Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD

Regional Arbitration Board
Cauayan City

VALDEZ-MENDOZA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Represented by
Benjamin Valdez,
Plaintiff,

-versus- DARAB CASE NO. 0204-5753-2010

MAXIMA MANGOBA,
Defendant,
x---------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

DEFENDANT through counsel and unto this Honorable Board most respectfully moves
for the reconsideration of the undated order issued by the Honorable Board copy of which was
received by the defendant on the second week of May 2019, and for this purpose most
respectfully states –

1. That recently, the plaintiff filed a Reiteration for the issuance of a Writ of Demolition
with the objective of securing a writ of demolition authorizing the authorities to
demolish the house of the defendant.

2. Prior to the filing of the Reiteration for the Issuance of Writ of Demolition, plaintiff
has earlier filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of demolition in due time the
defendant filed her comment/opposition to the said petition. Thereafter, the
Honorable Board issued a resolution denying the petition of the plaintiff for the
issuance of a writ of demolition. From the denial of the said Petition for Issuance of
Writ of Demolition, plaintiff failed to file a motion for reconsideration nor did the
plaintiff elevate such denial to the appellate board or any appellate tribunal.

3. Otherwise stated, the Denial of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Demolition stood
after the lapse of more than Fifteen (15) days without the plaintiff filing a motion for
reconsideration or any action.

4. As stated however, the plaintiff recently filed a pleading dubbed as Reiteration of

Issuance of Writ of Demolition after the defendant air their opposition, the Honorable
Board issued a resolution granting the prayer sought in the Reiteration of the Issuance
for Writ of Demolition, thus the resolution states –

“WHEREFORE, the Reiteration for the issuance of Writ of Demolition is

GRANTED.

Let a Writ of Demolition be issued for the satisfaction of the Judgment rendered
in this case.

SO ORDERED.”
5. Hence the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE/S
 1. With all due respect, the subject resolution is issued contrary to law, procedures and
Jurisprudence and therefore void.

ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION

THE RULES LAID DOWN THE PROCEDURE

FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF DEMOLITION.

1. At the outset, the Honorable Board issued the subject resolution on the contention that
once a judgment has become final and executory a writ of execution will be issued as
a matter of course and that even the writ of demolition is merely an ancilliary process
of execution, thus, the Honorable reasoned –

“The above cited doctrine is clear and leaves no room for a different
interpretation. Being an ancilliary to the process of execution the writ of
demolition may be issued as an offshoot of a writ of execution already granted to
fully satisfy the judgment. x x x x.”

2. Taking cue from the jurisprudence cited by the Honorable Board and the stand taken
by the Honorable Board on this issue, Rule XX of the 2009 Darab Rules of
Procedure, particularly section 11 thereof, provides –

“When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed

or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy,
demolish or remove said improvements except upon order of the Board or
Adjudicator issued upon petition of the judgment oblige after due hearing and
after the former has failed to remove the same within the time fixed by the
Board or Adjudicator.”

3. Based on the foregoing provision, the rules provides requirement before a writ of
demolition may be issued, first, there must be a petition filed my the judgment oblige.
Assuming but without admitting that the term Petition in the above-quoted provision
has the same meaning to a motion, still the fact remains that the rules require that a
motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition should be filed. Secondly, the rules
likewise requires that there must be a hearing to determine the issue/s involved in the
motion for issuance of writ of demolition. Thirdly, the defendant failed to remove his
house or improvement within the period granted by the Board or the Adjudicator.

3.1. In the instant case, the first requirement, that is a petition or a motion must be
filed for the purpose is lacking. It will be recalled that the petition filed by the
plaintiff seeking for the issuance of a writ of demolition has long denied by the
Honorable Board. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration to keep the
motion/petition “alive”, so to speak, the plaintiff oft to let a period of more than a
year before plaintiff filed a Reiteration of Issuance of Writ of Demolition.

3.2. On this score, it will be noted that since the petition/or motion was already denied
without the same having been the subject of motion for reconsideration, the
resolution denying such petition/motion has in effect reach finality in the sense
that said motion can no longer be the object of a motion for reconsideration. In
other words, it is a dead motion. It is therefore clear that there is nothing to
reiterate in view of the fact that plaintiff’s earlier motion/petition is already dead.

3.3. The Honorable Board however ratiocinates that since a writ of demolition is
merely an ancillary of writ of execution, the issuance of the same follows as a
matter of course as in fact according to the Honorable Board, its issuance is
similar to a writ of execution in that the issuance of these processes are merely
 ministerial. Defendant does not argue that the issuance of a writ of execution
follows as a matter of course and perhaps the same may be said of the writ of
demolition, but there is nothing in the jurisprudence that would authorize the
Honorable Board or any tribunal, judicial or otherwise to issue a writ of
demolition without compliance to the requirement laid down by the rules.

3.4. In fact, in the case of Mayor Marcial Vargas, Et. Al., vs. Fortunato Cajucom, G.R.
No. 171095, June 22, 2015, the Honorable Court states –

“As for the regularity of the issuance of the writ of execution itself, it
is uncontested that all the requirements for the issuance of such a
writ, as laid down in the rules, were followed in the case a bar. No issue
was raised before the trial court which qualifies as an exception to the
general rule that parties may not object to its issuance. Instead, for the
most part, the petition appears to pray for a quashal of the writ of
execution on grounds that, when closely examined, go into the merits of
the case and the judgment being executed and are not based on any defect
in the writ of execution itself or in its issuance.”
(Emphasis supplied)

The foregoing pronouncement of the High Tribunal clearly underscore the need
for the observance of the requirement for the issuance of writ as laid down in the
rules. In the instant case, since the petition for the issuance of writ of demolition
was long denied without the plaintiff filing a motion for reconsideration which is
required to be filed within a certain period, it is as if no petition or motion was
filed. Thus, to grant therefore a Reiteration for Issuance of Writ of Demolition
without any motion offends the requirement laid down by the rules. It may even
be said that the issuance of such writ without the required motion/petition is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Clearly, there must be a petition/motion filed for the issuance of such writ before
it can be issued.
4. The rules further required that there must be a hearing for that purpose. In the instant
case, the pleading filed was a Reiteration of Issuance of Writ of Demolition and
therefore the hearing was geared towards the Reiteration of Issuance of Writ of
Demolition and not on a motion for issuance of writ demolition. Since there is no
motion/petition filed, there is simply nothing to reiterate. In the case of Col. Octavio
Alvarez vs. Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Et. Al., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1283, March 3, 2004,
the Honorable Supreme Court had the following to say –

“During the hearing conducted by Investigating Justice Narciso Atienza,

respondent judge admitted "with confidence" that no hearing was necessary for
the Motion for Demolition.42
Section 10 (d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. ― When the
property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted
by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or
remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon
motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has
failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court. (emphasis
ours)
The above-stated rule is clear and requires no interpretation. If demolition is
necessary, there must first be a hearing, upon motion and with due notice, for
the issuance of a special order for demolition. 43 In the present case, respondent
judge immediately granted plaintiff's Motion for Demolition without any notice
and hearing. Clearly, his actuation amounted to gross ignorance of the law.
 In fact, respondent judge's own testimony clearly showed his gross ignorance of
basic procedural laws, thus:
ATTY. REGALADO: It is February 27. I stand corrected, your Honor. The
motion for writ of demolition was dated February 27, 1998 and the order of the
court following the said motion was made on March 2, 1998 that was a Monday.
Between the period that the motion for writ of demolition was filed and your
order of March 2, 1998, judge, there appears to have no hearing of the said motion
for execution [must be motion for demolition] and yet the order was made.
JUDGE DIAZ: The hearing of the motion for execution [referring to the motion
for demolition] is no longer necessary because that's a surplusage case as far as
the court is concerned. There's the writ of execution includes (sic) therein the
demolition of the structures.44 (emphasis ours)
And his prior testimony regarding the fatally defective motion for execution:
COURT: That's your practice?
JUDGE: Yes. That's why I followed it, what's been practiced in court.
COURT: So you do not follow the exact provisions of the rules of court on
motions.
JUDGE: It appears to be Justice, but nobody is complaining except Col.
Alvarez.45 (emphasis ours)
No less than the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful
to the laws and must maintain professional competence. 46 When a judge displays
an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public's confidence in the
competence of our courts. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, he
owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law.47 And when the
law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.”

5. By analogy, the foregoing pronouncement may be applied in the instant case, and
perhaps even more perplexing considering that what was filed was mere Reiteration
of Issuance of Writ of Demolition and not a motion or petition. To reiterate, since the
incident is a hearing on the Reiteration for Issuance of Demolition such hearing is
geared towards that issue and not on the issuance of writ of demolition itself. Clearly
therefore, the issuance of writ of demolition in the instant case was done in violation
of the rules, that is the issuance of such writ must be pursuant to a hearing on the
motion and a notice and hearing. Both requirements are lacking in the instant case.
Hence, the issuance of the subject order is against the law, rules, procedure and
jurisprudence.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Board after due notice and hearing that a the foregoing motion be granted and an order be issued
denying the Reiteration of Issuance of Writ of Demolition.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Santiago City, May 21, 2019.

Reyes & Associates Law Office

Zamora St., cor Del Pilar Ave.,
Rosario, Santiago City
E-mail: [email protected]
078-258-1243

By:
 MARK ANTHONY P. REYES
PTR No. 2598674/01-04-19/Santiago City
IBP No. 067341/01-12-19/Isabela
ROLL No. 58271/05-04-10
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0018483/February 27, 2019

Copy furnished:

ATTY. GERMAN BALOT

Rm. 309 3/F, Heritage Maharlika
Malvar, Santiago City

NOTICE OF HEARING

ATTY. GERMAN BALOT

Rm. 309 3/F, Heritage Maharlika
Malvar, Santiago City

THE CLERK
Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board
Cauayan City, Isabela

Greetings!

Please take notice that the undersigned counsel will request the Honorable Court to hear
the foregoing motion on May 27, 2019 (Friday) at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon and thereafter,
the undersigned counsel will submit the foregoing motion for reconsideration for the kind
resolution of the Honorable Court.

MARK ANTHONY P. REYES

EXPLANATION

Copy of the foregoing motion is served to the Honorable Office by registered mail mail
due to lack of personnel and for lack of material time.

MARK ANTHONY P. REYES