Title
Domingo vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 169122
Decision Date
Feb 2, 2010
Julio Domingo's heirs contested a forged land sale deed; courts ruled in their favor, finding Marcelino in contempt for defying orders. Supreme Court upheld dismissal of Marcelino's petition due to procedural errors.
domingo
court of appeals
certiorari
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 169122)

Facts:

  • Background and parties
    • Marcelino Domingo (Marcelino) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals resolutions dated 5 April 2005 and 10 June 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 89023.
    • The respondents were Agapita Domingo (Agapita), Ana Domingo, and the heirs of Gaudencio Domingo, namely Doroteo, Julita, Amando, and Arcel Domingo; the heirs of Julian Domingo, namely Julian Domingo, Jr. and Ponciano Domingo; the heirs of Edilberta Domingo, namely Anita Domingo and Rosie Domingo; the heir of Felipe Domingo, namely Lorna Domingo; and the heirs of Geronimo Domingo, namely Emily Domingo and Ariston Domingo, represented by Rolando Domingo.
  • Alleged sale, annulment suit, and finality of judgment
    • Before he died, Julio Domingo (Julio) allegedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over a 4.1358-hectare parcel of land in favor of Marcelino’s wife, Carmelita Mananghaya (Mananghaya).
    • The property was located in Burgos, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, and was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-87365.
    • Agapita and Ana Domingo, and the heirs of Gaudencio, Julian, Edilberta, Modesta, Felipe, and Geronimo Domingo (collectively, the Domingos) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Judicial Region 3, Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija a complaint against Marcelino and Mananghaya for annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
    • The Domingos alleged that Julio’s signature in the deed was forged.
    • In its 3 November 1993 Decision, the RTC held that Julio’s signature was forged, and thus the deed was void.
    • The RTC ordered Marcelino and Mananghaya to deliver possession of the property to the Domingos.
    • Marcelino and Mananghaya appealed to the Court of Appeals.
    • In its 14 July 2000 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, and that decision became final and executory.
  • Writ of execution and first return of possession
    • On 4 August 2003, the RTC issued a writ of execution.
    • On 25 August 2003, the Domingos gained possession of the property.
  • Marcelino’s agrarian reform petition and reentry
    • On 25 August 2003, Marcelino filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) a petition dated 25 August 2003 praying that he be declared the tenant-beneficiary of the property.
    • Around April 2004, Marcelino reentered and retook possession of the property.
  • Contempt proceedings and first RTC contempt order
    • The Domingos filed before the RTC a motion to cite Marcelino in contempt.
    • Marcelino and Mananghaya then filed before the Court of Appeals a petition dated 28 April 2004 for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
    • Their prayers included:
1) Pending hearing, the issuance of a preliminary injunction to enjoin and prohibit the RTC from implementing the writ of executed property (Exh. M). 2) Annulling the writ of execution dated August 23, 2003. 3) Annulling the portion of the RTC decision stating that Marcelino and Mananghaya must deliver possession of the land to the plaintiffs. 4) Denial and/or dismissal of the motion for contempt filed by the private respondents.
  • Court of Appeals dismissal of certiorari petition and RTC contempt escalation
    • In its 26 May 2004 Order, the RTC found Marcelino in contempt, fined him P25,000, and ordered his arrest and imprisonment.
    • The RTC sheriff no longer served the 26 May 2004 Order because Marcelino declared in writing that he would deliver possession of the property to the Domingos.
    • In its 8 June 2004, Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed outright Marcelino and Mananghaya’s 28 April 2004 petition.
    • Later, Marcelino employed six men to reenter the property.
    • On 14 June 2004, the RTC issued warrants of arrest against Marcelino and the six men.
    • Marcelino and a certain Genero Salazar (Salazar) were arrested and detained at the Philippine National Police station in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.
    • On 17 and 23 June 2004, Salazar and Marcelino were released after they declared in writing that they would no longer interfere with the Domingos’ possession.
    • The RTC warned Marcelino that a warrant for his arrest would be deemed automatically issued if he reentered the property.
  • DAR coverage order and second reentry
    • In its 4 October 2004 Order, the DAR granted Marcelino’s 25 August 2003 petition, placed 10.0108 hectares (including the property) under coverage of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, and named Marcelino as one of the tenant-beneficiaries.
    • Agapita filed a motion for reconsideration.
    • Marcelino reentered and retook possession of the property again.
  • Second contempt motion and RTC’s 23 December 2004 contempt order
    • The Domingos filed before the RTC another motion to cite Marcelino in contempt and to issue a warrant for his arrest.
    • In its 23 December 2004 Order, the RTC stated that a sheriff’s partial return showed that on 7 December 2004 at about 3:00 p.m., the sheriff saw six men tilling and plowing the land, but they stopped upon seeing the sheriff.
    • The RTC also stated that Dorenzo Domingo, brother of Marcelino, confirmed reentry by Marcelino, and that Marcelino, through the barangay captain, bragged of a DARAB regional office decision in San Fernando City, Pampanga, making him the legal owner.
    • The RTC further stated that evidence showed Marcelino had fenced the property.
    • The RTC emphasized that, despite its final order dated May 26, 2004 finding Marcelino in contempt and despite the June 23, 2004 warning about automatic reissuance of a warrant in case of reentry, Marcelino ignored the court’s authority.
    • The RTC reasoned that even if Marcelino had been awarded ownership by DARAB, Marcelino could not take the law into his own hands by taking over without a judicial order and ousting the Domingos who had legal possession pursuant to a decision of the Court of Appeals that had long become final and executory.
    • The RTC granted the Domingos’ motion and ordered:
1) A continuing warrant of arrest and detention of Marcelino at the Nueva Ecija Provincial Jail for thirty (30) days until further order. 2) Marcelino’s further detention until he effectively surrendered and redelivered possession to the plaintiffs. 3) Forfeiture in favor of the plaintiffs of all movable improvements introduced by Marcelino. 4) Issuance of a writ of execution for satisfaction of the fine of P25,000 under the May 26, 2004 Order. 5) Continuing warrants for arrest of all other persons working, cultivating, tilling, and planting on the subject landholding on Marcelino’s control, direction, and supervision.
  • DARAB reconsideration and RTC denial of motion for reconsideration
    • Marcelino filed a motion for reconsideration of the 23 December 2004 RTC order.
    • In its 17 February 2005 Order, the DAR granted Agapita’s motion for reconsideration and set aside the 4 October 2004 DAR order.
    • The DAR held that the property was not covered by RA No. 6657 because it was less than five hectares.
    • The DAR stated that documents showed the subject property of 4.1358 hectares covered by TCT No. 87365 was the only landholding owned by Julio Domingo, and that Julio was only an administrator of 5.8831 hectares, making the 4.1358-hectare portion below the agrarian reform ceiling.
    • In its 4 March 2005 Order, the RTC denied Marcelino’s motion for reconsideration.
    • The RTC held that in Marcelino’s Sinumpaang Salaysay dated June 22, 2004, Marcelino did not mention any distinction between possession as an owner versus as a tenant...(Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms