Third Division G.R. No. 48157, March 16, 1988: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Supreme Court of the Philippines
Batas.org
Please donate to keep Batas.org free.

Go to www.batas.org/donate to donate
242 Phil. 441
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 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.
DECISION
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 Gasa Bernardo and Felipe Gasa, 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
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 respondent’s 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 this
administrative case was determinative or 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 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
every right to eject petitioner from the disputed area. Otherwise, private
respondents' right 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 of 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.
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 occurring 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 affirming 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.

[1] Zapata v. Montesa, 4 SCRA 510 (1962); People v. Aragon, 50 O.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.
Copyright 2016 - Batas.org

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org
G.C.A.

Third Division G.R. No. 48157, March 16, 1988: Supreme Court of The Philippines

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

Third Division G.R. No. 48157, March 16, 1988: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Please donate to keep Batas.org free.

242 Phil. 441

The antecedents are as follows:

In his answer, respondent municipal judge submitted himself to the sound

A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case the

The essential, elements of a prejudicial question as provided under Section 5, Rule

"The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of a

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org

You might also like