Baguio v. Niño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a parcel of land awarded by the Bureau of Lands in 1966 to Narcisa A. Placino. Francisco Niño, who occupied the lot, contested this award through a Petition Protest filed in 1975. The Director of Lands dismissed Niño's protest, a decision that became final and executory after Niño's unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently, an Order of Execution was issued in 1993 directing Niño and those acting on his behalf to vacate the premises and remove any improvements. Attempts to enforce this order failed, leading Narcisa to file an ejectment case, which was dismissed by the MTCC. Procedural History: Following the dismissal of the ejectment case, Narcisa's counsel petitioned the DENR-CAR for a Special Order to authorize the City Sheriff, Police, and Demolition Team to remove Niño's improvements. This petition was denied. The Order of Execution was subsequently amended to explicitly request the assistance of these city officials. Despite the amended order, the DENR-CENRO, along with the Demolition Team and police, initially desisted from enforcement. However, the Demolition Team and police later proceeded with demolishing Niño's houses. Niño and his co-respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the RTC, challenging the Amended Order of Execution. The RTC dismissed their petition, and their subsequent Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals was granted. The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC orders and directed the City Mayor and his offices to cease demolition efforts until a special court order was obtained. The Petition: The City of Baguio, Mayor Mauricio Domogan, and Orlando Genove filed the present petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. They argue that the appellate court erred in ruling that a special court order is necessary for the demolition of respondents' structures, in applying Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and in entertaining the respondents' petition for review. Petitioners contended, for the first time in their motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, that the City Mayor had the authority under Section 455(b) 3(vi) of the Local Government Code to order the demolition of structures built without a permit. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision, and held that the requirement for a special court order under Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which echoes due process, was applicable, and that the arguments regarding the City Mayor's authority were raised too late.
Issue(s)
Whether a special court order is needed for the demolition of respondents’ structures. Whether Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was correctly applied by the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in entertaining the respondents’ petition for review.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The questioned Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the necessity of a special court order for demolition: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that a special court order is needed for the demolition of respondents' structures. The Court emphasized that Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requires a special order from the court, issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and failure of the judgment obligor to remove the improvements within a reasonable time. This procedural safeguard embodies the constitutional guarantee of due process, ensuring that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. The fact that an administrative agency issued the Amended Order of Execution does not negate this requirement, as the power to order the removal of improvements and turn over possession of land belongs exclusively to the courts of justice. The Bureau of Lands or the DENR, while having jurisdiction over disposition of public lands, do not possess the authority to issue demolition orders, as their powers are limited to disposition and alienation, and the ultimate power to resolve conflicts of possession rests with the civil courts to prevent social unrest. On the application of Section 10(d) of Rule 39: The Court found that Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was correctly applied by the Court of Appeals. This provision explicitly states that when property subject to execution contains improvements made by the judgment obligor, the officer shall not destroy or remove them except upon a special order of the court. This rule is a procedural mechanism to ensure due process. The Amended Order of Execution issued by the DENR-CAR, in substance, was an order for demolition. Therefore, compliance with Section 10(d) was imperative before any demolition could take place. The Court reiterated that administrative agencies, even those with quasi-judicial functions, cannot arrogate unto themselves powers not explicitly granted by law, especially when such powers impinge upon fundamental rights like the right to property and due process. On the Court of Appeals entertaining the petition for review: The Court overlooked the procedural error of respondents filing their appeal under Rule 42 instead of Rule 41, as the RTC rendered the questioned decision in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. This oversight was justified by the merits of the respondents' case. The Court also addressed the petitioners' argument, raised for the first time in their motion for reconsideration before the CA, regarding the City Mayor's power to order demolition of illegally constructed structures under the Local Government Code. The Court held that matters, theories, or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below will ordinarily not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, the CA correctly denied this argument on merit.
Main Doctrine
The power to order the sheriff to remove improvements and turn over the possession of the land to the party adjudged entitled thereto, belongs only to the courts of justice and not to administrative agencies like the Bureau of Lands or the DENR, absent explicit statutory grant. The demolition of improvements on a property subject of execution requires a special order from the court after due hearing, as mandated by Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which embodies the constitutional guarantee of due process.