ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 137159. March 22, 1999]
CAJERO, et al. vs. FANTE, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 22, 1999.
G.R. No. 137159 (Cornelio Cejero, et al. vs. Gaudencio M. Fante, et al.)
The Court is asked to decide a Petition for Review under Rule 45 assailing the Decision1 [Rollo, pp. 22-28.] dated 23 June 1998 and the Resolution2 [Id., at 30.] dated December 18, 1998, both issued by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioners are occupants-tillers of the parcels of land subject of this case. They claim to be tenants-beneficiaries of agrarian reform laws and assert the validity of the Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs, for brevity) issued in their favor.
The parcels of land were owned by the Timoteo S. Cruz Subdivision, Inc., which mortgaged the land to the Republic Planters Bank.3 [DARAB Decision, p. 1 Rollo p. 48.] The bank foreclosed the mortgage, acquired the property and, during the pendency of the case in the Court of Appeals, transferred title to the respondents.4 [CA Decision, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 23-24.]
The following pertinent facts are stated in the challenged decision:
On July 7, 1987, Republic Planters Bank filed a Petition to Exclude Land From Operation Land Transfer and To Cancel Certificates of Land Transfers of herein petitioners with the Department of Agrarian Reform, Provincial Office of Camarines Sur, Naga City. In answer to the petition, herein petitioners contended that they are the tenants and holders of CLT and that the land they are cultivating is a riceland covered by the land reform program of the government.
After due hearing, the DAR Regional Director found that the land is a subdivision, not agricultural, as evidenced by a subdivision plan approved by the Commission on Land Registration on April 18, 1960 and Land Use Map/Plan of the Municipality of Canaman, Camarines Sur, and that there is no tenancy relationship existing between the contending parties because no evidence was adduced by the above-named petitioners that the bank expressly allowed them to occupy and till the land or that they shared their harvest with the bank. Notwithstanding its finding that the Bank's petition was meritorious, the DAR Regional Director in a Resolution dated August 22, 1989, denied said bank's petition on the ground that the same was filed beyond the prescriptive period set by Ministry of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1985.
On appeal, the Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform issued an Order on October 1, 1991, setting aside the Resolution of the DAR Regional Director, recalling/cancelling the Certificates of Land Transfers issued to the herein petitioners and directing the refund to them of their amortization plus interest paid for the acquisition of their lots.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed with [the Court of Appeals] a petition for review assailing the Order of the DAR Secretary, insisting that they are the true owners of the land in question as shown by their CLT and that the findings of respondent DAR Secretary are ambiguous and contrary to law, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 26553.
While the aforesaid petition [was pending with the Court of Appeals], Republic Planters Bank filed a Manifestation on July 14, 1993, to the effect that on June 7, 1989, it sold its land subject of this suit to herein private respondents.
In due course, [the Court of Appeals], through the Former Sixth Division, rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 26553, on February 10, 1993, affirming the assailed Order of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioners but the same was denied in the Resolution dated March 31, 1993. Not contented, petitioners went to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari, but their petition was given a short shrift by the Supreme Court for late filing and late payment of legal fees in a Resolution dated June 23, 1993. Subsequently, an Entry of Judgment was issued by the Supreme Court, certifying that its June 23, 1993 Resolution became final and executory on September 20, 1993.
On December 3, 1993, herein private respondents, being the new owners of the property in question having bought the same from the Republic Planters Bank, filed with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Naga City, a " Petition for Enforcement of the Final Order of the DAR Secretary dated October 1, 1991, recalling/cancelling Certificate of Land Transfer of respondents and With the Corresponding Ejectment of Respondents From Premises," docketed as DARAB CASE No. 05-CS-88-0000747, on the ground that the Decision of the DAR Secretary dated October 1, 1991 was already final and executory by virtue of the denial of petitioners' petition for review on certiorari and the issuance of an Entry of Judgment thereof by the Supreme Court.
x x x
After due hearing, the DAR Regional Director rendered a Decision dated June 23, 1994, granting herein private respondents' petition, xxx
x x x
Not contented, petitioners interposed an appeal to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board which, on July 16, 1996, rendered a Decision affirming the Decision of the DAR Regional Director. A motion for reconsideration was denied. [emphasis supplied] 5 [CA Decision, pp. 2-4, Rollo, pp. 23-25.]
Petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that (1) their CLTs were valid, and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB, for brevity) erred in affirming the cancellation of the CLTs by the DAR Secretary, and (2) the issue of validity of their CLTs was not res judicata.6 [CA Decision, p. 4, Rollo, p. 25.]
The appellate court affirmed the decision of the DARAB and dismissed petitioners' appeal. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioners then filed the instant petition, raising the single issue of whether or not the "Court of Appeals as well as the Agrarian Adjudicators committed grave abuse of discretion in granting respondents' Petition for the Enforcement of the Order of the DAR Secretary for the cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer or Emancipation Patents issued to the petitioners."7 [Petition, p. 6, Rollo, p. 15.]
The petition is devoid of merit. Petitioners raise factual issues which the Court cannot consider in a petition for review under Rule 45.8 [Sec 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.]
Moreover, the Court notes that the order of the DAR Secretary canceling petitioners' CLTs dated October 1, 1991 which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, has long become final and executory. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 10, 1993 sustaining the order of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform was further appealed to the Supreme Court, but the same was dismissed for late filing the petition and late payment of the required fees. We have stated in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary 9 [190 SCRA 673 (1990), per Cortes, J.] that orders of administrative agencies are conclusive upon the rights of the affected parties as though the same had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction.10 [Id, at 680.] Execution is a matter of right in favor of the prevailing party once the order has become final and executory.11 Garcia v. Echiverri, 132 SCRA 631, 639 (1984) per Cuevas, J.11 It has been fittingly observed that "an execution is the fruit and end of the law, and is very aptly called the life of the law."12 [Carreon v. Buisan, 70 SCRA 57, 59 (1976), per Antonio, J., citing Bank of U.S. v. Halstead, 6 Law Ed. 264-267, 268.]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
