De Guzman vs Judge Dysangco : 99-818 : February 26, 2001 : Atty. Dris : Second Division

[A.M. No.OCA-IPI-99-818-MTJ. February 26, 2001]

DE GUZMAN vs. JUDGE DYSANGCO et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 26 2001.

A.M. No. OCA-IPI-99-818-MTJ (Concordia de Guzman vs. Judge Hector F. Dysangco, MTC, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija and sheriff Bienvenido de Lara, Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Cabanatuan City).

This is a complaint for grave abuse of discretion, gross ignorance of the law, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 8-92, in connection with Civil Case No. 1543 entitled “Emiliana Lajom vs. Sps. Concordia de Guzman and Domingo de Guzman,” which is a suit for recovery of possession and damages.

Complainant Concordia de Guzman alleges that pursuant to an order issued by respondent judge, Hector F. Dysangco, respondent sheriff, Bienvenido de Lara, demolished her three houses is San Pedro, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, despite the fact that the houses were located on a lot, covered by TCT No. EP-85032 issued in her name, which is different from the land subject of Civil Case No. 1543, which is covered by TCT No. 28095 issued in the name of Erniliana Lajom. She claims that, as a result of the demolition, she suffered damages in the amount of P400,000.00. She further alleges that respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the case since the lot involved in the action for recovery of possession is covered by P.D. No. 27, jurisdiction over which is conferred on the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

In his Comment, respondent judge states that this complaint is only intended to frustrate the execution of a final judgment rendered in accordance with law by a court of competent jurisdiction and affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cabanatuan City.

For his part, respondent sheriff contends that he merely implemented the orders of respondent judge and that prior to enforcing the writ of execution issued by the trial court, he gave complainant and her husband notice to vacate the property within fifteen (15) days. According to respondent sheriff, in the beginning, he returned the writ to the court unserved because complainant and her husband refused to vacate the property in question. For this reason, respondent judge issued, on May 12, 1999, an order for the demolition of complainant’s house. He adds that complainant and her husband were likewise given prior notice of the implementation of this order and that when he carried out the writ on August 19, 1999, he did so in the presence of the barangay chairman and two members of the Philippine National Police. He claimed he removed only one house and not three as alleged by complainant.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommends the dismissal of the complaint for utter lack of merit. It points out that the title relied upon by complaint in her complaint involves a parcel of land different from that which is involved in Civil Case No. 1543. For this reason, it also recommends that complainant be censured for coming to this Court with “dirty hands.”

The recommendation is well taken. It appears that Civil Case No. 1543 was filed by Emiliana Lajom in July 1995 against complainant and her husband to recover possession of a portion of a 6,072 square meter lot located in San Pedro, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija and covered by TCT No. EP-28095 issued in her name, which was illegally occupied by complainant and her husband. It further appears that in the same year, complainant filed with the DARAB an application (Case No. 01325’SNE’95 for the issuance of an emancipation patent over another parcel of land, measuring 1,295 square meters, also located in San Pedro, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. Title to said lot (TCT No. EP-85032) was issued to complainant on March 11, 1997, a few months prior to the promulgation of the decision in Civil Case No. 1543 on June 16, 1997. The Municipal Trial Court subsequently rendered judgment in favor of Lajom, which decision was subsequently affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cabanatuan City and is now final.

Complainant in this case is invoking the title issued to her in order to justify her previous occupation of the lot subject of Civil Case No. 1543 and to stop the enforcement of the trial court’s final judgment. This cannot be countenanced and her attempt to foist such a ploy on the Court constitutes misrepresentation for which she should be censured. Indeed, it is clear that respondents merely enforced the final judgment in Civil Case No. 1543 and complied with a ministerial duty to do so (Service Specialists, Inc. v. Sheriff of Manila, 145 SCRA (1986)).

Anent complainant’s contention that it is the DARAB and not the Municipal Trial Courts which has jurisdiction over the case for the recovery of possession, suffice it to say that Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, §33(2), as amended, confers on Municipal Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over cases for forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The fact is that, in DARAB Case No. 00206’SNE’94, the DARAB even earlier dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the complaint filed by Lajom against the De Guzmans which is similar to the complaint later filed by the former in Civil Case No. 1543.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondents Judge Hector F. Dysangco of the Municipal Trial Court, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, and Sheriff Bienvenido de Lara of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Complainant Concordia de Guzman is hereby CENSURED for filing a patently baseless complaint.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court