SECOND DIVISION.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
143135
April 4, 2003
-versus-
DAMAYAN NG PUROK
14, INC.,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
Petitioner assails the
decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated March 15, 2000, and its resolution[2]
dated May 9, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 49274, which denied for allegedly
being a wrong remedy the petition for review filed by petitioner
disputing
a resolution of the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems
(COSLAP).
In that resolution, COSLAP declared the area subject of the present
controversy
as part of Barangay Signal Village, and not part of government land as
claimed by petitioner for one of its housing projects.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts of the case
before us are uncomplicated.cralaw:red
Respondent Damayan ng
Purok 14, Inc., is a registered non-stock, non-profit corporation
existing
under Philippine laws. Its members are residents of Purok 14,
Zone
3B, Signal Village, Taguig, Metro Manila. They are claiming an
area
that forms part of a vast tract of land segregated from Fort Bonifacio
which was declared open for disposition by Presidential proclamation.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner is represented
herein by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Housing Administration
(AFPHA),
an unincorporated office within the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP),
organized pursuant to GHO General Order No. 91 dated February 27, 1979.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Damayan ng
Purok 14, Inc., filed a complaint before the COSLAP, alleging that
petitioner
herein had encroached upon an area comprising 10,600 square meters of
Lot
1, SWO-13-00258, in Barangay Signal Village. After due hearing,
the
COSLAP rendered a resolution[4]
declaring, among others, some 98,207 square meters of the contested lot
as part of Barangay Signal Village and generally not available for
government
projects. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of this
resolution,
but COSLAP denied its motion in an order[5]
dated September 4, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner appealed
to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[6]
The Court of Appeals dismissed it in a decision promulgated on March
15,
2000, for being the wrong mode of appeal, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Both Executive Order
No. 561, Creating the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,
and
the Rules of Procedure adopted and promulgated by COSLAP explicitly
provides
that the mode of appeal from the final order, decision or resolution of
the Commission shall be appealable by certiorari only to the Supreme
Court.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, under par. 4,
Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90, an appeal taken to either the Supreme
Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall
be dismissed.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, foregoing
considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[7]
Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, the instant petition
raising
as sole issue: To which court should the decision of the COSLAP be
appealed?[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fortunately, this issue
is no longer pristine. In Henry Sy v. Commission on Settlement of
Land Problems and Femina Mina, G.R. No. 140903, promulgated September
12,
2001, we have ruled squarely on that question. Private respondent
Mina had bought parcels of land that she discovered were occupied by
entities
claiming to be owners thereof, including the mall called SM
Fairview.
She filed a complaint before the COSLAP, which in turn summoned Henry
Sy
as manager of SM Fairview. The latter’s counsel, through a
"Special
Appearance," moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.
The motion was denied, prompting Sy to file before this Court a
petition
for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
based
on Section 3 (2) of EO No. 561, the law creating COSLAP.[9]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As held in Sy v.
Commission,
aforecited, the appeal from the orders, resolutions or decisions of
COSLAP
shall be taken to the Court of Appeals, under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure. We declared:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is readily apparent
that appeals from the COSLAP may not be brought directly before us in
view
of Rule 45, Section 1. Likewise, if a petition for certiorari
under
Rule 65 is the prescribed remedy, the Court of Appeals cannot be
bypassed
without running afoul of the doctrine of judicial hierarchy. In this
connection,
it cannot be doubted that the COSLAP is among those quasi-judicial
agencies
exercising quasi-judicial functions. No convincing reason exists why
appeals
from the COSLAP should be treated differently from other quasi-judicial
agencies whose orders, resolutions or decision are directly appealable
to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Moreover, the enumeration of the agencies therein mentioned is not
exclusive.
In that sense, Section 3 (2) of E.O. No. 561 declaring that the
COSLAP’s
orders, resolutions or decisions are appealable exclusively to this
Court
is erroneous in the light of Section 1, Rule 45 and Section 1, Rule 43
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As with other administrative
agencies discharging quasi-judicial functions, recourse must first be
had
through the Court of Appeals. There is nothing novel or objectionable
to
this, for as we emphasized in Fabian.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, it cannot
be said that the transfer of appellate jurisdiction to the Court of
Appeals
in this case is an act of creating a new right of appeal because such
power
of the Supreme Court to transfer appeals to subordinate appellate
courts
is purely a procedural and not a substantive power. Neither can we
consider
such transfer as impairing a vested right because the parties have
still
a remedy and still a competent tribunal to administer that remedy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, it has been generally
held that rules or statutes involving a transfer of cases from one
court
to another, are procedural and remedial merely and that, as such, they
are applicable to actions pending at the time the statute went into
effect
or, in the case at bar, when its invalidity was declared.
Accordingly,
even from the standpoint of jurisdiction ex hypothesi, the validity of
the transfer of appeals in said cases to the Court of Appeals can be
sustained.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In other words, all
appeals from orders, resolutions or decisions of public respondent
(COSLAP)
shall be taken to the Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of
the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accordingly, we rule
that the appellate court erred in its assailed decision dismissing the
petition by herein petitioner against respondent Damayan ng Purok 14,
Inc.
Petitioner properly brought its petition to the Court of Appeals
seeking
a review of a resolution of COSLAP as a quasi-judicial agency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 14,
2000, denying the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 49274, and its resolution
dated May 9, 2000, denying the motion for reconsideration, are SET
ASIDE.
The Court of Appeals is hereby ordered to take cognizance of the
petition
for review filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines for
resolution
without further delay.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No pronouncement as
to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 23-26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 28-29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Proclamation No. 172 dated November 16, 1987: Excluding from the
operation
of Proclamation No. 423 dated July 12, 1957, which established the
military
reservation known as Fort William Mckinley (now Fort Andres Bonifacio)
situated in the municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Pateros and
Parañaque,
Province of Rizal and Pasay City (now Metropolitan Manila), as amended
by Proclamation No. 2476 dated January 7, 1986, certain portions of
land
embraced therein known as Barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan,
Western
Bicutan and Signal Village situated in the municipality of Taguig,
Metropolitan
Manila and declaring the same open for disposition under the provisions
of Republic Act No. 274 and Republic Act No. 730 in relation to the
provisions
of the Public Land Act, as amended; and providing the implementing
guidelines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
CA Rollo, pp. 26-37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 24 and 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to
the
Court of Appeals.
[7]
Rollo, p. 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Section 3, EO 561: Powers and Functions.-The Commission shall have the
following powers and functions:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
Commission shall promulgate such rules of procedure as will insure
expeditious
resolution and action on the above cases. The resolution, order
or
decision of the Commission on any of the foregoing cases shall have the
force and effect of a regular administrative resolution, order or
decision
and shall be binding upon the parties therein and upon the agency
having
jurisdiction over the same. Said resolution, order or decision
shall
become final and executory within thirty (30) days from its
promulgation
and shall be appealable by certiorari only to the Supreme Court.
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Sy v. Commission on Settlement of Land Problems and Femina Mina, G.R
No.
140903, 12 September 2001, pp. 11-12. |
