G.R. No. 225971 , June 17, 2020
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc., The Most Rev. Bishop Jose F. Oliveros, D.D., Petitioner, vs. The Heirs of Mariano Marcos, represented by Francisca Marcos alias Kikay, Respondents.

FACTS

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. (RCBMI) is the registered owner of land covered by OCT No. 597. Portions of this land were awarded to Mariano Marcos under Presidential Decree No. 27 via Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs). On June 17, 1980, RCBMI sought the cancellation of these awards, alleging the lots were not for rice production but for social programs. The Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) granted the petition and cancelled CLT No. 0392296 in an Order dated June 29, 1982 (1982 MAR Order), finding the lot vacant and uncultivated at P.D. 27’s issuance. Marcos’s reconsideration was denied in 1986. Despite the cancellation, the Heirs of Marcos refused to surrender possession.
RCBMI filed a complaint for injunction and damages before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in 1994. The PARAD ruled for RCBMI in 1995, ordering the Heirs to vacate. The DARAB affirmed this in 2001. The Heirs’ appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied in 2004, and an Entry of Judgment was issued. However, the records were not remanded for execution. After a motion to remand, RCBMI filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution before the PARAD on March 10, 2008.
The Heirs opposed, citing a supervening event: the property’s placement under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The PARAD initially granted the writ in 2010 but later held it in abeyance pending the DAR Secretary’s resolution on CARP coverage. On May 5, 2011, the DAR Secretary dismissed the Heirs’ petition for CARP coverage, declaring the property exempt as it was a fishpond. Subsequently, the PARAD denied the Heirs’ motion for reconsideration and granted RCBMI’s motion for execution in 2012. After further delays and motions, the PARAD issued a Writ of Execution on December 16, 2014.
The Heirs filed a Motion to Quash the Writ, arguing that the five-year period to execute the 1982 MAR Order under the 1989 DARAB Rules had lapsed. The PARAD granted the motion to quash on August 19, 2015. RCBMI’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
RCBMI filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated April 8, 2016, for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, stating RCBMI should have first appealed to the DARAB. The CA denied RCBMI’s motion for reconsideration on July 20, 2016. Hence, RCBMI filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing RCBMI’s Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the Petition and reversed the CA Resolutions.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not applicable. The core issue was the PARAD’s grave abuse of discretion in quashing the writ of execution based on a procedural time bar, which was a jurisdictional error. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to correct acts rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The PARAD’s order quashing the writ was a final order pertaining to its exercise of quasi-judicial functions, and no appeal was provided for such an order under the DARAB Rules. The available remedy under the rules was a petition for certiorari.
Furthermore, the PARAD committed grave abuse of discretion. The five-year period for execution under the 1989 DARAB Rules was not absolute. The rules allowed for suspension or interruption of the period. The long delay in execution was attributable to the Heirs of Marcos, who employed various dilatory tactics, including raising the issue of CARP coverage, which was ultimately dismissed. The PARAD’s duty to execute a final and executory judgment was ministerial. Its failure to perform this duty and its erroneous application of the five-year rule, despite the Heirs’ own causation of delay, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ordered the PARAD to execute the 1982 MAR Order and the subsequent final judgments with dispatch.