GR 129165; (October, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129165 ; October 30, 2006
SPOUSES RODRIGO COLOSO and ELISA COLOSO, represented by their son FREDERICK COLOSO, petitioners, vs. HON. SECRETARY ERNESTO V. GARILAO, in his capacity as the Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are the registered owners of a 300-hectare land in Samal, Bataan. They successfully developed a 50-hectare portion into a subdivision and sought to expand. In 1969, they filed a Complaint for ejectment before the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) against their agricultural tenants, the Ravago Group, over a portion of the land intended for the next phase, offering disturbance compensation. The CAR, in a 1972 Decision, ordered the tenants to vacate, authorized the land conversion, and set the disturbance compensation. This Decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1975 and became final.
Subsequently, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) initiated compulsory acquisition proceedings over the petitioners’ landholdings under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Petitioners filed a petition for exemption with the DAR, specifically concerning seven parcels with an aggregate area of 25.5954 hectares, which included the land subject of the final CAR judgment. Respondent DAR Secretary Ernesto V. Garilao denied the petition in a 1996 Order.
ISSUE
Whether the DAR Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the June 17, 1996 Order denying the petition for exemption, thereby disregarding the final and executory 1972 CAR Decision which had already authorized the conversion of the subject landholdings and ordered the ejectment of the tenants.
RULING
Yes, the DAR Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled that a final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable. The 1972 CAR Decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, conclusively settled the rights of the parties over the specific landholding. It authorized the conversion of the agricultural land to residential use and lawfully ejected the tenants upon payment of disturbance compensation. This judicial decree vested in the petitioners a clear right over the property for its intended non-agricultural use.
The DAR, as an administrative agency, has no authority to review, reverse, or set aside a final judgment of a court of law. Its power to administer the agrarian reform program must be exercised within the bounds of law and with due regard to vested rights established by final judicial orders. By issuing the assailed Order, the DAR Secretary effectively nullified the CAR’s final judgment, an act which constitutes a whimsical and capricious exercise of power amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of finality of judgment is a fundamental principle intended to end litigation. Therefore, the DAR is strictly enjoined to respect and recognize the final CAR Decision. The titles issued to the tenants over the 26.5-hectare lot were ordered cancelled and reinstated to the petitioners.