Case Summary (G.R. No. 143135)
Relevant History and Proceedings
The dispute began when Damayan ng Purok 14, Inc. filed a complaint with the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against the AFPHA, alleging encroachment on the claimed land. Following hearings, COSLAP ruled that approximately 98,207 square meters of the contested lot constituted part of Barangay Signal Village and was thus unavailable for government projects. Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which COSLAP denied on September 4, 1998.
Appeal and Court of Appeals Ruling
Dissatisfied, the petitioner sought a review from the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on March 15, 2000, determining that the petitioner had chosen an inappropriate remedy, emphasizing that appeals from COSLAP’s decisions should be made via certiorari directly to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework and Precedents
The Court of Appeals based its decision on Executive Order No. 561 and the relevant rules which, it argued, mandated that only the Supreme Court could hear appeals from COSLAP’s resolutions. This interpretation was subsequently challenged in light of the ruling in the case of Henry Sy v. Commission on Settlement of Land Problems, which clarified that appeals from COSLAP decisions could be properly taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
In its examination of the issue, the Supreme Court recognized that the appellate court had incorrectly interpreted the proper remedy available to the petitioner. The Court reiterated that its earlier ruling in Henry Sy established that appeals from COSLAP should be taken t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 143135)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition by the Republic of the Philippines disputing a decision made by the Court of Appeals regarding a resolution from the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP).
- The petitioner contends that the area in question is part of government land intended for a housing project, while the respondent claims it as part of Barangay Signal Village.
- The Court of Appeals denied the petition for review, citing that the appeal was pursued through the wrong remedy.
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Housing Administration (AFPHA).
- Respondent: Damayan ng Purok 14, Inc., a registered non-stock, non-profit corporation, comprised of residents from Purok 14, Zone 3B, Signal Village in Taguig, Metro Manila.
Background of the Case
- The respondent filed a complaint with COSLAP, alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon a 10,600 square meter area of Lot 1, SWO-13-00258.
- COSLAP's resolution determined that 98,207 square meters of the contested lot were part of Barangay Signal Village and not available for government projects.
- The petitioner's motion