MACAPANTON B. BATUGAN, G.R. No. 181384
Petitioner,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Peralta, JJ.
HON. RASAD G. BALINDONG, as
Acting
Presiding Judge of the Shari’a
District
Court, Fourth Shari’a Judicial District,
HEIRS OF RANGCALBE B. MAGARANG,
represented
by Palawan Batugan, and HEIRS
OF GUIBONSALAM B. ACRAMAN,
represented
by Farmidah A. Macabando
and TOMINORAY BATUGAN, Promulgated:
Respondents.
March 13, 2009
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This
petition[1] for certiorari and
mandamus with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction assails
the September 26, 2007 Order[2] of the Shari’a District
Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Marawi City in Civil Case No. 02-99 which denied
petitioner Macapanton B. Batugan’s motion to fully implement the Writ of
Execution dated March 7, 2007. Also
assailed is the November 12, 2007 Order[3] denying the motion for
reconsideration.
During his lifetime, Hadji Abubakar Pandapatan Batugan (Hadji) contracted
two marriages. His first marriage was
with Enmong Basiron out of which were born five children, namely: petitioner
Macapanton and respondents Guibonsalam B. Acraman, Baulan B. Canacan, Rangcalbe
B. Magarang, and Tominoray Batugan.[4]
After the death of
his first wife in 1945, Hadji married Kilaman Mocsi who bore him eight
children, namely: Ali, Mahdi, Portre, Monazaman, Nasser, Idres, Minombao, and
Usudan.
On
September 6, 1990, Hadji died intestate leaving the following properties
acquired during his first marriage:
a)
Three (3) hectares of
land located at Balagunun, Batangan, Saguairan, Lanao del Sur with an estimated
value of Php75,000.00;
b)
One and one-half (1 ˝)
hectares of land located at Coba O Hadji, Mipaga, Marawi City, valued at
Php50,000.00;
c)
One and one-half (1 ˝)
hectares of land located at Soiok, Mipaga,
d)
Three (3) hectares of
land located at Coloi, Mipaga,
The instant case
involves the Coloi Farmland, a portion of which was subject of expropriation
proceedings in Civil Case No. 154 instituted by the National Power Corporation
(NPC) in 1981 before the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Sur, Branch 9,
On May 19, 1999, petitioner
filed a special civil action for partition of real properties[6] before the Shari’a District
Court,
On
July 2, 2003, the
On
August 27, 2003, petitioner submitted a project plan of partition but respondent
Tominoray and his co-respondents found the plan unacceptable. Thus, on January 6, 2004, petitioner submitted
a second project plan of partition[10] which included the
partition of the Coloi Farmland, as follows:
1.
x x x
2.
Hadji Macapanton Batugan will get Coloi
Farmland three has. at Mipaga,
3.
x x x
The
The project of partition embodied in the second one is as follows:
The Balagunun Farmland situated in Batangan, Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur
with an area of three (3) hectares shall be partitioned as follows: two and a half
(2˝) hectares shall go to Sultan Tominoray Batugan and their sisters:
Gibonsalam, represented by the heirs, Baulan and Rangcalbe, represented by the
heirs, shall get half (1/2) a hectare.
The Coloi Farmland located at Mipaga, Marawi
City with an area of three (3) hectares shall be partitioned as follows: two
and a half (2˝) goes to petitioner and one half (1/2) goes to their sisters.
The Coba o Hadji and Soiok estates, all situated at Mipaga, Marawi City
and with areas of one and a half (1˝) hectares each or a total of three (3)
hectares shall pertain to respondents Gibonsalam, Baulan and Rangcalbe or their
heirs.
In summation, petitioner Macapanton Batugan gets two and a half (2˝)
hectares; Sultan Tominoray Batugan, also two and a half (2˝) hectares; and
their sisters, four (4) hectares.
WHEREFORE, upon recommendation of the Committee of Commissioners, the
second project-plan of partition above-indicated is hereby APPROVED.
SO ORDERED.[13] (Emphasis added)
On
January 18, 2006, the Clerk of Court issued the corresponding writ of execution.[14]
Thereafter, on March
14, 2006, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Amendment and Full Implementation
of the Writ of Execution[15] praying that an order be
issued amending the writ to include the amount which was received by respondent
Tominoray from the NPC for the Coloi Farmland.
Meanwhile, respondents filed a Motion for Clarificatory Judgment on
April 6, 2006.
The
On the motion to amend the May 6, 2005 order to include the purchase
price of Coloi farmlot, the same has to be granted to have a full complete
enforcement of the decision and the writ of execution.
WHEREFORE, the pertinent portions of the May 6, 2005 Order are hereby
AMENDED as follows:
The Coloi Farmland located at Mipaga,
In summation, petitioner Macapanton Batugan gets two and a half (2˝)
hectares or its purchase price; Sultan Tominoray
Batugan, also two and a half (2˝) hectares; and their sisters, four (4)
hectares.
The dispositive portion is AMENDED as follows:
WHEREFORE, upon recommendation of the Committee of Commissioners, the
second project-plan of partition above-indicated is hereby APPROVED. As respondent Sultan Tominoray Batugan has
received the P600,000.00 purchase price of petitioner’s share from the NPC, the
former is DIRECTED to deliver the said amount to the latter through the Clerk
of Court within one (1) month from service.
Petitioner’s comments on the respondents’ Motion for Clarificatory
Judgment is ADOPTED in toto.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Respondents filed a
motion for reconsideration with motion for new trial ad cautelam which
was partially granted in an Order[18] dated December 20, 2006. The
WHEREFORE, motion for reconsideration of the order dated October 2,
2006 is partially granted. As respondent
Sultan Tominoray Batugan has received the P450,580.00, a portion of the
purchase price of petitioner’s and sisters’ share from the NPC, the former is
DIRECTED to deliver the remaining unclaimed share of petitioner to the latter
through the Clerk of Court within one (1) month from service hereof. The Motion for New Trial is DENIED for lack
of merit.
SO ORDERED.[19]
On March 7, 2007, the
Clerk of Court issued a writ of execution[20] to enforce the above order.
On even date, respondents filed an
Omnibus Motion for Modification of Judgment,[21] particularly the Orders
dated May 6, 2005, October 2, 2006, and December 20, 2006.
In their Omnibus
Motion, respondents argued that the Shari’a Court has no jurisdiction over the
Coloi Farmland because it had already been adjudicated to the NPC pursuant to
the July 29, 1991 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No.
154. Further, they claimed that the
payment from NPC had already been partitioned extra-judicially among the heirs,
including petitioner who received the amount of Php150,000.00 as his share.[22] Thus, respondents prayed that the Coloi
Farmland be excluded from the list of properties to be partitioned and that the
extra-judicial partition of the NPC payment be recognized.
The
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the
above-enumerated orders are RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The extra-judicial partition of the Coloi
Farmland among the decedent’s heirs is hereby RECOGNIZED. Accordingly, the controversy involving the
Coloi Farmland is CLOSED, hence, this case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.[24]
Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration which was denied in an Order dated July 19, 2007.[25] No appeal was taken therefrom.
Subsequently, on
September 17, 2007, petitioner filed a Motion to Fully Implement and Enforce the
Writ of Execution dated March 7, 2007.[26] The Shari’a Court denied the motion in its September
26, 2007 Order, stating that the controversy involving the Coloi Farmland was closed
and terminated by virtue of its Order dated June 18, 2007. It held:
The Motion to fully implement and enforce the writ of execution dated
March 7, 2007 should be denied.
The controversy involving the Coloi Farmland (which is the subject of
the writ of execution) has been considered CLOSED and TERMINATED in an order
dated June 18, 2007. A motion to
reconsider this June 18, 2007 order was denied on July 19, 2007.
WHEREFORE, the motion to enforce the writ of execution is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.[27]
Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration was denied,[28] hence, this petition.
While it appears
that only the September 26, 2007 and November 12, 2007 Orders are being
assailed, a reading of the body and prayer of the petition will show that the
June 18, 2007 and July 19, 2007 Orders are sought to be annulled as well.
Petitioner contends
that the Shari’a Court gravely abused its discretion in setting aside the May
6, 2005, October 2, 2006, and December 20, 2006 Orders which have already attained
finality; that the March 7, 2007 Writ of Execution remains outstanding since it
has not been quashed; and that the Shari’a Court left the action for partition
unresolved.
The issues for
resolution are as follows: 1) whether the Shari’a Court committed grave abuse
of discretion when it issued the June 18, 2007 and July 19, 2007 Orders recognizing
the extra-judicial partition of the proceeds from the Coloi Farmland; and 2)
whether the Shari’a Court committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the
September 26, 2007 and November 12, 2007 Orders denying petitioner’s motion to
fully implement and enforce the March 7, 2007 Writ of Execution.
The petition lacks
merit.
It must be stressed
that certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the
same must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.[29] A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be
filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order, or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration is filed,
the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of denial of said motion.[30] Further, the petition must be accompanied by
a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution.[31]
In Santos v. Court of Appeals,[32]
we held that there are three (3)
essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65. First, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or Resolution was
received; second, when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration was filed; and third, when notice of the denial thereof was
received.[33]
In this case, petitioner
failed to indicate all the three material dates, namely, the date of receipt of
the June 18, 2007 Order, the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration,
as well as the date of receipt of the denial thereof, which is the reckoning
date of the 60-day period. Moreover, the certified true copies of the assailed
orders were not attached to the petition. Thus, the petition must be dismissed.
As to the September
26, 2007 and November 12, 2007 Orders, we find that while the petition was seasonably
filed, the same must nevertheless fail on the merits. The
Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act
is performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion
must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[34] None of the foregoing circumstances are
present in this case.
The March 7, 2007 Writ of Execution was issued to
enforce the December 20, 2006 Order requiring respondent Tominoray to deliver
petitioner’s alleged share in the Coloi Farmland in the amount of
Php450,580.00. However, this was later superseded
by the June 18, 2007 and July 19, 2007 Orders of the Shari’a Court which recognized
the extra-judicial partition of the proceeds of the subject property, ordered
its exclusion from the partition, and declared the controversy closed and
terminated.
As such, the writ of execution had become functus
officio as there was nothing to enforce insofar as the Coloi Farmland is
concerned. Indeed, the proceeds from the subject property had already
been distributed among the heirs of Hadji. This was established during the proceedings[35]
and acknowledged by petitioner himself who admitted to having received the
amount of Php150,000.00 from respondent Tominoray.[36]
At this point, we reiterate that the orders
excluding the Coloi Farmland from the partition have attained finality and can
no longer be assailed. Petitioner failed
to timely appeal therefrom, whether in the form of an ordinary appeal or an
appeal by certiorari. Instead, he
filed a motion to fully implement and enforce the March 7, 2007 Writ of
Execution which is actually a substitute for lost appeal. This is not allowed. While procedural irregularities are on
occasion set aside in the interest of justice, it must be stressed that
liberality of construction of the rules should not be a panacea for all
procedural maladies.[37]
Finally, there is no merit to petitioner’s
contention that the
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-35.
[2]
[3]
[4] Guibonsalam B. Acraman and Rangcalbe B. Magarang are now deceased.
[5] Records, pp. 196-201.
[6] Rollo, pp. 38-42.
[7] Article 123. Exclusion among heirs. The exclusion of heirs from the inheritance shall be governed by the following rules:
x x x x
(b) Full-blood relatives exclude the consanguine and the uterine.
x x x x
[8] Rollo, pp. 43-46.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Records, p. 173.
[23] Rollo, pp. 73-74.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Seastar
Marine Services, Inc. v. Lucio A. Bul-an, Jr., G.R. No. 142609, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 140, 153.
[30] Section 4, Rule 65.
[31] Section 1, Rule 65.
[32] 413 Phil. 41 (2001).
[33]
[34] Casent Realty & Development Corporation v. Premiere Development Bank, G.R. No. 163902, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 426, 434.
[35] Rollo, p. 63.
[36]
[37] Mercado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150241, November 4, 2004, 441 SCRA 463, 470.