Title
Spouses Badua vs. Cordillera Bodong Administration
Case
G.R. No. 92649
Decision Date
Feb 14, 1991
Land dispute: Tribal court lacks jurisdiction; Supreme Court annuls decision, bars enforcement, citing due process violations and lack of legal authority.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 92649)

Factual Background of the Case

In 1966, David Quema mortgaged two parcels of land in Lucaga for P6,000. After redeeming the land in 1988, Quema claimed ownership despite Rosa Badua's assertion that the land was sold to her by the deceased owner, Dra. Erotida Valera. Rosa did not have a deed of sale readily available, claiming it was with a local official. Following failed attempts to resolve the matter at the barangay level, Quema brought the dispute to a tribal court, which in February 1989 awarded him ownership of the land and imposed penalties on the Baduas.

Notice and Coercion from Respondents

The situation escalated when the Baduas failed to vacate the land, leading to a warning issued by Ka Blantie of the CPLA, threatening physical repercussions if they did not comply with the tribal court's decision. Fear of violence compelled Leonor Badua to go into hiding after an incident involving the arrest of Rosa by the CPLA, which heightened the urgency for the Baduas to seek legal redress.

Legal Claims of the Petitioners

The Baduas filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking injunctive relief and declaring the authority of the Cordillera Bodong Administration as invalid. They claimed violations of due process, arguing that they were not properly heard, and contended that the Administration lacked jurisdiction over them since neither was a member of the Maeng Tribe, the indigenous group involved in the tribal court's ruling.

Response from the Respondents

The respondents, represented by Atty. Demetrio V. Pre, asserted the legitimacy of the tribal court's decisions, highlighting the custom of the Maeng Tribe to resolve disputes through tribal courts. They argued that these courts operate independently of the formal Philippine judicial system and are widely accepted by community members.

Jurisdictional Issues Raised by the Court

Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court noted that the Cordillera Autonomous Region, which could have legitimized the CBA and CPLA, had been rejected in a plebiscite held in January 1990. As such, the court determined that the Maeng Tribal Court did not have the requisite legal standing as an indigenous or special court and, in essence, lacked judicial power under the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Ruling and Conclusion

The Supreme Court found the petition to be meritorious, ruling that the decision made by the Maeng Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction and was therefore null and void. It mandate

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.