Case Digest (G.R. No. 225971)
Facts:
The case involves the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. (RCBMI), petitioner, and the Heirs of Mariano Marcos, represented by Francisca Marcos alias Kikay, respondents. RCBMI is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 597. Portions of this land were awarded to Mariano Marcos and his heirs pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (P.D. 27), the "Tenants Emancipation Decree," on October 21, 1972, under Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) Nos. 746, 749, and 0392296. RCBMI contested the award, alleging that these lots were not used for rice production but for social and humanitarian purposes. On June 29, 1982, the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) granted RCBMI's petition to cancel CLT No. 0392296, finding the land vacant and uncultivated at the time P.D. 27 was issued. Mariano Marcos filed for reconsideration, which was denied on January 29, 1986, due to laches. Despite the cancellation, the heirs refused to surrender p
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 225971)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc., represented by Rev. Bishop Jose F. Oliveros, D.D. (RCBMI).
- Respondents are the heirs of Mariano Marcos, represented by Francisca Marcos alias Kikay.
- The dispute centers on the ownership and possession of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 597, part of which (covered by Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) Nos. 746, 749, and 0392296) was awarded to Mariano Marcos under Presidential Decree No. 27 (P.D. 27), the Tenants Emancipation Decree.
- Background and Proceedings
- On June 17, 1980, RCBMI moved for cancellation of the award of portions of its land to Marcos, alleging these lands were not devoted to rice production but to social and humanitarian programs.
- The Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) granted cancellation of CLT No. 0392296 in 1982, finding that the lot was vacant and uncultivated at the time of P.D. 27 issuance.
- Marcos filed for reconsideration in 1985, denied in 1986 due to laches, and despite cancellation, refused to surrender possession.
- In 1994, RCBMI filed a complaint for injunction and damages before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), which ruled in favor of RCBMI in 1995, ordering Marcos heirs to vacate the property and nullifying sales made by them.
- The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the PARAD decision in 2001 and denied the heirs’ reconsideration in 2002.
- The heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2004; the CA denied the petition, affirming PARAD's duty to render a just and expeditious decision and acknowledging the heirs' insistence on possession despite the final ruling. The CA decision became final on June 19, 2004.
- Records were not remanded for execution; RCBMI filed a motion to remand records, which was granted after a delay of over three years.
- RCBMI filed a motion for issuance of writ of execution on March 10, 2008, but the PARAD instead required the Marcos heirs to comment and set hearing on the motion.
- The heirs opposed on the ground of a supervening event—coverage of the property under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, CARP).
- The PARAD delayed resolving the motion until after repeated motions to resolve by RCBMI; the writ was finally granted on May 6, 2010.
- The heirs filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the pending DAR Secretary appeal on CARP coverage precluded execution.
- The DAR Secretary dismissed the coverage petition on May 5, 2011, exempting the property as fishpond not suitable for agriculture.
- The PARAD denied the heirs’ motion for reconsideration and finally ordered issuance of writ of execution on February 17, 2012.
- Despite finality, the writ was not issued for another two years, until December 2014, after several motions to resolve.
- The heirs filed a motion to quash the writ, citing the five-year limit for execution under the 1989 DARAB Rules had lapsed; in August 2015, the PARAD granted the motion and denied RCBMI’s motion for reconsideration.
- RCBMI filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the CA challenging the dismissal, which was dismissed for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies in April 2016, and denial of motion for reconsideration in July 2016.
- RCBMI seeks now to reverse the CA’s dismissal and compel immediate execution of the final and executory 1982 MAR Order.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing RCBMI’s petition for certiorari and mandamus on ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- Whether the PARAD acted in grave abuse of discretion in granting the heirs’ motion to quash the writ of execution and denying RCBMI’s motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)