Case Digest (G.R. No. 156287)
Facts:
Felicitas M. Machado and Marcelino P. Machado v. Ricardo L. Gatdula, Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, and Irineo S. Paz, Sheriff IV, Office of the Provincial Sheriff, San Pedro, Laguna, G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Felicitas M. Machado and Marcelino P. Machado (the Machados) own one of two adjoining private parcels in Barangay San Vicente, San Pedro, Laguna; respondent Ricardo L. Gatdula owns the other. On February 2, 1999 Gatdula wrote to the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) claiming that the Machados had blocked his right of way by erecting a two-door apartment. COSLAP convened a mediation on February 25, 1999 and ordered a verification survey; when no government surveyor was available, a private surveyor deputized by the CENRO-DENR conducted the survey on May 9, 1999 and reported encroachment by the Machados. The Machados filed a position paper on August 26, 1999 contesting both the survey and COSLAP’s jurisdiction and asserting the Regional Trial Court as the proper forum.
On October 25, 1999 COSLAP issued a resolution directing the Machados to reopen the right of way; COSLAP found the Machados estopped from questioning jurisdiction because they had participated in the mediation and verification survey. COSLAP denied the Machados’ motion for reconsideration on January 24, 2000. The Machados filed a notice of appeal to the Office of the President on February 18, 2000. While that appeal was pending, COSLAP—upon Gatdula’s motion—issued a writ of execution (March 21, 2001) and, after the Machados refused to comply and the provincial sheriff recommended further action, a writ of demolition (July 12, 2001); the Machados moved to quash the writ of execution on March 30, 2001.
The Machados sought relief in the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 on July 31, 2001. In a decision dated January 31, 2002 (and a denial of reconsideration on December 5, 2002), the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that COSLAP properly exercised jurisdiction and that its October 25, 1999 resolution had become final and executory under Section 3(2) of Executive Order No. 561 (EO 561) — COSLAP resolutions become final in 30 days and are appealable by certiorari only to the Supreme Court — and that the Machados were estopped from contesting jurisdicti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) have jurisdiction over Gatdula’s complaint for right of way against the Machados?
- If COSLAP lacked jurisdiction, are the writ of execution and the writ of demolition issued pursuant to COSLAP’s October 25, 1999 resolution...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)