Republic of The Philippines Manila Third Division: Supreme Court

lawphil
Today is Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. L-48157 March 16, 1988
RICARDO QUIAMBAO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ADRIANO OSORIO, ZENAIDA GAZA BUENSUCERO, JUSTINA GAZA BERNARDO, and FELIPE
GAZA, respondents-appellees, LAND AUTHORITY, intervenor-appellant.
FERNAN, J.:
This case was certified to Us by the Court of Appeals as one involving pure questions of law pursuant to
Section 3, Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The antecedents are as follows:
In a complaint for forcible entry filed by herein private respondents Zenaida Gaza Buensucero, Justina Gaza
Bernardo and Felipe Gaza against herein petitioner Ricardo Quiambao before the then Municipal Court of
Malabon, Rizal, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 2526, it was alleged that private respondents were the
legitimate possessors of a 30,835 sq. m. lot known as Lot No. 4, Block 12, Bca 2039 of the Longos Estate
situated at Barrio Longos, Malabon Rizal, by virtue of the Agreement to Sell No. 3482 executed in their favor
by the former Land Tenure Administration [which later became the Land Authority, then the Department of
Agrarian Reform]; that under cover of darkness, petitioner surreptitiously and by force, intimidation, strategy
and stealth, entered into a 400 sq. m. portion thereof, placed bamboo posts "staka" over said portion and
thereafter began the construction of a house thereon; and that these acts of petitioner, which were unlawful
per se, entitled private respondents to a writ of preliminary injunction and to the ejectment of petitioner from
the lot in question.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and upon denial thereof, filed his Answer to the complaint,
specifically denying the material allegations therein and averring that the Agreement upon which private
respondents base their prior possession over the questioned lot had already been cancelled by the Land
Authority in an Order signed by its Governor, Conrado Estrella. By way of affirmative defense and as a
ground for dismissing the case, petitioner alleged the pendency of L.A. Case No. 968, an administrative case
before the Office of the Land Authority between the same parties and involving the same piece of land. In said
administrative case, petitioner disputed private respondents' right of possession over the property in question
by reason of the latter's default in the installment payments for the purchase of said lot. Petitioner asserted
that his administrative case was determinative of private respondents' right to eject petitioner from the lot in
question; hence a prejudicial question which bars a judicial action until after its termination.
After hearing, the municipal court denied the motion to dismiss contained in petitioner's affirmative defenses.
It ruled that inasmuch as the issue involved in the case was the recovery of physical possession, the court
had jurisdiction to try and hear the case.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, petitioner filed before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XII,
Caloocan City in Civil Case No. C-1576 a petition for certiorari with injunction against public respondent
Judge Adriano Osorio of the Municipal Court of Malabon and private respondents, praying for the issuance of
a writ of preliminary injunction ordering respondent judge to suspend the hearing in the ejectment case until
after the resolution of said petition. As prayed for, the then CFI of Rizal issued a restraining order enjoining
further proceedings in the ejectment case.
In his answer, respondent municipal judge submitted himself to the sound discretion of the CFI in the
disposition of the petition for certiorari. Private respondents, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the
petition, maintaining that the administrative case did not constitute a prejudicial question as it involved the
question of ownership, unlike the ejectment case which involved merely the question of possession.
Meanwhile, the Land Authority filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to Intervene in Civil Case No. C-1576 alleging
the pendency of an administrative case between the same parties on the same subject matter in L.A. Case
No. 968 and praying that the petition for certiorari be granted, the ejectment complaint be dismissed and the
Office of the Land Authority be allowed to decide the matter exclusively.
Finding the issue involved in the ejectment case to be one of prior possession, the CFI dismissed the petition
for certiorari and lifted the restraining order previously issued. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal order, adopted in toto by Intervenor Land Authority was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal
filed by petitioner Quiambao and intervenor Land Authority with the Court of Appeals, and certified to Us as
aforesaid.
The instant controversy boils down to the sole question of whether or not the administrative case between the
private parties involving the lot subject matter of the ejectment case constitutes a prejudicial question which
would operate as a bar to said ejectment case.
A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. 1 The
doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where civil and criminal actions are
pending and the issues involved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must be preemptively resolved in the civil case before the criminal action can proceed. Thus, the existence of a prejudicial
question in a civil case is alleged in the criminal case to cause the suspension of the latter pending final
determination of the former.
The essential elements of a prejudicial question as provided under Section 5, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules
of Court are: [a] the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal
action; and [b] the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
The actions involved in the case at bar being respectively civil and administrative in character, it is obvious
that technically, there is no prejudicial question to speak of. Equally apparent, however, is the intimate
correlation between said two [2] proceedings, stemming from the fact that the right of private respondents to
eject petitioner from the disputed portion depends primarily on the resolution of the pending administrative
case. For while it may be true that private respondents had prior possession of the lot in question, at the time
of the institution of the ejectment case, such right of possession had been terminated, or at the very least,
suspended by the cancellation by the Land Authority of the Agreement to Sell executed in their favor. Whether
or not private respondents can continue to exercise their right of possession is but a necessary, logical
consequence of the issue involved in the pending administrative case assailing the validity of the cancellation
of the Agreement to Sell and the subsequent award of the disputed portion to petitioner. If the cancellation of
the Agreement to Sell and the subsequent award to petitioner are voided, then private respondents would
have every right to eject petitioner from the disputed area. Otherwise, private respondent's light of possession
is lost and so would their right to eject petitioner from said portion.
Faced with these distinct possibilities, the more prudent course for the trial court to have taken is to hold the
ejectment proceedings in abeyance until after a determination of the administrative case. Indeed, logic and
pragmatism, if not jurisprudence, dictate such move. To allow the parties to undergo trial notwithstanding the
possibility of petitioner's right of possession being upheld in the pending administrative case is to needlessly
require not only the parties but the court as well to expend time, effort and money in what may turn out to be a
sheer exercise in futility. Thus, 1 Am Jur 2d tells us:
The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, upon proper application
for a stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide the outcome of another pending in another
court, especially where the parties and the issues are the same, for there is power inherent in every court
to control the disposition of causes on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants. Where the rights parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions
raised in the first action are settled the second action should be stayed. 2
While this rule is properly applicable to instances involving two [2] court actions, the existence in the instant
case of the same considerations of Identity of parties and issues, economy of time and effort for the court, the
counsels and the parties as well as the need to resolve the parties' right of possession before the ejectment
case may be properly determined, justifies the rule's analogous application to the case at bar.
Fortich-Celdran, et al. vs. Celdran, et al., 19 SCRA 502, provides another analogous situation. In sustaining
the assailed order of the then Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental ordering the suspension of the
criminal case for falsification of public document against several persons, among them the subscribing officer
Santiago Catane until the civil case involving the issue of the genuineness of the alleged forged document
shall have been decided, this Court cited as a reason therefor its own action on the administrative charges
against said Santiago Catane, as follows:
It should be mentioned here also that an administrative case filed in this Court against Santiago Catane
upon the same charge was held by Us in abeyance, thus:
"As it appears that the genuineness of the document allegedly forged by respondent
attorneys in Administrative Case No. 77 [Richard Ignacio Celdran vs. Santiago Catane,
etc., et al.] is necessarily involved in Civil Case No. R-3397 of the Cebu Court of First
Instance, action on the herein complaint is withheld until that litigation has finally been
decided. Complainant Celdran shall inform the Court about such decision." 3
If a pending civil case may be considered to be in the nature of a prejudicial question to an administrative
case, We see no reason why the reverse may not be so considered in the proper case, such as in the petition
at bar. Finally, events occuring during the pendency of this petition attest to the wisdom of the conclusion
herein reached. For in the Manifestation filed by counsel for petitioner, it was stated that the intervenor Land
Authority which later became the Department of Agrarian Reform had promulgated a decision in the
administrative case, L.A. Case No. 968 affiriming the cancellation of Agreement to Sell No. 3482 issued in
favor of private respondents. With this development, the folly of allowing the ejectment case to proceed is too
evident to need further elaboration.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Civil Case No. 2526 of the then Municipal Court of
Malabon, Rizal is hereby ordered DISMISSED. No Costs.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Zapata v. Montesa, 4 SCRA 510(1962); People v.Aragon,500.G. No.10,4863.
2 at page 622.
3 Supreme Court minute resolution of April 27, 1962 in Adm. Case No. 77, Richard Ignacio Celdran vs. Santiago Catane, etc., et al.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of The Philippines Manila Third Division: Supreme Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Manila Third Division: Supreme Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Manila Third Division: Supreme Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lawphil

Today is Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

the lot in question.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

You might also like