THIRD DIVISION
The
City Mayor of G.R. No. 165003
Baguio and the Head
of
THE Demolition Team –
engr.
nazita baÑez,
Petitioners, Present:
CORONA, J., Chairperson,
- v e
r s u s - CARPIO,*
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA
and
PERALTA, JJ.
Atty. Brain Masweng,
Regional
Hearing Officer,
NCIP-CAR,
THE HEIRS
OF
JUDITH CARIÑO,
Jacqueline Cariño and
the
Heirs of Mateo Cariño
and
Bayosa Ortega,**
Respondents. Promulgated:
February
2, 2010
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L
U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
This is a petition for review on
certiorari[1] of the
March 31, 2004 decision[2] and July
23, 2004 resolution[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 80613.
Respondents Judith K. Cariño,
Jacqueline Cariño and the other heirs of Mateo Cariño and Bayosa Ortega are
members of the Ibaloi tribe, an indigenous cultural tribe of Baguio City and
Benguet Province. Their ancestors were grantees of a survey plan approved by
the Director of Lands in 1920. Currently, they have pending petitions before
the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) for the validation of
ancestral land claims covering a parcel of land in Resident Section “J” in
Baguio City and Tuba, Benguet. A portion of the land being claimed by
petitioners overlaps with the Baguio Dairy Farm, a government reservation under
the supervision of the Department of Agriculture (DA).[4]
On
June 29, 2003, respondents filed a petition for injunction (with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order [TRO] and/or a writ of preliminary injunction)
with the NCIP[5]
seeking to enjoin the mayor of Baguio City and the head of the city’s
demolition team from implementing Demolition Order No. 17, series of 2003.[6] The
order, issued by the office of the mayor upon complaint of the DA, directs the demolition
of shanties and other structures within the premises of the Baguio Dairy Farm
belonging to private respondents which were then undergoing construction or
were recently built without the required permits. In response, public
respondent Brain Masweng, regional hearing officer of the NCIP in the
Cordillera Administrative Region, issued a 72-hour TRO.
In a resolution dated July 21, 2003,
respondent Masweng granted the application for a writ of preliminary
injunction. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
The case was elevated to the Court of
Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari filed by petitioners. Upholding the
NCIP’s jurisdiction to hear and decide main actions for injunction, the CA
denied both the petition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Hence,
this petition.[7]
Petitioners
contend that injunction, as an original and principal action, falls within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts. The NCIP may issue TROs and writs of preliminary
injunction only as an auxiliary remedy to a pending case before it. Petitioners
also assert that there was no factual and legal basis for the NCIP’s issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction.
We have already ruled on the power of
the NCIP to issue a writ of preliminary injunction in City Government of
Baguio City v. Atty. Masweng.[8] The
facts of that case are practically identical to those of this case save
for the fact that the land being claimed there is a portion of the Busol Forest
Reserve. The petitioners in that case sought the intervention of this Court
after the CA upheld the jurisdiction of the NCIP and affirmed the TROs issued
by the latter.
In
City Government of Baguio City, we held:
xxx the NCIP may issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction without any prohibition against the issuance of the writ when the main action is for injunction. The power to issue temporary restraining orders or writs of injunction allows parties to a dispute over which the NCIP has jurisdiction to seek relief against any action which may cause them grave or irreparable damage or injury. (emphasis provided)
Private respondents base their claim
to the disputed area on an alleged time-immemorial possession and a survey plan
awarded to their forebears by the Director of Lands in 1920. In 1940,
Proclamation No. 603 withdrew the contested area from sale or settlement and
reserved the same for animal breeding station purposes, subject to private
rights. The claim of respondents on the subject land is still pending before
the NCIP. Thus, their rights are mere expectations, not the present and
unmistakable right required for the grant of the provisional remedy of
injunction.[9]
Moreover, the structures subject of the demolition order were either built or
being constructed without the requisite permit at the time the demolition order
was issued in 2003. Hence, private respondents were not entitled to the
preliminary injunction issued by the NCIP.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80613 dated March 31,
2004 and its resolution dated July 23, 2004 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
The resolution dated July 21, 2003 of
the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples granting the application for writ
of preliminary injunction is also hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 818 dated January 18, 2010.
** Respondents Cariños are also referred to as “Carino” in some parts of the records.
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (retired) and Rosmari D. Carandang of the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 26-31.
[3] Id., p. 33.
[4] The Baguio Dairy Farm was created under Presidential Proclamation No. 603, series of 1940, signed by President Manuel Quezon, withdrawing a parcel of the public domain in Baguio City from sale or settlement for animal breeding station purposes.
[5] Particularly, the Regional Hearing Office of the Cordillera Administrative Region.
[6] The demolition order was based on investigation reports submitted by the City Engineer’s Office and the Public Order and Safety Division, Baguio City. Rollo, p. 40.
[7] The petition was accompanied by a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or TRO to prevent the CA from enforcing its decision. The Court, however, did not issue any TRO or injunctive writ in this case. This was because R.A. 8371 prohibits the issuance of a restraining order or preliminary injunction against the NCIP in any case, dispute or controversy arising from or necessary to its interpretation or the interpretation of other laws relating to indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) and ancestral domains.
[8] G.R. No. 180206, 4 February 2009, 578 SCRA 88, 98.
[9] In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction will be nullified. (Nisce v. Equitable PCI Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 167434, 19 February 2007, 516 SCRA 231, 253.)