands dismissed the protest by order of November 11, 1976, a decision Nino unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court and which became final and executory.
On Narcisa’s petition the then-Executive Director of the DENR-Cordillera issued an Order of Execution on February 1, 1993 directing the CENRO officer to enforce the decision by ordering Nino to refrain from occupying the area and to remove improvements. Attempts to enforce that Order failed, and Narcisa’s ejectment complaint before the Baguio MTCC was dismissed in August 1996. Narcisa’s counsel, Atty. Edilberto Claravall, sought from DENR-CAR a Special Order authorizing the City Sheriff, the City Police, and the City Demolition Team to remove improvements; DENR-CAR denied jurisdiction to act on the sheriff/police/demolition team and invoked Section 10(d) of Rule 39 (then Section 14).
Atty. Claravall obtained an amended Order of Execution directing the CENRO to enforce the order “with the assistance upon request of the City Sheriff of Baguio City, the Demolition Team of Baguio City and the Baguio City Police Station” to order Nino to remove improvements. On July 16, 1997 the Baguio Demolition Team and police, acting on city orders, began demolishing the Nino houses but were temporarily stopped by DENR-CENRO instructions; DENR-CENRO later advised it would implement the amended order on August 4, 1997.
Nino and his wife filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 6) of Baguio City challenging the amended Order of Execution; the petition was later amended to add co-petitioners and additional respondents and to seek damages. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit; a motion for reconsideration was denied. The Ninos appealed to the Court of Appeals by a Petition for Review filed under Rule 42 (though the RTC had acted in original jurisdiction).
The Court of Appeals, by decision dated December 11, 2002, granted the petition, held that Section 10(d) of Rule 39 applies (requiring a special court order before removal of improvements on property subject of execution), set aside the orders dated September 24, 1997 and November 23, 1998, and ordered the City and its demolition team to cease enforcement of the amended Order of Execution until a special court order is obtained. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied by resolution of December 17, 2003.
Petitioners (the City, Mayor Domogan, and Orlando Genove) sought review in the Supreme Court (Rule 45 petition), contending the Court of Appeals erred in requiring a special court order, misapplied Section 10(d), and should not have entertained the peti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in entertaining and ruling on the petition for review despite the appeal being filed under the wrong rule (Rule 42 instead of Rule 41)?
- Whether Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requires a special court order before improvements on property subject of execution may be destroyed, demolished, or removed.
- Whether an administrative agency such as the Bureau of Lands / DENR may, by order of execution, validly direct demolition or removal of improvements without a special court order, or whether the power to order removal belongs exclusively to the courts.
- Whether the City Mayor’s alleged power under Section 455(b)(3)(vi) of the Local Government Code to order demolition of illegally constructed structures may be invoked where it was raised ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)