April 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > April 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 179366 : April 14, 2010] HON. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND ISAURO FLORIANO, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS V. HILARIO ALDERITE, REPRESENTING LOT 11, BLOCK 63, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. :
[G.R. No. 179366 : April 14, 2010]
HON. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND ISAURO FLORIANO, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS V. HILARIO ALDERITE, REPRESENTING LOT 11, BLOCK 63, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 14 April 2010:
G.R. No. 179366[*] (Hon. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources and Isauro Floriano, represented by his Heirs v. Hilario Alderite, representing Lot 11, Block 63, Neighborhood Association, Inc.).-
This case is about the jurisdiction of the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) over a land dispute involving conflicting claims to public land between the applicant for an award of ownership and the actual occupants.
The Facts and the Case
On June 4, 1982 petitioner Isauro Floriano (Floriano), the post commander of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines, got a lease covering four hectares of land in Fort Bonifacio, then a military camp in the Municipality of Taguig.[1]
On October 16, 1987 former President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation 172,[2] declaring open for disposition certain lands in Fort Bonifacio that included Lot 11, Block 63, Psd-13-002863, leased to petitioner Floriano. Responding to the proclamation, on January 27, 1992 Floriano filed a sales application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for the acquisition of the lot.[3]
Upon learning of it, respondent Hilario Alderite and several others (Alderite, et al.) filed a letter protest, requesting the DENR to hold in abeyance action on petitioner Flonano's sales application because he had already sold portions of the land to them and that their houses had stood on the same for many years, giving them a better right than Floriano.[4] They contended that the latter had merely speculated in the land in question and, therefore, his application should be denied.
After investigation and ocular inspection, the Land Management Bureau (LMB) of the DENR rendered a decision[5] dated February 18, 1994, dismissing respondents Alderite, et al.'s opposition and ordering them to vacate the lots in question.[6] On April 11, 1994 Alderite, et al., representing Lot 11, Block 63 Neighborhood Association, Inc., (the Association) filed motions for new trial[7] and for reconsideration.[8] In the course of the proceedings, however, the pieces of evidence that Alderite, et al. submitted mysteriously disappeared.[9] The latter group also complained that the investigators assigned to the case fixed the result of their investigation to favor petitioner Floriano.
Meantime, as confirmed by the barangay of Western Bicutan, Taguig,10 the case acquired a new dimension after both parties filed criminal and civil cases against each other.[11] These developments prompted the Association, through respondent Alderite, to file on September 2, 1997 a petition[12] with COSLAP in COSLAP Case 97-123, praying for an investigation and an assumption of jurisdiction over the case and to order the elevation of the records from the LMB.
On January 26, 1998 the Barangay Captain of Western Bicutan filed a petition to intervene in the COSLAP case on the ground that it intended to build a cement road and a public market on a portion of the disputed lot and that, under the supplementing rules of Presidential Decree 72, the local government had a preferential right over the property.[13]
On July 15, 1998 the COSLAP rendered a decision[14] in favor of respondents Alderite, et al. and the barangay, and denied petitioner Floriano's application. Floriano filed a motion for reconsideration but the COSLAP denied the same.
Aggrieved, on December 1, 1998 petitioner Floriano filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court in G.R. 136040, assailing the decision of the COSLAP on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. But the Court denied the same on January 20, 1999 for insufficiency of form and substance.[15] Floriano sought reconsideration but the Court denied the same,[16] resulting in the decision becoming final and executory on March 29, 1999 as per entry of judgment.[17]
Upon motion, COSLAP issued a writ of execution[18] on March 8, 1999. But petitioner Floriano filed a petition for annulment of the COSLAP decision before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 52293, questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP to render the decision and issue a writ for its execution.[19] On July 19, 1999 the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.[20] Floriano filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplement to it but the CA denied both on December 27, 1999.[21]
Subsequently, petitioner Floriano filed a petition for review on certiorari in G.R. 141334, assailing the CA decision but this Court denied the same on January 28, 2000 for having been filed late. Floriano moved for reconsideration but on February 28, 2000 the Court denied it and added that the petition did not also raise substantial arguments.[22]
Suddenly or on May 24, 2000, the LMB acted on respondents Alderite, et al.'s motion for new trial that had been pending before it for six years, denying the same and reinstating its decision of February 18, 1994 in petitioner Floriano's favor. That decision dismissed Alderite, et al.'s opposition and ordered them to vacate the lots they occupied.[23] Alderite, et al. appealed the LMB decision[24] to the Office of the DENR Secretary. On January 29, 2004 the latter denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the LMB order.[25] It also denied Alderite, et al.'s motion for reconsideration.
Respondents Alderite, et al. filed a petition for review on certiorari before the CA. In its decision[26] of March 22, 2006, the CA granted the petition and set aside the questioned decision and order of the DENR Secretary. It also denied the motion for reconsideration of the heirs of respondent Floriano, prompting the latter to file the present petition.
The Issues Presented
This case presents the following issues:
1. Whether or not the COSLAP had jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the conflicting claims of petitioner Floriano and respondents Alderite, et al. over the subject lot in the former Fort Bonifacio military camp;
2. Whether or not the order of the LMB dated May 24, 2000, rejecting Alderite, et al.'s opposition to Floriano's claim and upholding such claim is barred by res judicata; and
3. Whether or not Alderite, et al. were guilty of forum shopping in pursuing their remedies with the COSLAP.
The Court's Rulings
One. Under Section 3, paragraph 2, of Executive Order 561,[27] the COSLAP may, in acting on a land dispute, either assume jurisdiction if the matter falls under paragraph 2(a) to (e) or, if not, refer the matter to the agency that has the appropriate jurisdiction.[28] In exercising its option, however, the COSLAP must consider the nature or classification of the land, the parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised, and the need for immediate and urgent action to prevent injuries to persons and damage or destruction to property.[29] The law does not grant COSLAP blanket jurisdiction over any land dispute or problem. Its jurisdiction is confined only to disputes over lands in which the government has proprietary or regulatory interest.
In this case, Lot 11, Block 63, Psd-13-002863 is a disposable public land. Petitioner Floriano applied to acquire it but respondents Alderite, et al., as actual occupants, opposed such application and wanted the land adjudicated to them. Obviously, the parties fall under the classification mentioned in item (c) of Section 3, paragraph 2, concerning disputes between occupants and squatters and public land claimants or applicants. Moreover, the dispute between Floriano and Alderite, et al. had become tense and volatile, requiring immediate action. Clearly, the land dispute between the two sides fell within COSLAP's jurisdiction.
Two. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.[30]
Here, the September 2, 1997 petition[31] that respondents Alderite, et al filed with the COSLAP m COSLAP Case 97-123 raised the issue of which parties had the better right to acquire the lots in question. Alderite, et al. won the case all the way up to this Court in G.R. 136040 in 1999. Petitioner Floriano subsequently questioned before the CA in CA-G.R. SP 52293 the COSLAP's jurisdiction to decide the land case and execute its judgment but the CA dismissed his petition. He came to this Court in G.R. 141334 but made no headway. The COSLAP decision as affirmed by the CA and this Court bars by res judicata the proceedings before the LMB covering the main issue that had already been decided�who had the better right to the land.
Three. Regarding the issue of forum shopping, this Court concurs with the CA's finding that respondents Alderite, et al. were not guilty of forum shopping. They filed their petition with COSLAP notwithstanding the pendency of the investigation before the LMB precisely to cause the transfer of the land dispute from LMB to the COSLAP considering that it had acquired a new dimension brought about by the charges and counter charges that both parties hurled against each other. Further, there were serious accusations that the LMB investigators were manipulating the result of the investigation to favor petitioner Floriano. The petition before the COSLAP was neither a new nor a distinct one from that pending with the LMB. It was rather a transfer or continuation of the original case to the COSLAP in view of supervening circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals' decision in CA-G.R. SP 84629 dated March 22, 2006 and resolution dated August 16, 2007.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (designated additional member per Raffle dated 15 February 2010), Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 14th day of April, 2010.
G.R. No. 179366[*] (Hon. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources and Isauro Floriano, represented by his Heirs v. Hilario Alderite, representing Lot 11, Block 63, Neighborhood Association, Inc.).-
This case is about the jurisdiction of the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) over a land dispute involving conflicting claims to public land between the applicant for an award of ownership and the actual occupants.
The Facts and the Case
On June 4, 1982 petitioner Isauro Floriano (Floriano), the post commander of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines, got a lease covering four hectares of land in Fort Bonifacio, then a military camp in the Municipality of Taguig.[1]
On October 16, 1987 former President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation 172,[2] declaring open for disposition certain lands in Fort Bonifacio that included Lot 11, Block 63, Psd-13-002863, leased to petitioner Floriano. Responding to the proclamation, on January 27, 1992 Floriano filed a sales application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for the acquisition of the lot.[3]
Upon learning of it, respondent Hilario Alderite and several others (Alderite, et al.) filed a letter protest, requesting the DENR to hold in abeyance action on petitioner Flonano's sales application because he had already sold portions of the land to them and that their houses had stood on the same for many years, giving them a better right than Floriano.[4] They contended that the latter had merely speculated in the land in question and, therefore, his application should be denied.
After investigation and ocular inspection, the Land Management Bureau (LMB) of the DENR rendered a decision[5] dated February 18, 1994, dismissing respondents Alderite, et al.'s opposition and ordering them to vacate the lots in question.[6] On April 11, 1994 Alderite, et al., representing Lot 11, Block 63 Neighborhood Association, Inc., (the Association) filed motions for new trial[7] and for reconsideration.[8] In the course of the proceedings, however, the pieces of evidence that Alderite, et al. submitted mysteriously disappeared.[9] The latter group also complained that the investigators assigned to the case fixed the result of their investigation to favor petitioner Floriano.
Meantime, as confirmed by the barangay of Western Bicutan, Taguig,10 the case acquired a new dimension after both parties filed criminal and civil cases against each other.[11] These developments prompted the Association, through respondent Alderite, to file on September 2, 1997 a petition[12] with COSLAP in COSLAP Case 97-123, praying for an investigation and an assumption of jurisdiction over the case and to order the elevation of the records from the LMB.
On January 26, 1998 the Barangay Captain of Western Bicutan filed a petition to intervene in the COSLAP case on the ground that it intended to build a cement road and a public market on a portion of the disputed lot and that, under the supplementing rules of Presidential Decree 72, the local government had a preferential right over the property.[13]
On July 15, 1998 the COSLAP rendered a decision[14] in favor of respondents Alderite, et al. and the barangay, and denied petitioner Floriano's application. Floriano filed a motion for reconsideration but the COSLAP denied the same.
Aggrieved, on December 1, 1998 petitioner Floriano filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court in G.R. 136040, assailing the decision of the COSLAP on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. But the Court denied the same on January 20, 1999 for insufficiency of form and substance.[15] Floriano sought reconsideration but the Court denied the same,[16] resulting in the decision becoming final and executory on March 29, 1999 as per entry of judgment.[17]
Upon motion, COSLAP issued a writ of execution[18] on March 8, 1999. But petitioner Floriano filed a petition for annulment of the COSLAP decision before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 52293, questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP to render the decision and issue a writ for its execution.[19] On July 19, 1999 the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.[20] Floriano filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplement to it but the CA denied both on December 27, 1999.[21]
Subsequently, petitioner Floriano filed a petition for review on certiorari in G.R. 141334, assailing the CA decision but this Court denied the same on January 28, 2000 for having been filed late. Floriano moved for reconsideration but on February 28, 2000 the Court denied it and added that the petition did not also raise substantial arguments.[22]
Suddenly or on May 24, 2000, the LMB acted on respondents Alderite, et al.'s motion for new trial that had been pending before it for six years, denying the same and reinstating its decision of February 18, 1994 in petitioner Floriano's favor. That decision dismissed Alderite, et al.'s opposition and ordered them to vacate the lots they occupied.[23] Alderite, et al. appealed the LMB decision[24] to the Office of the DENR Secretary. On January 29, 2004 the latter denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the LMB order.[25] It also denied Alderite, et al.'s motion for reconsideration.
Respondents Alderite, et al. filed a petition for review on certiorari before the CA. In its decision[26] of March 22, 2006, the CA granted the petition and set aside the questioned decision and order of the DENR Secretary. It also denied the motion for reconsideration of the heirs of respondent Floriano, prompting the latter to file the present petition.
The Issues Presented
This case presents the following issues:
1. Whether or not the COSLAP had jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the conflicting claims of petitioner Floriano and respondents Alderite, et al. over the subject lot in the former Fort Bonifacio military camp;
2. Whether or not the order of the LMB dated May 24, 2000, rejecting Alderite, et al.'s opposition to Floriano's claim and upholding such claim is barred by res judicata; and
3. Whether or not Alderite, et al. were guilty of forum shopping in pursuing their remedies with the COSLAP.
The Court's Rulings
One. Under Section 3, paragraph 2, of Executive Order 561,[27] the COSLAP may, in acting on a land dispute, either assume jurisdiction if the matter falls under paragraph 2(a) to (e) or, if not, refer the matter to the agency that has the appropriate jurisdiction.[28] In exercising its option, however, the COSLAP must consider the nature or classification of the land, the parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised, and the need for immediate and urgent action to prevent injuries to persons and damage or destruction to property.[29] The law does not grant COSLAP blanket jurisdiction over any land dispute or problem. Its jurisdiction is confined only to disputes over lands in which the government has proprietary or regulatory interest.
In this case, Lot 11, Block 63, Psd-13-002863 is a disposable public land. Petitioner Floriano applied to acquire it but respondents Alderite, et al., as actual occupants, opposed such application and wanted the land adjudicated to them. Obviously, the parties fall under the classification mentioned in item (c) of Section 3, paragraph 2, concerning disputes between occupants and squatters and public land claimants or applicants. Moreover, the dispute between Floriano and Alderite, et al. had become tense and volatile, requiring immediate action. Clearly, the land dispute between the two sides fell within COSLAP's jurisdiction.
Two. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.[30]
Here, the September 2, 1997 petition[31] that respondents Alderite, et al filed with the COSLAP m COSLAP Case 97-123 raised the issue of which parties had the better right to acquire the lots in question. Alderite, et al. won the case all the way up to this Court in G.R. 136040 in 1999. Petitioner Floriano subsequently questioned before the CA in CA-G.R. SP 52293 the COSLAP's jurisdiction to decide the land case and execute its judgment but the CA dismissed his petition. He came to this Court in G.R. 141334 but made no headway. The COSLAP decision as affirmed by the CA and this Court bars by res judicata the proceedings before the LMB covering the main issue that had already been decided�who had the better right to the land.
Three. Regarding the issue of forum shopping, this Court concurs with the CA's finding that respondents Alderite, et al. were not guilty of forum shopping. They filed their petition with COSLAP notwithstanding the pendency of the investigation before the LMB precisely to cause the transfer of the land dispute from LMB to the COSLAP considering that it had acquired a new dimension brought about by the charges and counter charges that both parties hurled against each other. Further, there were serious accusations that the LMB investigators were manipulating the result of the investigation to favor petitioner Floriano. The petition before the COSLAP was neither a new nor a distinct one from that pending with the LMB. It was rather a transfer or continuation of the original case to the COSLAP in view of supervening circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals' decision in CA-G.R. SP 84629 dated March 22, 2006 and resolution dated August 16, 2007.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (designated additional member per Raffle dated 15 February 2010), Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 14th day of April, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[*] J. Brion, no part J. Nachura, additional member, per raffle dated February 15, 2010.
[1] Rollo, p. 12.
[2] Proclamation 172 dated November 16, 1987: Excluding from the operation of Proclamation 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 Paraiiaque, Province of Rizal and Pasay City (now Metropolitan Manila), as amended by Proclamation 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 274 and Republic Act 730 in relation to the provisions of the Public Land Act, as amended; and providing the implementing guidelines.
[3] Rollo, p. 13.
[4] Id. at 117.
[5] Id. at 117-121.
[6] Id. at 13.
[7] Id. at 122-130.
[8] Id. at 131-140.
[9] Id. at 153.
[10] Id. at 161-162.
[11] Id. at 153-154.
[12] Id. at 141-148.
[13] Id. at 14.
[14] Id. at 150-166.
[15] Id. at 592.
[16] Id. at 594.
[17] Id. at 595.
[18] Id. at 596-597.
[19] Id. at 16.
[20] Id. at 599-606.
[21] Id. at 608-609.
[22] Id. at 612.
[23] Id. at 167-175.
[24] Id. at 178.
[25] Id. at 181-190.
[26] Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Arturo D. Brion and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo.
[27] SECTION 3. Powers and Functions. - The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:
x x x x
2. Refer and follow-up for immediate action by the agency having appropriate jurisdiction any land problem or dispute referred to the Commission: Provided, That the Commission may, in the following cases, assume jurisdiction and resolve land problems or disputes which are critical and explosive in nature considering, for instance, the large number of the parties involved, the presence or emergence of social tension or unrest, or other similar critical situations requiring immediate action:
(a) Between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement holders or timber
concessioners;
(b) Between occupants/squatters and government reservation grantees;
(c) Between occupants/squatters and public land claimants or applicants;
(d) Petitions for classification, release and/or subdivision of lands of the public domain; and
(e) Other similar land problems of grave urgency and magnitude.
[28] Longino v. Atty. General, 491 Phil. 600, 621 (2005).
[29] Id.
[30] Lanuza v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 51, 58 (2005).
[31] Rollo, pp. 141-148.
