Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. Heirs of Marcos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. (RCBMI) is the registered owner of a parcel of land. Portions of this land were awarded to Mariano Marcos under Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (P.D. 27). RCBMI sought the cancellation of these awards, alleging the lots were not devoted to rice production. In 1982, the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) granted RCBMI's petition and cancelled one CLT, finding the lot vacant and uncultivated upon P.D. 27's issuance. Despite this cancellation, the Heirs of Marcos allegedly refused to surrender possession. Procedural History: RCBMI filed a complaint for injunction and damages before the PARAD, which ruled in its favor in 1995, ordering the Heirs of Marcos to vacate. This was affirmed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in 2001 and later by the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2004, with the CA decision becoming final and executory. Despite the finality, records were not remanded for execution. After further delays, RCBMI filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution in 2008. The PARAD directed the Heirs of Marcos to comment, who opposed, alleging the property was covered by Republic Act No. 6657 (CARP Law). The PARAD eventually granted the writ in 2010, but reconsidered upon the Heirs' motion, holding the resolution in abeyance pending a DAR Secretary's decision on CARP coverage. The DAR Secretary declared the property exempt from CARP coverage in 2011. RCBMI again moved to resolve, and the PARAD, in 2012, denied the Heirs' motion for reconsideration and granted the writ of execution. However, no writ issued, and RCBMI filed multiple motions to resolve until a writ was finally issued in December 2014. The Heirs then filed a Motion to Quash, arguing the five-year period for execution by motion had lapsed. The PARAD granted this motion in 2015, ruling that the 1982 MAR Order could only be enforced by an action. RCBMI filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the CA, which dismissed it for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The CA denied RCBMI's motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition. The Petition: RCBMI contends that the case was about jurisdiction, not the merits of the agrarian dispute. It argued that the issuance of the writ of execution on the final and executory 1982 MAR Order was ministerial. RCBMI also asserted that the DARAB lacked certiorari powers, making an appeal futile, and that the PARAD committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the writ. RCBMI further argued that dilatory tactics by the Heirs of Marcos caused the delay and that execution by motion should have been allowed even after the five-year period.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing RCBMI's petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 for its non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Whether the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it granted the Heirs of Marcos' Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution and denied RCBMI's Motion for Reconsideration.
Ruling
The Petition is impressed with merit. The Resolutions dated April 8, 2016 and July 20, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 144354, are REVERSED. The Order dated February 17, 2012, of the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, which granted the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc.'s Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution, is REINSTATED. The PARAD is further ORDERED to proceed with the execution with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing RCBMI's petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not inflexible and admits of exceptions, particularly where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant. In this case, the protracted delay of 37 years in executing the 1982 MAR Order, which was a direct result of the Heirs of Marcos' dilatory tactics and the PARAD's prolonged inaction, falls squarely within this temporal exempting circumstance. Resorting to an appeal before the DARAB would have been time-consuming and wasteful, as the relief sought was not within the DARAB's primary merit-focused jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the very purpose of creating the DARAB was to remedy such long-drawn agrarian disputes, and the baffling delay in this case ridiculed that underlying logic. On the PARAD's grave abuse of discretion in quashing the writ of execution: The Court found that the PARAD committed grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 1, Rule XII of the 1989 DARAB Rules, execution shall issue as a matter of course upon a final and executory order or decision after the period to appeal has expired. The CA Decision upholding RCBMI's right to possession became final and executory on June 19, 2004. RCBMI sought execution in March 2008. Instead of immediately issuing the writ, the PARAD prolonged the litigation by ordering comments and oppositions. This delay, coupled with the serial oppositions from the Heirs of Marcos, led to the lapse of the five-year period for execution by motion. However, the Court clarified that this stalling was attributable to both the PARAD's inaction and the Heirs' actions, and should not be taken against RCBMI, which diligently pursued execution. The Court reiterated that once a judgment becomes final and executory, its execution is a ministerial duty, and the PARAD's quashal of the writ based on the lapsed period, under these circumstances, constituted an excess of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, as the protracted delay in the execution of a final and executory judgment, attributable to the opposing party's dilatory tactics and the adjudicator's inaction, constitutes an exception to the doctrine. Furthermore, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the writ of execution after an unreasonable delay, as the issuance of such a writ on a final and executory judgment is a ministerial duty.