FOURTEENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP. No. 48816. July 13, 2001.]
JOSE M. GABOR, petitioner, vs. PACITO NABE, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
ADEFUIN-DELA CRUZ, B.J p:
This is a petition for review of the decision dated September 3, 1997 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board ("DARAB" for brevity) in DARAB Case No. 5390 (Reg. Case No. X (06)-935-MIS. OR) entitled: "Pacito Nabe, petitioner-appellant versus Jose Gabor, respondent-appellee," seeking that the said decision be declared illegal and void ab initio and that the parties be ordered to observe the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP. No. 31964, and its subsequent Resolution dated June 11, 1998 denying the motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision filed by the petitioner. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, decision is hereby rendered as follows:
"1. Declaring once again Petitioner-Appellant as lawful tenant over the subject landholding pursuant to the Decision in DARAB CASE NO. X(06) 642, promulgated on January 27, 1994;
"2. Maintaining Petitioner-Appellant in peaceful possession and cultivation of the subject landholding;
"3. Ordering Respondent-Appellee or any person acting in his behalf to cease and desist from disturbing the peaceful possession and cultivation of Petitioner-Appellant;
"4. Ordering the MARO of Cagayan de Oro City to generate leasehold contract between Respondent-Appellee and Petitioner-Appellant; and
"5. Ordering the DARAB Regional Sheriff stationed in Cagayan de Oro City with the assistance of the PNP command in the locality, if necessary, to implement this decision.
"SO ORDERED." (Decision, pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 43-44)
As summarized by the Regional Adjudicator DARAB 10 in his Resolution dated August 28, 1996, docketed as DARAB Case No. X(06) 935, the antecedent facts are as follows:
"That on May 27, 1992, respondent herein filed a case for the ejectment of herein petitioner with the Municipal Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City docketed as Civil Case No. 13878, and thereupon said Court proceeded to hear the case notwithstanding the opposition of the defendant then (herein petitioner) to have the case dismissed and referred to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) for being an agrarian dispute or matter, that while the case for ejectment was pending with the Municipal Trial Court, herein petitioner filed with the DARAB of Misamis Oriental a case for Constructive Ejectment on July 16, 1992 against herein respondent also docketed as DARAB Case No. 642; that on April 20, 1993, the MTC rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 13828 in favor of plaintiff therein (respondent in this case) and ordered the defendants (petitioner herein) to vacate the subject landholding; that this decision was appealed by herein petitioner to the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental also at Cagayan de Oro which rendered a decision on July 19, 1993 reversing the decision of the MTC and declaring in effect that the lower Court (MTC) had no jurisdiction over the subject matter; that from this reversal, herein respondent (as plaintiff in the Civil Case) appealed to the Court of Appeals; that while the civil case for ejectment was pending appeal with the Court of Appeals, DARAB Case No. 642 (constructive ejectment) was decided on January 27, 1994 by the Provincial Adjudicator of Misamis Oriental declaring the tenancy of petitioner over the subject landholding and likewise ordered the parties to observe leasehold relationship; that from this decision, respondent Jose Gabor thru counsel filed on February 26, 1994, a motion for reconsideration, and prayed for, among others that the incidents of the DARAB decision be held in the Court of Appeals; that on April 26, 1995, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision setting aside the decision of the RTC and reinstated the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, declaring that the case on review is not an agrarian dispute but on ejectment case that lies well within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court; that from this decision respondent (petitioner herein) filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Court of Appeals, and thence to the Supreme Court with a motion for extension of time to file petition for review; that respondent failing to file his petition for review seasonably with the Supreme Court, the latter court entered a resolution on February 26, 1996 declaring the case closed and terminated.
"The records of this case (Annexes to the basic pleadings in the case) show that the MTC of Cagayan de Oro City issued a Writ of Execution on August 16, 1995 which was implemented on October 6, 1995, while the DARAB of Misamis Oriental pursuant to its decision of January 27, 1994 likewise issued a writ of execution on October 20. 1995," (Resolution, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 110-111)
On April 18, 1996, the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator Jimmy V. Tapangan issued summons to the parties in a new case filed by then petitioner Pacito Nabe ("Nabe" for brevity) (herein respondent), docketed as DARAB CASE NO. X (06)-935, for determination of disturbance compensation, demand for actual/moral and other damages. (Rollo, p. 087)
A Responsive Pleading and/or Motion to Dismiss was filed by the respondent Jose Gabor (herein petitioner) ("Gabor" for brevity) on both DARAB Case No. X (06)-642 and DARAB Case No. X (06)-935 (Ibid, p. 089).
On July 17, 1996, the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator Leandrica M. Monsanto, issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss filed by Gabor in DARAB Case No. X(06)-935. A manifestation/motion was filed by Gabor which prayed, among others, that the Darab Provincial Adjudicator should inhibit herself from further hearing the aforesaid case (Ibid, p. 019).
On August 8, 1996, the Provincial Adjudicator issued the order inhibiting herself from hearing the said case and forwarding the same to the Office of the Regional Adjudicator DARAB-X, Macanhan, Carmen, Cagayan de Ore City (Ibid, p. 108).
On August 28, 1996, the Regional Adjudicator issued a Resolution, the pertinent portion of which reads:
"It is worthy of note however, that as respondent vehemently opposed the filing of this case as an unecessary (sic) protraction of a case already decided, then a denial of his motion to dismiss on the grounds alleged therein could very well be a subject of a review by the higher tribunal.
"As it is, two opposing/conflicting decisions have been rendered, envolving the same parties and over the same subject matter. The instant petition is a variation of a DARAB Case already decided and where the relevant issues were likewise already passed upon by the Civil Courts.
"Under these circumstances, the instant petition is deemed an incident to the two cases aforementioned and should therefore be properly ventilated to the end if parties desire, to the hiearchieal (sic) ladder of review available to parties.
"WHEREFORE, for lack of jurisdiction, the instant petition is dismissed.
"SO ORDERED." (Resolution, p. 7; Rollo, p. 115)
Aggrieved by the said resolution, a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated August 28, 1996 was filed by Nabe (Rollo, p. 116). Said motion for reconsideration was denied by the Regional Adjudicator in his Order dated September 20, 1996. Thereafter, Nabe filed a notice of appeal (Ibid, p. 118) of the aforesaid resolution before the DARAB Central Office docketed as DARAB Case No. 5390.
On September 3, 1997, the assailed decision of the DARAB Central Office was issued in the manner mentioned above. (Ibid, p. 034)
A motion for reconsideration dated October 7, 1997 was filed by Gabor. (Ibid, p. 049)
On June 11, 1998, the assailed Resolution was issued denying the motion for reconsideration filed by Gabor. (Ibid, p. 058)
Hence, the present petition for review.
The petitioner raised a lone question worded as follows: — "What will happen to the ruling of the Honorable Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) in CA-GR. SP. No. 31964 if we continue entertaining the claims of NABE in DARAB CASE No. X (06) 642 and in DARAB CASE NO. X (06) — 935?" (Petition, p. 12, Rollo, p. 022)
The petitioner avers that in the questioned decision of the DARAB the latter has so much tolerated forum-shopping which evidently violated the established rules and jurisprudence on res judicata; that when Nabe filed the first DARAB case (Case No. X(06)-642), he already resorted to forum-shopping in that he had a pending case before the MTCC, but such fact was still tolerated by the Provincial Adjudicator, that the Provincial Adjudicator referred to, and gave reliance on the decision of the Regional Trial Court which favored Nabe, but when the said decision of the RTC was reversed by the Court of Appeals, thus favoring Gabor, the Provincial Adjudicator totally disregarded the decision of the Court of Appeals and, instead, ordered for the execution of its earlier decision mentioned above which was relied on the RTC; that when Nabe filed the second DARAB case (Case No. X(06)-935), Nabe again forum-shopped and this act was again allowed by the Provincial Adjudicator; that after the decision of the Court of Appeals had become final and executory and was actually executed, the Provincial Adjudicator still entertained proceedings which involved the same parties over the same parcel of land, and which deals also with the same causes and/or issues, thus, res judicata already set in; that DARAB did not resolve DARAB Case No. X (06)-935 which was brought on appeal and what was resolved was DARAB Case No. X (06)-642 which was already considered moot and academic after the MTCC decision was ordered reinstated by the Court of Appeals and was duly executed. (Rollo, p. 027)
We are persuaded.
In order for this Court to decide as to whether the present petition is meritorious or not, or whether or not forum-shopping and res judicata exist, this Court deems it best to determine first whether the instant case is an agrarian dispute or an ejectment case..
It is worth noting that the said issue was already decided by the Fourth Division of this Court in CA-GR. SP. No. 31964 which held that:
"The question for resolution is whether or not the case filed before the MTC is an agrarian dispute. If it were an agrarian dispute, the case is properly cognizable by the DARAB; otherwise, the MTCC is the body with jurisdiction over the same. Jurisprudence is settled that a court does not lose its jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. The court continues to have the authority to hear the evidence for the purpose precisely of determining whether or not it has jurisdiction. And upon such hearing, if tenancy is shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction (228 SCRA 503).
"Some observations of this Court are that:
"(1) while Nabe claims that he was a tenant of Vicente Gabor, the plaintiff's father, Nabe has not shown that the land in dispute was (formerly) owned by said Vicente Gabor. On record is the Original Certificate of Title No. P-2108 in the name of Jose M. Gabor (p. 52, rollo).
"(2) the affidavits of witnesses and the certification by the Barangay which were submitted by Nabe to the MTC to bolster his defense of tenancy with Vicente Gabor are empty of convincing details about the alleged tenancy.
"(3) There is not a shred of documentary evidence to prove such tenancy relationship between Nabe and the petitioner's father Vicente Gabor and of the alleged sharing with the latter of harvest from the said parcel of land.
"And as pointed out by the petitioner, in the MTC, the private respondent made no mention whatsoever about the former's refusal to accept the shares that the latter wanted to remit to the petitioner. It was only in his memorandum of appeal filed with the respondent RTC, that the private respondent made such an allegation of the petitioner's said refusal to accept the shares from the harvest of the land.
"The trial court (MTC) in the case at bar cannot be said not to have 'circumspectly examined and weighed the evidence.' Record shows that it had closely scrutinized the evidence of the petitioner as well as that of the private respondent.
"As aptly found by the trial court, the contents of the affidavits of the private respondent are sweeping statements and indeed have not shown when and how the private respondent started being a tenant of the deceased Vicente Gabor.
"On the other hand, the petitioner has in his favor his Original Certificate of Title over the said parcel of land, and an Agreement of Occupancy (Exh. C) executed on August 26, 1988 allowing the private respondent and his spouse to occupy and construct a rest house on a portion of the said parcel of land as a temporary resting place subject to a term and condition that the agreement can be rescinded or terminated by the landowner (petitioner) any time without necessity of giving any notice of termination to the occupant (private respondent). The private respondent's claim that the said agreement is spurious for his signature therein is allegedly not genuine, has not been satisfactorily proved before the trial court. A mere comparison of his signature as appearing in the said 'Agreement' with that as appearing on the verification of his Answer will not suffice to prove the alleged forgery for he could have deliberately changed his signature to fit the purpose.
"Upon consideration of all of the foregoing, the Court is of the view that the case at bar is not an agrarian dispute but an ejectment case that lies well within this jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court."
(Decision, p. 3-5; Rollo, pp. 079-081)
With the said findings, We are of the opinion and so holds that forum shopping was committed by the respondent when it filed before the DARAB said Case No. X(06)-642, there being another action (Civil Case No. 13828) involving the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances, and involving the same parcel of land which raises identical causes of actions, subject matter and issues.
It should be noted that both cases, DARAB Case No. X(06)-042, which was filed before the DARAB, and Civil Case No. 13828, which was filed before the Municipal Trial Court, involve the same causes of action, both of which are ejectment cases, thus, the filing of the said civil case ahead of the DARAB case vested the civil court of first jurisdiction over the subject property.
"There is forum shopping when, between an action pending before this Court and another one, there exist: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration." (Suara vs. Saura, Jr., 313 SCRA 465, 475)
There being a decision on the merits in Civil Case No. 13828 (Rollo, p. 062), it could be concluded that the principle of res judicata also applies in the present case. Thence, all subsequent cases filed and decided by the DARAB involving the same subject matter and the same parties would be considered moot and academic by reason of the decision of the Municipal Trial Court, which decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP. No. 31964 (Ibid, p. 077) and has gained its finality by reason of the Resolution of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 121713 (Ibid, p. 086)
"Under the rule of res judicata, also known as 'bar by prior judgment,' a final judgment or order on the merits, rendered by a Court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties and their successor-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. The requisites essential for the application of the principle are: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (b) said judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the Court rendering the same must have jurisdiction on the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be between the two cases identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action." (Firestone Ceramics, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 522, 536)
Taking into consideration the said requisites of res judicata, this Court maintains that the same principle applies in the case at hand.
Moreover, the Regional Adjudicator, Regional Office No. 10, even recognizes and considers the filing of DARAB in Case No. X(06)-935 as violative of the principle of res judicata, thus, it states:
"This Board, after considering the antecedent facts aforestated, is of the opinion and so hold that indeed the instant case is an off-shoot of both the Civil Case of Ejectment and the DARAB Case for Constructive ejectment, which as far as the parties are concerned have all been decided already with finality.
"While admittedly, the cause of action in the instant petition calls for the payment of disturbance compensation, yet it is anchored on the basic assumption that petitioner is entitled to it on the basis of the findings and decision in DARAB Case No. 642 which respondent assails as having been issued without jurisdiction in view of the Court of Appeals' decision reinstating the MTC decision which first assumed jurisdiction of the case.
"To hear the instant petition then, would be to relitigate issues and matters already passed upon in a full blown trial. Thus the Supreme Court explaining the principle of res judicata said, 'a party cannot evade the application of the principle of bar by prior judgment by simply varying the form of the action or by adopting a different mode of presenting its case.' (widows and orphans Asso. Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 360). Explained further in De Ramos vs. CA, 213 SCRA 207, said the Supreme Court,' The doctrine of res judicata is an old axiom of the law dictated by wisdom and sanctified by age, and is founded on the broad principle that it is the best interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by the same parties over a subject once fully and fairly adjudicated.'
xxx xxx xxx
"On the other hand, the more crucial issue before this Board is whether or not the undersigned setting as Regional Adjudicator of DARAB 10 has authority to review the position of the Provincial Adjudicator of Misamis Oriental in assuming jurisdiction over the instant case, and consequently to back-track further and review the decision in DARAB Case No. 642 upon which the instant action is based, or conversely, as the validity of the decision in DARAB Case No. 642 is put at issue in the light of a prior decision in the regular courts, will the undersigned Regional Adjudicator have the authority, nay, jurisdiction to review these two decisions, and upon which the resolution of the instant case rests.
"Definitely, this Board as herein presided now by the Regional Adjudicator would have no authority to assume jurisdiction in review of a DARAB case already passed upon by another adjudicator of co-equal authority and jurisdiction, and much less that of the decision of the regular courts.
xxx xxx xxx
"It is worthy of note however, that as respondent vehemently opposed the filing of this case as an unecessary (sic) protraction of a case already decided, then a denial of his motion to dismiss on the grounds alleged therein could very well be a subject of a review by the higher tribunal.
"As it is, two opposing/conflicting decisions have been rendered, envolving (sic) the same parties and over the same subject matter. The instant petition is a variation of a DARAB case already decided and where the relevant issues were likewise already passed upon by the Civil Courts."
(Resolution, pp. 4-5, 6, 7; Rollo, pp. 112-113, 114, 115)
Such being the case, the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Cagayan De Oro City in Civil Case No. 13828, which decision was affirmed by the Fourth Division of this Court in CA-GR. SP. No. 31964, should be upheld firmly.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision dated September 3, 1997 and the Resolution dated June 11, 1998 of the DARAB in DARAB Case No. 5390 are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Jr. and Guevara-Salonga, JJ., concur.