326 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
*
G.R.No.142628.February6,2007.

SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. and

HEIRS OF PETRA CAPISTRANO PIIT, petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTOFMISAMISORIENTAL,BRANCH40,CAGAYANDE
ORO CITY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), DAR REGION X
DIRECTOR, ROSALIO GAMULO, FORTUNATO TELEN,
EMERITA OLANGO, THERESA MONTUERTO, DOMINGO H.
CLAPERO, JOEL U. LIM, JENEMAIR U. POLLEY, FIDELA U.
POLLEY,JESUSBATUTAY,NICANORUCAB,EMERIAU.LIM,
EMILITOCLAPERO,ANTONINARIAS,AURILLIOROMULO,
ERWINP.CLAPERO,EVELITOCULANGO,VILMA/CRUISINE
ALONG, EFREN EMATA, GREGORIO CABARIBAN, and
SABINACANTORANA,respondents.

Jurisdictions Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

(DARAB)TheCourtruledthattheRTCshavejurisdictionoveractionsfor
annulmentofthedecisionsoftheNationalWaterResourcesCouncil,which
isaquasijudicialbodyrankedwithinferiorcourts,pursuanttoitsoriginal
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, under
Sec. 21(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, in relation to acts or omissions of an inferior
court.The Court ruled that the RTCs have jurisdiction over actions for
annulmentofthedecisionsoftheNationalWaterResourcesCouncil,which
is a quasijudicial body ranked with inferior courts, pursuant to its original
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, under
Sec. 21(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, in relation to acts or omissions of an inferior
court.Thisledtotheconclusionthatdespitetheabsenceofanyprovisionin
B.P.Blg.129,theRTChadthepowertoentertainpetitionsforannulmentof
judgmentsofinferiorcourtsandadministrativeorquasijudicialbodiesof
equalranking.ThisisalsoinharmonywiththepreB.P.Blg.129rulings
oftheCourtrecognizingthepowerofatrialcourt(courtoffirstinstance)to
annulfinaljudgments.Hence,whileitistrue,aspetitionerscontend,

_______________
 *THIRDDIVISION.

327

VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 327

SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

that the RTC had the authority to annul final judgments, such authority
pertained only to final judgments rendered by inferior courts and quasi
judicialbodiesofequalrankingwithsuchinferiorcourts.

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) The

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) is a quasi
judicialbodycreatedbyExecutiveOrderNos.229and129A.TheDARAB
is a quasijudicial body created by Executive Order Nos. 229 and 129A.
R.A. No. 6657 delineated its adjudicatory powers and functions. The
DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure adopted on December 26, 1988
specifically provides for the manner of judicial review of its decisions,
orders, rulings, or awards. Rule XIV, Section 1 states: SECTION 1.
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.Any decision, order, award or ruling
by the Board or its Adjudicators on any agrarian dispute or on any matter
pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement or interpretation
of agrarian reform laws or rules and regulations promulgated thereunder,
may be brought within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, to
theCourtofAppealsbycertiorari,exceptasprovidedinthenextsucceeding
section. Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals the decision of
the Board or Adjudicator appealed from, shall be immediately executory.
Further, the prevailing 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
expresslyprovidesforanappealfromtheDARABdecisionstotheCA.

Same The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

(DARAB)isacoequalbodywiththeRTCanditsdecisionsarebeyondthe
RTCscontrol.GiventhatDARABdecisionsareappealabletotheCA,the
inevitableconclusionisthattheDARABisacoequalbodywiththeRTC
and its decisions are beyond the RTCs control. The CA was therefore
correct in sustaining the RTCs dismissal of the petition for annulment of
theDARABDecisiondatedOctober5,1995,astheRTCdoesnothaveany
jurisdictiontoentertainthesame.

JurisdictionsAnnulment of Judgments Section 9(2) of B.P. Blg. 129

vested in the CA the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments, but only those rendered by the RTCs. It does not
expresslygivetheCAthepowertoannuljudgmentsofquasijudicialbodies.
Thisbringstoforetheissueofwhetherthe

328

328 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

petitionforannulmentoftheDARABjudgmentcouldbebroughttotheCA.
As previously noted, Section 9(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 vested in the CA the
exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments, but
only those rendered by the RTCs. It does not expressly give the CA the
power to annul judgments of quasijudicial bodies. Thus, in Elcee Farms,
Inc. v. Semillano, 413 SCRA 669 (2003), the Court affirmed the ruling of
the CA that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of a
final and executory judgment of the NLRC, citing Section 9 of B.P. Blg.
129, as amended, which only vests in the CA exclusive jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts. This was
reiteratedinGalangv.CourtofAppeals,472SCRA259(2005),wherethe
Court ruled that the CA is without jurisdiction to entertain a petition for
annulment of judgment of a final decision of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Annulment of Judgments Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the

remedy of annulment of judgment is confined to decisions of the Regional
Trial Court on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.In
Colev.CourtofAppeals,348SCRA692(2000),involvinganannulmentof
the judgment of the HLURB Arbiter and the Office of the President (OP),
filed with the CA, the Court stated that, (U)nder Rule 47 of the Rules of
Court,theremedyofannulmentofjudgmentisconfinedtodecisionsofthe
RegionalTrialCourtonthegroundofextrinsicfraudandlackofjurisdiction
xxx.

SameCivilProcedureIn Macalalag v. Ombudsman (424 SCRA 741

[2004]), the Court ruled that Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on
annulmentofjudgmentsorfinalordersandresolutionscoverannulmentby
the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil
actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies could no
longer be availed of through no fault of the petitioner.In Macalalag v.
Ombudsman, 424 SCRA 741 [2004]), the Court ruled that Rule 47 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on annulment of judgments or final orders
andresolutionscoversannulmentbytheCourtofAppealsofjudgmentsor
final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for
whichtheordinaryremediesofnewtrial,appeal,petitionforrelieforother
appropriate remedies could no longer be availed of through no fault of the
petitioner.Thus,theCourtconcludedthatjudgments

329

VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 329

SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

or final orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases

cannot be annulled by the CA, more so, since The Ombudsman Act
specifically deals with the remedy of an aggrieved party from orders,
directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
casesonly,andtherighttoappealisnottobeconsideredgrantedtoparties
aggrieved by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non
administrativecases.

SameThecourt,asarule,willnotentertaindirectresorttoitunless
the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and
exceptionalandcompellingcircumstances,suchascasesofnationalinterest
andofseriousimplication,justifytheavailmentoftheextraordinaryremedy
ofwritofcertiorari,prohibition,ormandamuscallingfortheexerciseofits
primaryjurisdiction.It must be stressed at this point that the Court, as a
rule,willnotentertaindirectresorttoitunlesstheredressdesiredcannotbe
obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling
circumstances,suchascasesofnationalinterestandofseriousimplications,
justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari,
prohibition,ormandamuscallingfortheexerciseofitsprimaryjurisdiction.
The Court finds no compelling circumstances in this case to warrant a
relaxationoftheforegoingrule.TheFortichcaseisnotanalogouswiththe
present case such that the Court is not bound to abandon all rules, take
primary jurisdiction, and resolve the merits of petitioners application for a
writofprohibition.

ProceduralRulesandTechnicalitiesActionsItisanavowedpolicyof
the courts that cases should be determined on the merits, after full
opportunitytoallpartiesforventilationoftheircausesanddefenses,rather
than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.The Court notes
thattheCA,indeed,failedtoresolvepetitionersprayerfortheissuanceof
thewritofprohibition,which,significantly,focusesontheallegednullityof
the DARAB Decision dated October 5, 1995. On this score, the CA found
thattheapplicationfortheissuanceofthewritofprohibitionwasactuallya
collateral attack on the validity of the DARAB decision. But, a final and
executory judgment may be set aside in three ways and a collateral attack,
wherebyinanactiontoobtainadifferentrelief,anattackonthejudgmentis
neverthelessmadeasanincidentthereof,isoneofthese.Thistenetisbased
upon a courts inherent authority to expunge void acts from its records.
Despiterecognizingtheneedto

330

330 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

resolve petitioners application for the writ of prohibition in its Resolution

dated January 12, 1999, the CA nonetheless summarily denied petitioners
motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated February 23, 2000,
leavingthematterhangingandunresolved.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
ConstantinoG.JaraulaandFrancisSaturninoC.SanJuan
forpetitioners.
MarilouRavanesAresforprivaterespondents.
EvangelineT.Carrascococounselforprivaterespondents.

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45
oftheRulesofCourt.Theprincipalissuepresentedforresolutionis
whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction to annul
finaljudgmentoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudication
Board(DARAB).
Theantecedentfacts:
PetraCapistranoPiitpreviouslyownedLotNo.2291locatedin
CagayandeOroCitywhichmeasured123,408squaremetersunder
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T62623.SpringfieldDevelopment
Corporation,Inc.(Springfield)boughtLotNo.2291Cwithanarea
of68,732squaremeters,andLotNo.2291Dwithanareaof49,778
1
square meters. Springfield developed these properties
2
into a
subdivisionprojectcalledMegaHeightsSubdivision.
On May 4, 1990, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
throughitsMunicipalAgrarianReformOfficer,issued

_______________

1Leavingout4,898squaremeters.

2Rollo,pp.5758,CADecisiondatedJuly16,1998.

331
 VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 331
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
3
a Notice of Coverage, placing the property under the coverage of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988. There being an opposition from the heirs of
Petra Piit, the case was docketed as DARAB Case No. X305. On
August27,1991,DARABProvincialAdjudicatorAbetoA.Salcedo,
Jr. rendered a decision declaring the nature 4
of the property as
residential and not suitable for agriculture. The Regional Director
filedanoticeofappeal,whichtheProvincialAdjudicatordisallowed
5
forbeingpro
6
forma and frivolous. The decision became final
7
and
executory andSpringfieldproceededtodeveloptheproperty.
TheDARRegionalDirectorthenfiledapetitionforrelieffrom
judgmentoftheDARABDecision,docketedasDARABCaseNo.
0555. In its Decision dated October 5, 1995, the DARAB granted
thepetitionandgaveduecoursetotheNoticeofCoverage.Italso
directedtheMunicipalAgrarianReformOfficetoproceedwiththe
documentation, acquisition, and 8
distribution of the property to the
trueandlawfulbeneficiaries.
TheDARABalsoissuedanOrderdatedMay22,1997,ordering
the heirs of Piit and Springfield to pay the farmerbeneficiaries the
amount of Twelve Million, Three Hundred Forty Thousand, Eight
HundredPesos(P12,340,800.00),correspondingtothevalueofthe
property since the property has already been developed into a
subdivision.
On June13,1997,Springfield and the heirs of Piit (petitioners)
filedwiththeRTCofCagayandeOroCity,Branch40,apetitionfor
annulmentoftheDARABDecisiondatedOctober5,1995andallits
subsequentproceedings.Petition

_______________

3Records,p.42.

4Id.,atpp.1316.

5Id.,atpp.3233.

6Id.,atp.81.

7Rollo,p.58.

8Id.,atpp.134142.

332

332 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
ers contend that the DARAB decision 9 was rendered without
affordingpetitionersanynoticeandhearing.
On motion filed by the farmerbeneficiaries, the RTC issued an
Order dated 10
June 25, 1997, dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
OnJuly2,1997,petitionersfiledwiththeCourtofAppeals(CA)
aspecialcivilactionforcertiorari,mandamus,andprohibitionwith
prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and/or11
temporary restraining order, docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 44563.
PetitionersallegedthattheRTCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion
when it ruled that the annulment of judgment filed before it is
actually an action for certiorari in a different color. According to
petitioners, what it sought before the RTC is an annulment of the
DARAB Decision and not certiorari, as the DARAB Decision 12is
voidabinitioforhavingbeenrenderedwithoutdueprocessoflaw.
13
IntheassailedDecision datedJuly16,1998,theCAdismissed
the petition for lack of merit, ruling that the RTC does not have
jurisdictiontoannul
14
the DARAB Decision because it is a coequal
body.
However,onJanuary12,1999,theCAorderedtheelevationof
theDARABrecordsbeforeit,declaringthatitoverlookedthefact
thatpetitionerslikewiseappliedforawritofprohibitionagainstthe
enforcement of 15
the DARAB decision which they claim to be
patently void. Forwarded to the CA were the records of the
originalcasefiledwiththeDARAB

_______________

9Id.,atpp.9099.

10Id.,atpp.8789.

11CARollo,p.2.

12Rollo,pp.7483.

13 Penned by Associate Justice Hector L. Hofilea (now retired), with Associate

JusticesMinervaP.GonzagaReyes(nowretiredMemberoftheSupremeCourt)and
OmanU.Amin(nowretired),concurring.
14Rollo,pp.6064.

15Id.,atpp.6869.

333

VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 333
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

RegionX,anditappearingthatthepetitionforrelieffromjudgment
and its pertinent records were forwarded to the DARAB Central16
Office, the CA issued another Resolution on December 20, 1999,
requiring the DARAB Central Office to forward the records of the
case. But after receipt of the records, the CA simply17 denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration per Resolution dated
February 23, 2000 without specifically resolving the issues raised
concerningtheprayerforawritofprohibition.
Hence,thepresentpetitiononthefollowinggrounds:

THECOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDACLEARERROROFLAW
IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY TO
JUSTIFY ITS CONCLUSION DIVESTING THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION VESTED BY LAW OVER CASES
WHERE THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WAS NOT EXPRESSLY
GRANTED TO ANY OTHER COURTS [SIC] OR TRIBUNAL, IN
EFFECT,MODIFYINGTHEAPPLICABLELAWONTHEMATTER.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS IRREGULARLY DISMISSED

PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AFTER IT HAD
RESOLVED TO ENTERTAIN PETITIONERS PETITION FOR
PROHIBITION AND TO REVIEW THE DARAB PROCEEDINGS,
THEREBY DEPARTING FROM THE USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS.

III

THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, BEING THE HIGHEST

TEMPLE OF RIGHTS, AND TO AVOID SERIOUS MISCARRIAGE OF
JUSTICEANDNEEDLESSDELAYS,ISMOSTRESPECT

_______________

16Id.,atpp.7173.

17PennedbyAssociateJusticeAdefuinDelaCruz(viceretiredJusticeHofilea),

with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola (now deceased, vice Justice Gonzaga
Reyes)andEduardoP.Cruz(newmember),concurringCARollo,p.298.

334

334 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

FULLY URGED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION FILED

IN CAG.R. SP No. 44563 IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION,
18
AS IF THE PETITION WAS ORIGINALLY LODGED
BEFOREIT.
PetitionersarguethatunderBatasPambansa(B.P.)Blg.129,thereis
no provision that vests with the CA jurisdiction over actions for
annulmentofDARABjudgments.Petitioners,however,contendthat
the RTC may take cognizance of the annulment case since Section
19ofB.P.Blg.129veststheRTCwithgeneraljurisdictionandan
action for annulment is covered under such general jurisdiction.
According to petitioners, this is but a logical consequence of the
fact that no other
19
courts were expressly given the jurisdiction over
such actions. Petitioners further argue that the CA was in error
whenitsummarilyignoredtheirapplicationforawritofprohibition,
asitwasnecessarytorestraintheDARABfromenforcingitsvoid
decision and even if the DARAB decision was valid, the writ of
prohibition could have enjoined the execution of the DARAB
decision since there have been changes which will make the
executionunjustandinequitable.
In their JointComments, the farmerbeneficiaries and the
DARAB (respondents) refute petitioners allegation that they were
not afforded due process in the DARAB proceedings, stating that
petitioners were impleaded as a party thereto, and in fact, they
attended some of the hearings although their counsel was absent.
Respondents also adopt the CAs ruling that the RTC is not vested
withanyjurisdictiontoannultheDARABdecision.
Asstatedattheoutset,themainissueinthiscaseiswhetherthe
RTChasjurisdictiontoannulafinaljudgmentoftheDARAB.

_______________

18Rollo,pp.3233.

19Id.,atp.34.

335

VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 335
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

Note must be made that the petition for annulment of the DARAB
decisionwasfiledwiththeRTConJune13,1997,beforetheadvent
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July 1,
1997. Thus, the applicable law is B.P. Blg. 129 or the Judiciary
ReorganizationActof1980,enactedonAugust10,1981.
It is also worthy of note that before the effectivity of B.P. Blg.
129, a court of first instance has the authority to annul a final and
executoryjudgmentrenderedbyanothercourtoffirstinstanceorby
another branch of the same20 court. This was the Courts 21
ruling in
Dulap v. Court of Appeals. Yet, in subsequent cases, the Court
held that the better policy, as a matter of comity or courteous
interactionbetweencourtsoffirstinstanceandthebranchesthereof,
is for the annulment cases to be tried by the same court or branch
whichheardthemainaction.
The
22
foregoing doctrines were modified in Ngo Bun Tiong v.
Sayo, where the Court expressed that pursuant to the policy of
judicial stability, the doctrine of noninterference between
concurrent and coordinate courts should be regarded as highly
importantintheadministrationofjusticewherebythejudgmentofa
court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or
vacatedbyanycourtofconcurrentjurisdiction.

_______________

20149Phil.636,64742SCRA537,545(1971).

21Giananv.Imperial,154Phil.705,71055 SCRA 755,760(1974)Francisco v.

Aquino,G.R.Nos.L332356,July29,1976,72SCRA140,145.
22G.R. No. L45825, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 237, 243 Mercado v. Ubay,G.R.

No.35830,July24,1990,187SCRA719,724.

336

336 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
23
With the introduction of B.P. Blg. 129, the rule on annulment of
judgmentswasspecificallyprovidedinSection9(2),whichvestedin
the then Intermediate Appellate Court (now the CA) the exclusive
original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of
RTCs.Sec.9(3)ofB.P.Blg.129alsovestedtheCAwithexclusive
appellatejurisdictionoverallfinaljudgments,decisions,resolutions,
orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasijudicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except those
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordancewiththeConstitution,theprovisionsofthisAct,andof
subparagraph(1)ofthethirdparagraphandsubparagraph(4)ofthe
fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. As
provided in paragraph 16 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines
implementing B.P. Blg. 129, the quasijudicial bodies whose
decisions are exclusively appealable
24
to the CA are those, which
underthelaw,R.A.No.5434, oritsenablingacts,arespecifically
appealabletotheCA.
Significantly,B.P.Blg.129doesnotspecificallyprovideforany
power of the RTC to annul judgments of quasijudicial bodies.
However, in BF Northwest25 Homeowners Association, Inc. v.
IntermediateAppellateCourt, theCourtruledthatthe

_______________
 23 Under the repealing clause of B.P. Blg. 129 (Section 47), the inconsistent
provisionsof:R.A.No.296ortheJudiciaryActof1948R.A.No.5179,asamended,
or the 1964 Rules of Court and all other statutes and letters of instructions and
generalorders,wererepealedoraccordinglymodified.
24EntitledAnActtoProvideaUniformProcedureforAppealsfromtheCourtof

AgrarianRelations,theSecretaryofLaborunderSection7ofRepublicActNumbered
SixHundredTwo,alsoknownasTheMinimumWageLaw,theDepartmentofLabor
underSection23ofRepublicActNumberedEightHundredSeventyFive,alsoknown
asTheIndustrialPeaceAct,theLandRegistrationCommission,theSecuritiesand
Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Civil Aeronautics
Board, the Patent Office, and the Agricultural Inventions Board, and for other
purposes.
25G.R.No.L72370,May29,1987,150SCRA543,552.

337

VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 337
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

RTCshavejurisdictionoveractionsforannulmentofthedecisions
of the National Water Resources Council, which is a quasijudicial
bodyrankedwithinferiorcourts,pursuanttoitsoriginaljurisdiction
toissuewritsofcertiorari, prohibition, and mandamus,underSec.
21(1)ofB.P.Blg.129,inrelationtoactsoromissionsofaninferior
court. This led to the conclusion that despite the absence of any
provision in B.P. Blg. 129, the RTC had the power to entertain
petitions for annulment of judgments of inferior courts and
administrative or quasijudicial bodies of equal ranking. This is
also in harmony with the preB.P. Blg. 129 rulings of the Court
recognizing the power 26of a trial court (court of first instance) to
annul final judgments. Hence, while it is true, as petitioners
contend, that the RTC had the authority to annul final judgments,
suchauthoritypertainedonlytofinaljudgmentsrenderedbyinferior
courts and quasijudicial bodies of equal ranking with such
inferiorcourts.
Theforegoingstatementsbegthenextquestion,i.e.,whetherthe
DARABisaquasijudicialbodywiththerankofaninferiorcourt
such that the RTC may take cognizance of an action for the
annulmentsofitsjudgments.Theanswerisno.
TheDARABisaquasijudicialbodycreatedbyExecutiveOrder
Nos. 229 and 129A. R.A. No. 6657 delineated its adjudicatory
powers and functions. The DARAB 27
Revised Rules of Procedure
adopted on December 26, 1988 specifically provides for the
mannerofjudicialreviewofitsdecisions,orders,rulings,orawards.
RuleXIV,Section1states:
SECTION 1. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.Any decision, order,
awardorrulingbytheBoardoritsAdjudicatorsonanyagrariandisputeor
onanymatterpertainingtotheapplication,

_______________

26SeeDulapv.CourtofAppeals,supranote20,etseq.

27TheDARABRevisedRulesofProceduretookeffectonFebruary6,1989,fifteen

(15) days after its publication in The Manila Standard and The Philippine Daily
Inquirer.

338

338 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

implementation, enforcement or interpretation of agrarian reform laws or

rulesandregulationspromulgatedthereunder,maybebroughtwithinfifteen
(15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, to the Court of Appeals by
certiorari,exceptasprovidedinthenextsucceedingsection.Notwithstanding
an appeal to the Court of Appeals the decision of the Board or Adjudicator
appealedfrom,shallbeimmediatelyexecutory.

Further,theprevailing1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,
expresslyprovidesforanappealfromtheDARABdecisionstothe
28
CA.
The rule is that where legislation provides for an appeal from
decisions of certain administrative bodies to the CA, it means that
suchbodiesarecoequalwiththeRTC,intermsofrankandstature,
29
andlogically,beyondthecontrolofthelatter.
Given that DARAB decisions are appealable to the CA, the
inevitableconclusionisthatthe DARAB is a coequal body with
theRTCanditsdecisionsarebeyondtheRTCscontrol.TheCA
was therefore correct in sustaining the RTCs dismissal of the
petition for annulment of the DARAB Decision dated October 5,
1995, as the RTC does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the
same.
This brings to fore the issue of whether the petition for
annulmentoftheDARABjudgmentcouldbebroughttotheCA.As
previouslynoted,Section9(2)ofB.P.Blg.129vestedintheCAthe
exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments, but only those rendered by the RTCs. It does not
expressly give the CA the power to annul judgments 30
of quasi
judicialbodies.Thus,inElceeFarms,Inc.v.Semillano, theCourt
affirmedtherulingoftheCAthatithasnojurisdictiontoentertaina
petitionforannulmentofafinal
_______________

28Rule43.

29BoardofCommissionersv.DelaRosa,274Phil.1156,1191197SCRA853,873

(1991).
30G.R.No.150286,October17,2003,413SCRA669,676.

339

VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 339
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

andexecutoryjudgmentoftheNLRC,citingSection9ofB.P.Blg.
129,asamended,whichonlyvestsintheCAexclusivejurisdiction
overactionsforannulmentofjudgmentsofRegionalTrialCourts.
31
ThiswasreiteratedinGalangv.CourtofAppeals, wheretheCourt
ruled that the CA is without jurisdiction to entertain a petition for
annulment of judgment of a final decision of the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Recent rulings on similar cases involving
annulments of judgments of quasijudicial bodies are also quite
instructiveonthismatter. 32
In Cole v. Court of Appeals, involving an annulment of the
judgment of the HLURB Arbiter and the Office of the President
(OP),filedwiththeCA,theCourtstatedthat,(U)nderRule47of
the Rules of Court, the remedy of annulment of judgment is
confined to decisions of the Regional Trial Court on the ground of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction x x x. The Court further
ruled,viz.:

Although the grounds set forth in the petition for annulment of judgment
arefraudandlackofjurisdiction,saidpetitioncannotprosperforthesimple
reasonthatthe decision sought to be annulled was not rendered by the
Regional Trial Court but by an administrative agency (HLU Arbiter
and Office of the President), hence, not within the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals. There is no such remedy as annulment of judgment
oftheHLURBortheOfficeofthePresident.Assumingarguendothatthe
annulment petition can be treated as a petition for review under Rule 43 of
the1997RulesofCivilProcedure,thesameshouldhavebeendismissedby
the Court of Appeals, because no error of judgment was imputed to the
HLURB and the Office of the President. Fraud and lack of jurisdiction are
beyondtheprovinceofpetitionsunderRule43oftheRulesofCourt,asit
coversonlyerrorsofjudgment.Apetitionforannulmentofjudgmentisan
initiatory remedy, hence no error of judgment can be the subject thereof.
Besides,theArbiterandtheOfficeofthePresidentindisputablyhave

_______________
 31G.R.No.139448,October11,2005,472SCRA259,269.

32401Phil.920348SCRA692(2000).

340

340 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

jurisdiction over the cases brought before them in line with our ruling in
FranciscoSycip,Jr.vs.CourtofAppeals,promulgatedonMarch17,2000,
where the aggrieved townhouse buyers may seek protection from the
HLURB under Presidential Decree No. 957, otherwise33 known as
Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree. (Emphasis
supplied)
34
InMacalalagv.Ombudsman, the Court ruled that Rule 47 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on annulment of judgments or final
ordersandresolutionscoversannulmentbytheCourtofAppealsof
judgmentsorfinalordersandresolutionsincivilactionsofRegional
Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petitionforreliefor other appropriate remedies could no longer be
availed of through no fault of the petitioner. Thus, the Court
concluded that judgments or final orders and resolutions of the
OmbudsmaninadministrativecasescannotbeannulledbytheCA,
more so, since The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the
remedyofanaggrievedpartyfromorders,directivesanddecisions
oftheOmbudsmaninadministrativedisciplinarycasesonly,andthe
right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved
by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non
administrativecases.
While these cases involve annulments of judgments under the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, still, they still find
applicationinthepresentcase,astheprovisionsofB.P.Blg.129and
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, on annulment of
judgmentsareidentical.
Consequently,thesilenceofB.P.Blg.129onthejurisdictionof
theCAtoannuljudgmentsorfinalordersandresolutionsofquasi
judicialbodiesliketheDARABindicatesitslackofsuchauthority.
Further,petitionersarealsoaskingtheCourttotakecognizance
oftheirprayerfortheissuanceofawritofprohibi

_______________

33Id.,atpp.931932pp.701702.

34G.R.No.147995,March4,2004,424SCRA741,745.

341
 VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 341
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

tion, which they claim was not acted upon

35
by the CA, citing the
Courts action in Fortich v. Corona where the Court took
cognizance of the petition previously filed with the CA due to
compellingreasons.TheCourtisnotpersuadedtodoso.
Fortich involved a 144hectare land located at San Vicente,
Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr.
Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), which
wasleasedasapineappleplantationtoDelMontePhilippines,Inc.
foraperiodof10years.Duringtheexistenceofthelease,theDAR
placedtheentire144hectarepropertyundercompulsoryacquisition
and assessed the land value at P2.38 million. When the
NQSRMDC/BAIDA (Bukidnon AgroIndustrial Development
Association) filed an application for conversion due to the passage
of Resolution No. 6 by the Provincial Development Council of
Bukidnon and Ordinance No. 24 by the Sangguniang Bayan of
Sumilao, Bukidnon, reclassifying the area from agricultural to
industrial/institutional, the same was disapproved by the DAR
Secretaryandinstead,thepropertywasplacedunderthecompulsory
coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program for
distribution to all qualified beneficiaries. This prompted Governor
CarlosO.FortichofBukidnontofileanappealwiththeOP,while
NQSRMDC filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, and
prohibitionwithpreliminaryinjunction.
The OPthenissued a Decision dated March 29, 1996 reversing
the DAR Secretarys decision and approving the application for
conversion.ExecutiveSecretaryRubenD.TorresdeniedtheDARs
motion for reconsideration for having been filed beyond the
reglementaryperiodof15days,anditwasalsodeclaredthattheOP
Decision dated March 29, 1996 had already become final and
executory.
Because of this, the farmerbeneficiaries staged a hunger strike
onOctober9,1997,protestingtheOPsdecision.Inordertoresolve
thestrike,theOPissuedasocalledWin/Win

_______________

35352Phil.461289SCRA624(1998).

342

342 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
resolution on November 7, 1997, modifying the decision in that
NQSRMDCs application for conversion is approved only with
respecttotheapproximately44hectareportionofthelandadjacent
tothehighway,asrecommendedbytheDepartmentofAgriculture,
while the remaining approximately 100 hectares traversed by an
irrigation canal and found to be suitable for agriculture shall be
distributedtoqualifiedfarmerbeneficiaries.
A petition for certiorari
36
and prohibition under Rule 65 of the
RevisedRulesofCourt was then filed with the Court, which was
contestedbytheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralonthegroundthat
the proper remedy should have been to file a petition for review
directly with the CA in accordance with Rule 43 of the Revised
RulesofCourt.
In resolving the issue, the Court recognized the rule that the
Supreme Court, CA and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction
to issueawritofcertiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. However,
duetocompellingreasonsandintheinterestofspeedyjustice,the
Court resolved to take primary jurisdiction over the petition in the
interestofspeedyjustice,afterwhichtheCourtnullifiedtheactof
theOPinreopeningthecaseandsubstantiallymodifyingitsMarch
29,1996Decisionwhichhadalreadybecomefinalandexecutory,as
it was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that
accordfinalitytoadministrativedeterminations.
ItmustbestressedatthispointthattheCourt,asarule,willnot
entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling
circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious
implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of
writofcertiorari,prohibition,ormandamuscallingfortheexercise
ofitsprimaryjurisdic

_______________

36DocketedasG.R.No.131457.

343

VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 343
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
37
tion. The Court finds no compelling circumstances in this case to
warrant a relaxation of the foregoing rule. The Fortich case is not
analogouswiththepresentcasesuchthattheCourtisnotboundto
abandonallrules,takeprimaryjurisdiction,andresolvethemeritsof
petitioners'applicationforawritofprohibition.
Inthepresentcase,theassailedDARABDecisiondatedOctober
5,1995grantingthepetitionforrelieffromjudgmentandgivingdue
coursetotheNoticeofCoveragewasmadepursuanttoapetitionfor
relief from judgment filed by the DAR, albeit petitioners are
contestingthevalidityoftheproceedingsheldthereon.Ontheother
hand,inFortich,theOPsWin/WinresolutiondatedNovember7,
1997wasmademotuproprio,asaresultofthehungerstrikestaged
bythefarmerbeneficiaries.
Further,theOPsWin/WinResolutiondatedNovember7,1997
intheFortichcaseisapatentlyvoidjudgmentsinceitwasevident
thattherewasalreadyanexistingfinalandexecutoryOPDecision
dated March 29, 1996. In this case, the assailed DARAB Decision
datedOctober5,1995appearstoberegularonitsface,andforits
allegednullitytoberesolved,theCourtmustdelveintotherecords
ofthecaseinordertodeterminethevalidityofpetitionersargument
oflackofdueprocess,absentnoticeandhearing.
Moreover, the principle of hierarchy of courts applies generally
tocasesinvolvingfactualquestions.Asitisnotatrieroffacts,the
38
Courtcannotentertaincasesinvolvingfactualissues. Thequestion
ofwhethertheDARABDecisiondatedOctober5,1995isnulland
void and enforceable against petitioners for having been rendered
withoutaffordingpetitioners

_______________

37Mangaliagv.CatubigPastoral,G.R.No.143951,October25,2005,474 SCRA

153,161.
38 Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 433 Phil. 506, 524 384 SCRA 152, 179
(2002).

344

344 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

due process is a factual question which requires a review of the

recordsofthiscaseforittobejudiciouslyresolved.
TheCourtnotesthattheCA,indeed,failedtoresolvepetitioners
prayer for the issuance of the writ of prohibition, which,
significantly,focusesontheallegednullityoftheDARABDecision
dated October 5, 1995. On this score, the CA found that the
applicationfortheissuanceofthewritofprohibitionwasactuallya
collateralattackonthevalidityoftheDARABdecision.But,afinal39
and executory judgment may be set aside in three ways and a
collateralattack,wherebyinanactiontoobtainadifferentrelief,an40
attackonthejudgmentisneverthelessmadeasanincidentthereof,
isoneofthese.Thistenetisbaseduponacourtsinherentauthority
41
toexpungevoidactsfromitsrecords. Despiterecognizingtheneed
to resolve petitioners application for the writ of prohibition in its
Resolution dated January 12, 1999, the CA nonetheless summarily
deniedpetitionersmotionforreconsiderationinitsResolutiondated
42
February23,2000, leavingthematterhangingandunresolved.
Atfirst,theCourtconsideredresolvingthemeritsofpetitioners
motionforreconsiderationconcerningtheirapplicationforawritof
prohibitionagainstenforcingtheDARABDecisiondatedOctober5,
1995.Thus,inaResolutiondated

_______________

39First,apetitionforrelieffromjudgmentunderRule38oftheRulesofCourton

groundsoffraud,accident,mistakeandexcusablenegligencefiledwithinsixty(60)
daysfromthetimepetitionerlearnsofthejudgmentbutnotmorethansix(6)months
fromtheentrythereofsecond,adirectactiontoannulthejudgmentonthegroundof
extrinsicfraudandthird,adirectactionforcertiorariorcollateralattacktoannula
judgmentthatisvoiduponitsfaceorvoidbyvirtueofitsownrecitals.Arcelonav.
CourtofAppeals,345Phil.250,263280SCRA20,33(1997).
40Mallilin,Jr.v.Castillo,389Phil.153,165333SCRA628,640(2000).

41 Roces v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 167499,

September15,2005,469SCRA681,695.
42Supranote17.

345

VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 345
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity

June 5, 2006, the Court directed the CA to transmit the records of

DARABCaseNo.0555,whichwaspreviouslyrequiredbytheCA43
to be forwarded to it per Resolution dated December 20, 1999.
However,asofevendate,theCAhasnotcompliedwiththeCourts
Resolution. Withal, upon reexamination of the issues involved in
thiscase,theCourtdeemsitmorejudicioustoremandthiscaseto
the CA for immediate resolution of petitioners motion for
reconsideration,re:theirapplicationforthewritofprohibition.
Moreover, the radical conflict in the findings of the Provincial
Adjudicator and the DARAB as regards the nature of the subject
propertynecessitatesareviewofthepresentcase.Inthisregard,the
CAisinabetterpositiontofullyadjudicatethecaseforitcandelve
into the records to determine the probative value of the evidence
supporting the findings of the Provincial Adjudicator and of the
DARAB.Inaddition,theCAisempoweredbyitsinternalrulesto
require parties to submit additional documents, as it may find
necessary to promote the ends of substantial justice, and further
order the transmittal of the proper records for it to fully adjudicate
the case. After all, it is an avowed policy of the courts that cases
should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all
 parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on
technicalityorsomeproceduralimperfections.Inthatway,theends
44
ofjusticewouldbeservedbetter.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisPARTLYGRANTED.Thiscaseis
REMANDED to the Court of Appeals which is DIRECTED to
resolvepetitionersprayerfortheissuanceofthewritofprohibition
intheirMotionforReconsideration.UponfinalityofthisDecision,
lettherecordsberemandedforthwithtotheCourtofAppeals.
Nopronouncementastocosts.

_______________

43Supranote16.

44Jarov.CourtofAppeals,427Phil.532,548377SCRA282,298(2002).

346

346 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MetropolitanBankandTrustCompany,Inc.vs.NationalWagesand
ProductivityCommission

SOORDERED.

YnaresSantiago (Chairperson), Callejo, Sr. and

ChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.

Petitionpartlygranted,caseremandedtoCourtofAppeals.

Notes.Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in

character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no
availableorotheradequateremedy.(Espinosavs.CourtofAppeals,
430SCRA96[2004])
The rule on hierarchy of courts in cases falling within the
concurrent jurisdiction of the trial courts generally applies to cases
involving warrant factual allegations. (Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine
InternationalAirTerminals,Co.,Inc.,420SCRA575[2004])

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.