SPECIAL FIFTEENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 64164. October 30, 2001.]
THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF MAGDALENA R. SANGALANG represented by its Administratrix, SOLITA S. JIMENEZ, ANGELO S. JIMENEZ JR., JAYSON P. JIMENEZ; SOLITA S. JIMENEZ; AND JOHN S. HERMOGENES, in their personal capacities, petitioners, vs. The DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, Br. 11, Region III (PARAD); The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB); Atty. Analiza R. Teh, OIC-Executive Director, DARAB, the Provincial Sheriff, DAR, Adjudication Board, Region III, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, and the Local Phil. National Police, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, public respondents, and FERMIN ARANIA, THE HEIR OF ARSENIO AROSO, REP. BY PEDRITO OROSCO, THE HEIRS OF FLORENCIO BARROGA, REP. BY ENRIQUE BARROGA, THE HEIRS OF FRANCISCO VILORIA, DOMINGO MAGALONG, THE HEIRS OF ANTONIO ANDRES, REP. BY PAULINO ANDRES, THE HEIRS OF GREGORIO GAHIS, REP. BY FELIX GAHIS, THE HEIRS OF FLORENTINO CORPUZ, REP. BY ERNESTO CORPUZ, AND GAVINO CORPUA AND THE HEIRS OF SIMPICIO GALAPON, REP. BY FERNANDO GALAPON, private-respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GOZO-DADOLE, J p:
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Sec. 1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to annul for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the following:
(a) The Decision dated April 1, 1997 of public respondent Dept. of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Br. 11, Region III (PARAD for short), in Darab Case No. 5559' NNE' 96, the dispositive portion of which states:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Ordering the respondents to vacate and relinquish their possession of the landholdings in question; and
2. Declaring the petitioners to be the lawful and legitimate farmer-beneficiaries over the landholdings in question." (p. 3, Rollo)
(b) The Decision of public respondent, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB for short), dated December 21, 1998, in the same case docketed before it as Case No. 6576, affirming the aforesaid decision.
(c) The Order dated January 25, 2000 by DARAB, denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Romulo S. Jimenez.
(d) The Writ of Execution Pending Appeal dated March 9, 2001, issued by Atty. Analiza R. Teh, OIC-Executive Director, DARAB.
The antecedent facts:
On May 22, 1993, Magdalena R. Sangalang was murdered in a massacre by persons interested to grab her vast landholdings.
Her only daughter Solita S. Jimenez survived the massacre.
On June 14, 1996, private respondents filed a petition for recovery of possession as tenant-tillers land, against the Heirs of Magdalena R. Sangalang, represented by Romulo S. Jimenez, of three parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. NT-59021, NT-59022 and NT-59023 filed before the DAR Adjudication Board, Region III, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, docketed as Case No. 5559 NNE' 96, or Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD for short).
Romulo was never appointed Administrator of the estate and could not represent the other heirs.
On June 20, 1996, summons was issued by PARAD to Romulo Jimenez only, and none to the other heirs of Magdalena R. Sangalang, individual petitioners herein.
On July 15, 1996, Romulo filed his Answer wherein in par. 1 thereof, he made it clear that the land was being cultivated under administration by him, and that he was not a representative of the Heirs of Magdalena R. Sangalang but merely a co-owner of the land, hence he cannot bind the other co-owners.
Romulo S. Jimenez failed to inform his co-heirs probably because he had already stated in his Answer that he could not bind the other heirs.
On July 31, 1996, Solita S. Jimenez, unaware of the petition before the PARAD, filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration before RTC, Br. 61, 3rd Judicial Region, Angeles City.
On December 20, 1996, letters of Administration was issued to herein petitioner Solita S. Jimenez, by the RTC, Angeles City.
On April 1, 1997, PARAD issued a decision dated April 1, 1991.
After his Motion for Reconsideration was denied, Romulo S. Jimenez filed on September 15, 1997, a Notice of Appeal to the Office of public respondent DARAB.
On December 21, 1998, DARAB issued the questioned decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO." (p. 7, Rollo)
On January 12, 1999, Romulo S. Jimenez filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said decision.
On January 25, 2000, DARAB issued an order denying said Motion for Reconsideration.
Herein petitioners were never served notice of the decisions and orders of both PARAD and DARAB.
On February 9, 2000, before a Petition for Review was filed before the Court of Appeals, private respondents filed an Ex Parte Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
On March 8, 2000, Romulo S. Jimenez filed a Petition for Review docketed as CA-G.R. No. 57360 which is still pending before the 10th Division of the Court of Appeals.
On March 8, 2001, DARAB granted the ex parte motion for execution pending appeal. Neither good reasons were mentioned for the issuance thereof, nor any conditions were imposed by DARAB therefor, as required by Sec. 2, Rule XII, DARAB New Rules of Procedure (1994).
On March 9, 2001, the very next day, the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal was issued by respondent Atty. Analiza Teh.
On March 16, 2001, Romulo S. Jimenez filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order for the issuance of the writ which is still pending consideration by DARAB.
Lots Nos. 467, 468 or 470 cannot be said to already belong to Romulo S. Jimenez until the liquidation of the estate. The reason is that the estate may have more debts than assets, such that in the end nothing may yet be adjudicated to him. Hence, the proper party should be the Estate represented by the Administratrix.
The subject properties are already classified as partly Residential and Agro-industrial per Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance of the Municipality of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija (Region 3) as embodied in Municipal Ordinance No. 42, series of 1982, entitled "An Ordinance Adopting A Comprehensive Zoning Regulation of the Municipality of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, and Providing for the Administration, Enforcement and Amendment thereof, and for the Repeal of all Ordinances in conflict therewith," adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Sto. Domingo, through Resolution No. 42 dated November 5, 1982 which was approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board under Resolution No. R-214, series of 1984, dated November 15, 1984.
The PARAD and DARAB should have taken judicial notice of said reclassification, they being mandated by law to dispose under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program only agricultural lands, and the afore-mentioned reclassification was by virtue of a local law that took effect as early as 1982, in the place where they have been operating for so long. Yet, they did not.
DARAB also declared the private respondents to be the lawful and legitimate farmer-beneficiaries over the landholdings in question. Yet neither did their petition state any allegation that they were the lawful and legitimate farmer-beneficiaries, nor is there any evidence showing that they are, or a prayer that they be declared as such. It must be noted that the petition was filed by dead claimants except one, the dead being represented by alleged heirs who did not present proof of their right as hereditary successors to the rights, if any, of the deceased.
The only basis of such declaration is that petitioners hold Certificate of Land Transfer issued under PD 27.
Hence, this petition assigning the following errors:
"1. The questioned decisions/orders were issued against herein petitioners despite the fact that the petition was filed against the wrong respondent, to wit, against the heirs instead of the Intestate Estate of the late Magdalena R. Sangalang.
2. The questioned decision or order was issued against herein petitioners despite the fact that PARAD and DARAB obtained no jurisdiction over the estate or over the persons of herein petitioners, or over the res, because no summons was issued to the Intestate Estate through the Administratrix, or to the herein petitioners.
3. DARAB's declaration that the private respondents are the lawful and legitimate farmer-beneficiaries over the landholdings in question has no leg to stand on. There is no evidence of lawfulness of legitimacy. The Certificate of Land Transfer issued under PD 27 does not make private respondents owners of the land in question, and the lapse of more than two years without paying the landowner has provided ground for forfeiture.
4. Lots Nos. 467, 468 or 470 do not belong to Romulo S. Jimenez, and until liquidation of the estate and distribution of what may be left, they belong to the estate. Hence, only the estate, through the Administratrix, can be summoned, and ordered to vacate and relinquish possession of the landholdings in issue.
5. The questioned decisions or orders were issued against herein petitioners despite the fact that PARAD and DARAB have no jurisdiction over the subject properties, they, having ceased to be agricultural due to the municipal classification thereof as residential or agro-industrial.
6. The Writ of Execution Pending Appeal was issued without hearing, it having been based on an Ex Parte Motion.
7. The order for the issuance of Writ of Execution Pending Appeal did not contain or quote from the ex parte motion, any good reason or impose any condition, in violation of Sec. 2, DARAB Rule XII,
(pp. 10-13, Rollo)
This petition is meritorious.
On the first, second, fourth and fifth assigned errors, petitioners contend that the assailed Decision and Orders were rendered and/or issued:
1. Against the wrong respondents, i.e. against the heirs instead of the intestate estate of the late Magdalena R. Sangalang;
2. Without any jurisdiction obtained over the estate or over the persons of petitioners;
3. Lots Nos. 467, 468 and 470 do not belong to Rolando S. Jimenez;
4. No jurisdiction over the subject properties.
These contentions are impressed with merit.
Per record, it is clearly shown that the petition dated May 16, 1996 filed by herein private respondents before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Region III, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, (PARAD) for recovery of properties was against "the Heirs of Magdalena Sangalang represented by Rolando Sangalang Jimenez" and it was only Rolando Sangalang Jimenez who was served with summons for which he has filed an Answer dated July 12, 1996 wherein he stated in paragraph 1 thereof that "he is not the representative of the Heirs of Magdalena Sangalang but is only a co-owner and cannot bind the other co-owners". Consequently, such being the situation, the public respondents, particularly, the DARAB and the PARAD did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of herein petitioners who are the legal Heirs of Magdalena R. Sangalang and over her estate since they were not served with summons and were not made petitioner-respondents to such petition and are therefore, not bound by the assailed decision nor Rolando S. Jimenez be ordered to relinquish and vacate Lot Nos. 467, 468 and 470 since at this stage of the proceedings, these parcels of land are still owned by the estate of Magdalena R. Sangalang. So, it is only her estate through the administratrix that can be ordered to vacate and relinquish the possession of the landholdings.
On the basis of the record, it is likewise shown that public respondents have no jurisdiction over the landholdings in question considering that they have ceased to be agricultural due to the municipal classification thereof as residential or agro-industrial per Municipal Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1982, adopted by Sangguniang Bayan of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija through Resolution No. 42 dated November 5, 1982, which was approved by the House and Land Use Regulatory Board under Resolution No. R-214, Series of 1984 dated November 15, 1984. In fact, per DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1996, it identifies the land outside of CARP coverage, such as:
a. Land found by DAR as no longer suitable for agriculture and which cannot be given appropriate valuation by the Land Bank;
b. Land where DAR has already issued a conversion order;
c. Land determined as exempt under DOJ Opinions Nos. 44 and 181; or
d. Land declared for non-agricultural use by Presidential Proclamation.
On the sixth and seventh assigned errors, the petitioners argued that the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal was irregular because there was no hearing and there was no reason or conditions imposed in its issuance in violation of Sec. 2, DARAB Rule XII, which states:
"Sec. 2. Execution Pending Appeal — Any motion for execution of the decision of the adjudicator pending appeal shall be filed before the Board, and the same may be granted upon showing good reasons and under condition which the Board may require."
We agree.
There is no dispute that the writ of execution pending appeal has been issued without notice of hearing and in fact, no hearing was conducted for that purpose considering that the motion was filed ex parte. This is irregular since this motion is a litigated motion for which the mandatory requirements of a notice of hearing indicating the time and place thereof cannot be dispensed with being a requirement of procedural due process.
Moreover, execution pending appeal must be issued only upon good reasons to be stated in the order granting it after due notice which is wanting in this case.
Relative to the third assigned error, this Court opted not to discuss and/or resolve this error anymore considering that this affects already the merits of the case which herein petitioners have nothing to do since it was already resolved that the assailed decision dated April 1, 1997 being null and void insofar as it concerns herein petitioners due to lack of jurisdiction over them.
WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, there being lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, this petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 1, 1997 of the public respondent Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Branch 11, Region III, (PARAD), in Darab Case No. 5559" NNE' 96, the Decision dated December 21, 1998 of the public respondent Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the Order dated January 25, 2000 by Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal dated March 9, 2001 all rendered and/or issued in Darab Case No. 6576 are nullified, set aside and/or canceled insofar as they affect herein petitioners. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated September 8, 2000 is made permanent.
SO ORDERED.
* Cruz and ** Enriquez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* In lieu of J. Valdez, Jr. who is on leave.
** In lieu of J. Pestaño who is on leave.