NINTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 44981 October 10, 1997.]
FELIPE PALON, ET AL., petitioner, vs. HON. MARIO BAUTISTA, ETC. ET AL., respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
HOFILEÑA, J p :
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and damages, with prayers for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, against the Order dated July 16, 1997 issued by the respondent Mario Bautista, Provincial Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in Talavera, Nueva Ecija, in DARAB CASE NO. 1786 'NNE' 92, and the 4th Alias Writ of Execution dated July 16, 1997 issued by respondent Venancio Benitez, Acting Clerk of the DARAB, Branch I, in Talavera, Nueva Ecija.
For ready reference, the said order and writ are quoted below as follows:
(a) Order of respondent Bautista:
"ORDER
Before this Board is an Urgent Ex-parte Omnibus Motion filed by petitioner Espinoza praying for, inter alia:
"1. Issuance of orders/warrants of arrest against respondents;
2. Issuance of 4th Alias Writ of Execution in the above-numbered action which shall include a Writ of Demolition;
3. Appointment of Special Sheriff inclusive of special deputization authority and directives to effectuate immediate and efficient implementation of the writs and warrants prayed for;
Opportunity to file comment and or opposition was given moto propio to respondents, despite apparent non-entitlement to these rights in view of the circumstances surrounding this case.
In the hearing set for the purpose of giving respondents their final day in Court, neither respondents nor their counsel of record appeared, despite sufficient and proper notice.
By way of review, the salient facts by which this case should now be measured, are the following:
1. The Sheriff of this forum failed over the years to implement Writs assigned to him for one reason or another, as indeed petitioners now pray for issuance of 4th Alias to assert their rights;
2. For conduct entemptuous of the authority of this Board, respondents, Felipe Palon, Fernando dela Cruz, Rufino Manuel, Juan Manuel, Anastacio dela Cruz and Honorio Lopez, were twice ordered arrested but said orders were never implemented by the PNP for reasons still undetermined; and
3. Finally, extant in the records is the PARAD Bello order, for the physical removal of the respondents from the premises subject of this case, which order includes the physical demolition of all structures within said premises.
It is likewise startling to discover that despite having gone through the DARAB gauntlet and through the Office of the President, and all the way to the Supreme Court, where Entry of Judgment had been registered on September 5, 1994, the petitioners are still unable to take possession of their property.
The sins of omission and commission must lie somewhere between the DARAB and and the PNP — and the DAR and DILG — including the public and private sweep of persons and institutions which have by reason of their proximity to the centers of both local and national authority obstructed justice in this jurisdiction over a stretch of time.
At the end of this day, we must cite that Memorandum of Agreement solemnly executed by and among the Honorable Ernesto Garilao, representing DAR; the Honorable Robert Barbers, representing the DILG and Gen. Ricaredo Sarmiento, representing the PNP on May 3, 1995, in which it was agreed that the efforts of the foregoing government agencies shall be coordinated at all items for the effective implementation of the agrarian reform program.
The implementation of this Order and of the writs and warrants which must forthwith issue as a consequence thereof, puts the aforecited agreement to its first lithmus test.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Clerk of this Board is ordered to forthwith and without delay cause the issuance of the following:
1. 4th Alias Writ of Execution which shall effectuate the Decision and Orders so far issued by this Board and affirmed by the Office of the President, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which shall include the corollary issuance of the following:
(a) Orders/warrants for the arrest and detention of the respondents Felipe Palon, Fernando dela Cruz, Rufino Manuel, Juan Manuel, Anastacio dela Cruz and Honorio Lopez, for indirect contempt and for then to pay a fine of P/1,000.00 each pursuant to Section 12, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 2, Rule XI of the New DARAB Rules of Procedures; and in view of what the records reveal to be respondents' contumacious refusal to comply with and obey valid and final judgments of this Board, as well as their executory affirmances by the Office of the President, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the arresting officers are directed to hold them in detention until the Decision and orders in this case are fully and satisfactory compliance;
(b) Writ of demolition for the immediate and physical removal of all structures and other movable assets of the respondents which maybe found within the premises embraces by TCT No. NT-199307, situated in Pulong Munti, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija.
2. Orders for the Appointment of Special Sheriff WILFREDO MAGLAQUI, Regional Sheriff of the DARAB based in San Fernando, Pampanga for him to implement the foregoing Writs and Orders, immediately and without delay, granting him authority:
(a) to name, appoint and deputize any number of officers and members of the Philippine National Police, through proper requests and addressed to the Regional Director in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;
(b) to employ any number of persons necessary for the immediate and speedy implementation of the Writ of demolition, at the expense of petitioner;
(c) to make a return of the detailed compliance report of the Writs, warrants and orders of this Board, within ten (10) days from receipt of his authority together with the foregoing documents." (Rollo, pp. 14, -16)
(b) Writ issued by respondent Benitez
4th ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION
TO: MR. WILFREDO MAGLAQUI
DARAB, San Fernando Pampanga
GREETINGS:
"WHEREAS, an Urgent Ex-Parte Omnibus Motion was filed by petitioner Asuncion R. Espinoza praying for the issuance of Orders/Warrants of arrest against respondents the issuance of 4th Alias Writ of Execution which shall include a Writ of Demolition and the Appointment of Special Sheriff inclusive of special deputization authority and directions to effectuate immediate and efficient implementation of the writs and warrants prayed for.
WHEREAS, Opportunity to file comment and or Opposition was given moto propio to respondents, but despite sufficient and proper notice failed to do so.
WHEREAS, DARAB Sheriff of Talavera, Nueva Ecija failed over the years to implement Writs assigned to him for one reason or the other as indeed petitioner prays for the issuance of 4th Alias Writ to assert their rights.
WHEREAS, for conduct contemptuous of the authority of this Board, respondents, Felipe Palon, Fernando dela Cruz, Rufino Manuel, June Manuel, Anastacio dela Cruz and Honorio Lopez, were twice ordered arrested, but said Orders were never implemented by the PNP for one reason or the other.
WHEREAS, Hon. PARAD, Romeo B. Bello has issued an Order for the physical removal of the respondents from the premises subject of this case, which Order includes the physical demolition of all structures within said premises.
WHEREAS, despite having gone the DARAB gauntlet and through the Office of the President, and all the way to the Honorable Supreme Court, where Entry of Judgment had been registered on September 5, 1994, the petitioners are still unable to take possession of their property.
WHEREAS, an existing Memorandum of Agreement solemnly executed by and among the Honorable Ernesto Garilao, representing DAR, the Honorable Secretary Robert Barbers, representing DILG and Gen. Ricaredo Sarmiento, representing the PNP in which it was agreed that the efforts of the foregoing government agencies shall be coordinated at all times for the effective implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.
WHEREAS, an Order was issued by Honorable PARAD Macario S. Bautista on July 16, 1997, the pertinent dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Clerk of the Board is ordered to forthwith and without delay cause the issuance of the following:
1. 4th Alias Writ of Execution which shall effectuate the decision and Orders so far issued by this Board and affirmed by the Office of the President, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which shall include the corollary issuance of the following:
a) Orders/warrants for the arrest and detention of the respondents Felipe Palon, Fernando dela Cruz, Rufino Manuel, Juan Manuel, Anastacio dela Cruz and Honorio Lopez, for indirect contempt and for them to pay a fine of P1,000.00 each pursuant to Section 12, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 2, Rule XI of the new DARAB Rules of Procedures: and, in view of what the records reveal to re respondents' contumacious refusal to comply with an obey valid and final affirmances by the Office of the President, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the arresting officers are directed to hold them in detention until the Decision and orders in this case are fully and satisfactorily complied with and until this Board formally confirms full and satisfactory compliance:
b) Writ of demolition for the immediate and physical removal of all structures and other movable assets of the respondents which maybe found within the premises embraced by TCT No. NT-199307, situated in Pulong Munti, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija.
2. Orders for the Appointment of Special Sheriff WILFREDO MAGLAQUI, Regional Sheriff of the DARAB based in San Fernando, Pampanga for him to implement the foregoing Writs and Orders, immediately and without delay, granting him authority:" (pp. 17-18, rollo)
As can be seen, the questioned order and writ were issued to enforce the decision of the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator in the said DARAB Case No. 1786'NE'92 rendered against the petitioners on August 24, 1992 (ANNEX "1", Comment), the dispositive portion of which is as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Board hereby orders the following:
1. Declaring all the respondents not tenants or lessees of the landholding in question, but mere usurpers or intruders;
2 Ordering the respondents and any other persons who maybe found therein to peacefully vacate the farmholdings in question;
3. Ordering the respondents to pay attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00 each and actual damage in the amount of P10,000.00;
4. Ordering the Sheriff or any authorized representative of this Board to make an accounting of all the alleged palay deposits of the respondents and withdraw the same in favor of the petitioner." (p. 46, rollo)
The said decision was affirmed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board on November 3, 1993 (Annex "2", Comment). A motion for reconsideration was denied on March 8, 1994 (Annex "3", Comment). A petition for review was denied due course by this Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 33632, and a petition for review on certiorari of this Court's decision was also denied by the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated September 6, 1994 in G.R. No. 115266.
The petitioners contend that the questioned orders were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, on the following grounds:
1. The public respondents issued the questioned orders without notice and hearing.
2. The Provincial Adjudicator and the Clerk of the DARAB provincial branch have no authority to issue a writ of execution.
3. The decision sought to be enforced does not ordain the arrest and detention of the petitioners, or the demolition of their houses, plants and improvements.
4. The order to vacate itself was issued without jurisdiction, because after declaring the petitioners to be mere intruders or usurpers, the DARAB lost jurisdiction over their ejectment.
The petition is patently without merit, for the following reasons:
First, the claim that the order for issuance of a writ of execution was issued without notice and hearing, is belied by the very order itself which states that"
"Opportunity to file comment and or opposition was given moto propio to respondents, despite apparent non-entitlement to these rights in view of the circumstances surrounding this case.
In the hearing set for the purpose of giving respondents their final day in Court, neither respondents nor their counsel or record appeared despite sufficient and proper notice." (p. 14, Rollo)
Petitioners claim that they received a copy of the notice setting the private respondent's omnibus motion for hearing on July 10, 1997, at 2:00 P.M., only late in the afternoon of the same day (p. 8, Petition, p. 9, Rollo) is not supported by any evidence except their self-serving statement. A copy of their letter to the respondent Bautista supposed to be attached as Annex "F" to their Petition is not so attached.
Second, the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB is duly authorized to order the issuance of a writ of execution. The issuance of the writ itself is a mere ministerial function of the Clerk of the provincial DARAB branch.
"The Board or Adjudicator concerned may, upon certification by the proper officer that a resolution, order or decision has become final and executory, upon motion or moto propio issue a writ of execution and order the DAR Sheriff or a DAR officer to enforce the same." (Rule 1 — DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure)
Third, the order for the arrest and detention of the petitioners was not based on the decision of the DARAB, but on the orders holding them in contempt, which were never implemented.
Fourth, the writ of demolition for the removal of all the structures and other movable assets of the petitioners which may be found in the land in question, is a consequence of the order ejecting them the premises.
Fifth, the Department of Agrarian Reform is vested with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters as well as exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (Machete vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 176). The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), was created under Executive Order No. 129-A, to assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform case (Machete v. Court of Appeals, supra)
Sixth, this petition smacks of "forum-shopping". Under the guise of questioning the writ of execution for the enforcement of a decision which has long become final, the petitioners seek to overturn, or at least delay, the enforcement of the decision itself.
Seventh, petitioners claim that the DAR has no jurisdiction over them since the DARAB has declared them non-tenants or mere intruders or usurpers, hence, the landlord-tenancy relationship between them and private respondent cease to exist. But in their defense against the complaint filed by private respondents to eject them from the land of the latter, they claim that they cannot be ousted therefrom being bona-fide tenant-farmers protected by the Agrarian Reform Program of the Government, the evidence of which were the Certificates of Land Transfer allegedly issued to them by late President Ferdinand Marcos as early as July 15, 1982.
The DARAB, which has exclusively jurisdiction over all agrarian-related cases, did not lose jurisdiction simply because it found the petitioners to be intruders or usurpers in the disputed land, which is agricultural land. Besides, the DARAB's decision in DARAB CASE NO. 1786 'NNE'92, which has reached all the way to the Supreme Court, has long become final and executory.
Lastly, petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the DARAB after receiving an adverse judgment therefrom. (Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 110 SCRA 241). Having participated actively in the proceedings in the DAR, petitioners can no longer question its authority (Navoa vs. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 545).
WHEREFORE, the aforesaid petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and consequently DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Luna and Demetria, JJ., concur.