ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 141906.� July 27, 2005]
BCDA vs. UNITED SS BRIGADE
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 27 2005.
G.R. No. 141906 (BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. UNITED SS BRIGADE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC.)
The present petition for certiorari [1] cralaw seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution dated October 9, 1999 and Order dated January 20, 2000 of the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The subject matter here is a portion of Lot 2, Subdivision Plan SWO-13-000298, situated in the Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. The members or respondent United Service Support Brigade Residents Association, Inc. (USSBRAI) have been occupying the lot by virtue of (1) and award granted to them by the Commanding Officer of the Service Support Brigade, Philippine Army; and (2) Proclamation No. 172 [2] cralaw issued by former President Corazon Aquino on October 16, 1987.
The Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), petitioner, claims that the ownership of the subject property has been transferred to it pursuant to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7227, otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion Development Act of 1992."
On October 28, 1998, petitioner demolished the houses of thirteen (13) occupants of the lot, prompting respondent USSBRAI to file a complaint with the COSLAP seeking to enjoin petitioner from continuing the demolition and from performing acts of ownership over the lot; and asking for an order referring the dispute to the Land Registration Authority.
In its answer to the complaint, petitioner maintains that the ownership of the lot has been transferred to it by virtue of Section 8 of R.A. 7227 [3] cralaw and that it is one of the sites for infrastructure projects initiated by the government.
On November 9, 1999, COSLAP rendered the assailed Resolution in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is herby rendered as follows:
'1. Declaring the portion of Lot 2, of the subdivision plan SWO-13-000298 situated in the barrio of Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila, which is presently being occupied by the complainants covering an area of Seventy Two Thousand Three Hundred Fifty One Square Meters (72,351 sq. m.) as outside of the coverage of RA7227.
Directing the Chief of the Survey Division, NCR-DENR to make the necessary corrections or adjustments to include the contested area as within Lot 2, of the subdivision plan SWO-13-000298.'
For the Land Management Bureau of DENR to accept the applications of complainants who should first file the necessary action before the proper court to correct the errors aforementioned.
SO ORDERED."
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the COSLAP in its Order dated January 20, 2000.
Hence, the present petition for certiorari. [4] cralaw
This petition is dismissible.
Petitioner should have filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the COSLAP's Order denying its motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Even granting that the instant petition for certiorari is in order, the same should have been filed with the Court of Appeals.
In Henry Sy vs. Commission on Settlement of land Problems and Fenina Mina, [5] cralaw we held:
"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 decisions 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, xxx."
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2] cralaw As amended by Proclamation No. 2476 dated January 7, 1986 excluding Lot 2 from the Military Reservation (Fort Andres Bonifacio) situated in Pasig, Taguig, Pateros and Para�aque.
[3] cralaw Bases Conversion Development Act of 1992.
[4] cralaw Filed on March 1, 2000, or 29 days after petitioner received COSLAP's Order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the assailed Resolution.
[5] cralaw G.R. No. 140903, September 12, 2000, 365 SCRA 49.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
