GRACIANO B. VALLES, DOMINADOR TINGZON, EUFEMIA MARDOQUIO, NAZARIO ORTEGA, EPIFANIO BELLO, GERARDO TINGZON AND TERESITA TINGZON, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INS…

The only issue raised by petitioners in this case is whether or
not a case which was resolved on the merits in a decision which has become
final and executory and which was duly executed can
still be remanded by the trial court to the Department of Agrarian Relations
(DAR) for a preliminary determination of the relationship of the parties and if
the case is proper for trial in court.

Civil Case No. 5379 originated as a claim of ownership by
petitioners and for the ejectment of private
respondents and several others from a parcel of residential land of about
31,000 square meters.  Private
respondents appear to have been allowed to build their house thereon by
petitioners but failed to continue the payment of rentals thereof.

After the issues were joined by an answer with counterclaim; a
motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion to dismiss, which were both
denied:  an ocular inspection and report
by the Supervising Land Examiner of Catbalogan, Samar wherein it was found that the portion occupied by
private respondents belong to the petitioners and is not part of the foreshore
area as claimed by them:  a motion for
summary judgment; and a compromise agreement signed by the parties; the trial
court promulgated its decision on December 21, 1979,^[1]
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Court
hereby renders a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants Teodoro Jimenez, Victorio
Bucatcat, Rodrigo Ariego, Eugenio Matarum who are ordered
to pay the monthly rentals to the plaintiffs in accordance with paragraph 3 of
the compromise agreement while Sixto Ilo, Daniel Capiz, Rufino Langgao, Zosimo Arraz and Marcelino Cabahug are ordered to
pay the amount of P5.00 representing the monthly rentals from their occupancy
of the land respectively to the plaintiffs and all the aforenamed
defendants are ordered to vacate the land occupied by them, with costs against
the defendants.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

The decision became final and executory
and a motion for execution of judgment was granted by the court.^[3]
There was a subsequent motion for an alias writ of execution which was likewise
granted by the court.^[4]
Private respondents thus vacated the property.

On October 22, 1981,
because of alleged contumacious defiance of private respondents by their
re-entering the land, a motion
to declare them in contempt of court was filed.^[5]
Private respondents, through their counsel from the office of the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform (MAR), filed a motion in the contempt proceedings praying for
the referral of Civil Case No. 5379 to the District Office No. 27 of the MAR in
Catbalogan, Samar, pursuant
to Presidential Decree No. 316 and its implementing rules and regulations for
preliminary determination of the relationship of the contending parties and for
a certification as to whether or not the case is proper for trial by the court.

Notwithstanding an opposition to the motion for referral, the
respondent trial court issued an order dated March 31, 1982 referring the case to the MAR.  A motion for reconsideration of the said
order filed by petitioner was denied in an order dated May 5, 1982.

Hence, this petition wherein petitioners allege —

“I

THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS ORDERED THE REFERRAL OF THIS CASE TO
THE MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN REFORM LONG AFTER THE DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL AND
EXECUTORY, WHEN NO ISSUE OF TENANCY WAS RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS DURING THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT A QUO, A PROCEDURE CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED
JURISPRUDENCE.

II

THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS GRANTED EX–PARTE THE
MOTION FOR REFERRAL OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED
PROCEDURE IN THE REVISED RULES OF COURT.”^[6]

The petition is impressed
with merit.

It is crystal clear that
Civil Case No. 5379 on the question of ownership and possession was terminated
by a decision that became final and executory and
which was duly executed.  It is after the
execution of that decision when private respondents allegedly committed
contempt of court by re-entering the land already vacated by them.  At that stage of the proceedings, the public
respondent had no more jurisdiction to reopen the
question of ownership and possession of the contested land.

Moreover, private
respondents never claimed they were the agricultural tenants of petitioners in
the main case.  In a compromise agreement, private
respondents Jimenez, Ariego and Matarum
acknowledged ownership of petitioners of the portions occupied by them, while
private respondents llo, Cabahug, Langgao and Bucatcat were also found by the court a quo
to have occupied part of the property
of petitioners.^[7]

Civil Case No. 5379 cannot be reviewed or reopened on the merits
because res judicata
had already set in.  The trial court may
have jurisdiction over the contempt proceedings because the incident arose out
of the execution of a final and executory judgment,
but certainly the trial court cannot reopen a case already decided by final
judgment, otherwise there will be no end to litigations.

The purpose of private respondents to delay the execution became
very obvious by their move to refer the decided case to the MAR for further
determination.  The attorney who
counseled them to do so and the trial judge should have known that the referral
of a case for preliminary determination to the MAR refers to pending agrarian
or civil cases or those pending decision or execution where the issue of actual
tenancy is raised.^[8]
And even if the said issue was properly raised a case that was terminated and
duly executed cannot be reopened much less
referred to such administrative body as the MAR (now DAR) for a
preliminary determination of the relationship of the parties and a
certification if the case is proper for trial in court.

In this case, as above observed, the issue of tenancy was never
put forward by private respondents. 
Indeed, the final judgment had already been executed.

WHEREFORE and by reason of the foregoing, the Petition is
GRANTED.  The questioned orders of the
trial court dated March 31, 1982
and May 5, 1982 are set
aside.  The trial court is directed to
continue with the contempt proceedings against private respondents.

This Decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Pages 59 to 66, Rollo.

^[2]
Page 66, Rollo.

^[3]
Pages 67 to 75, Rollo.

^[4]
Pages 76 to 83, Rollo.

^[5]
Pages 84 to 85, Rollo.

^[6]
Page 19, Rollo.

^[7]
See decision of the trial court at
pages 59 to 66, Rollo.

^[8]
Memorandum Circular No. 29 of the Department of Agrarian Reform implementing
P.D. Nos. 316 and 27.