5/2/23, 1:37 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 5/2/23, 1:37 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer

PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

in 1995, the Sps. Rodriguez acquired these nine (9) lots from Mendoza. All in all, the Sps. Rodriguez
acquired thirteen (13) lots from San Gabriel and Mendoza.[10]

SECOND DIVISION On May 24, 1996, San Gabriel and Mendoza executed an Assignment of Right,[11] wherein the latter's
interest in the subdivision road lot was assigned and transferred in favor of the Sps. Rodriguez.

[ G.R. No. 183324. June 19, 2019 ] Subsequently, the Sps. Rodriguez applied for and was granted an approval for Alteration of Plan[12]
that consolidated all their titles on January 21, 1998. On the basis of this, the Land Management
Services of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) subsequently approved the
SPOUSES JOSE AND CORAZON RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONERS, V. HOUSING AND
consolidation plan on February 2, 1998. Consequently, the separate titles of the lots, including that of
LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD (HLURB), SPS. JOHN SANTIAGO AND HELEN
the subject road lot, were cancelled and in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 336132
KING, IMELDA ROGANO AND SPS. BONIE GAMBOA AND NANCY GAMBOA,
REPRESENTED BY JOHN SANTIAGO, RESPONDENTS. covering an area of 4,865 square meters was issued in the name of the Sps. Rodriguez.[13]

It was alleged by the complainants that they are residents of the subject subdivision. They asserted
[G.R. No. 209748, June 19, 2019] that the subject road lot being claimed by the Sps. Rodriguez as their own property cannot be closed
or conveyed without the prior approval of the court because it is an existing road lot subject to the
SPOUSES DR. AMELITO S. NICOLAS AND EDNA B. NICOLAS, PETITIONERS, V. provisions of Republic Act No. 440. The complainants alleged that the Sps. Rodriguez are taking
SPOUSES JOSE AND CORAZON RODRIGUEZ AND EDJIE[*] MANLULU, control and possession of the subject road lot by introducing diggings, construction for fencing, and
RESPONDENTS. closing the said road lot for the exclusive use of the Sps. Rodriguez. The complainants prayed for the
issuance of a permanent cease and desist order preventing the Sps. Rodriguez from developing and
DECISION fencing the subject road lot, and for declaring the Assignment of Rights executed by San Gabriel null
and void with respect to the subject road lot.[14]
CAGUIOA, J:
The Ruling of the HLURB-RFO III
Before the Court are two consolidated petitions. In G.R. No. 183324, the Spouses Jose and Corazon
Rodriguez (Sps. Rodriguez) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] (Petition) under Rule 45 against In its Consolidated Decision[15] dated October 3, 2005, the HLURB-RFO III found merit in the
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), the Spouses John Santiago and Helen King Complaint and held that "[t]here can be no consolidation of the road lot with the other properties of
(Sps. Santiago), Imelda Rogano (Rogano), and the Spouses Bonie and Nancy Gamboa (Sps. Gamboa),
the [Sps. Rodriguez.]"[16]
assailing the Resolutions dated January 7, 2008[2] (first assailed Resolution) and May 6, 2008[3]
(second assailed Resolution) rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101644. The HLURB-RFO III held that:

In G.R. No. 209748, the Spouses Dr. Amelito S. Nicolas and Edna B. Nicolas (Sps. Nicolas) filed a Prior to its sale of subdivision lots to the prospective residents of the subdivision and in
Petition for Indirect Contempt[4] dated November 22, 2013 against the Spouses Rodriguez and Edjie keeping with the provisions of PD 957, the developer had represented to the former what
Manlulu (Manlulu). areas are available for residential lots and what open areas are reserved for parks, roads,
etc. It was also represented that there would be a major thoroughfare or road lot with an
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings area of 634.00 square meters. Acting upon the strength of the subdivision plan, the
prospective residents (herein complainants) chose which lot they preferred to occupy,
As culled from the records of the instant case, the pertinent facts and antecedent proceedings are as bearing in mind the access to the open areas and to their lots. The owners of a subdivision
follows: (sic) include all costs, such as the setting aside of road spaces and open areas for parks,
and possibly the construction of curbs and gutters, underground drainage, an adequate
A verified Complaint[5] dated October 20, 2004 was filed by the Spouses Rustico and Erlinda Balbino
water supply, and whatever improvements it may have published to entice lot buyers, in
(Sps. Balbino) and the Sps. Nicolas against the Sps. Rodriguez before the Regional Field Office III
computing the value at which all the lots shall be sold. If the subdivision owner/developer
(RFO III) of the HLURB. The complainants therein filed an Amended Complaint[6] on November 4, reneges on any of its commitments, as exemplified in this case, the lot buyers are short-
2004. An Order[7] dated November 19, 2004 was issued by the HLURB-RFO III issuing a Writ of changed. They are made to pay more for less than what was agreed upon. They are, in the
Preliminary Injunction/Cease and Desist Order against the Sps. Rodriguez. whole context of the issues presented, parties in interest.

Another Complaint[8] involving the same issues was filed by the Sps. Santiago, Rogano and the Sps. Subdivision owners are mandated to set aside such open spaces before their proposed
subdivision plans may be approved by this Office and other the (sic) government
Gamboa on November 23, 2004 before the HLURB-RFO III. An Order[9] dated November 23, 2004 was
authorities, and that such open spaces shall be devoted exclusively for the use of the
issued by the HLURB-RFO III issuing a Temporary Restraining Order against the Sps. Rodriguez.
general public and the subdivision owner need not be compensated for the same. A
Eventually, the two Complaints, i.e., HLURB Case No. REM-03-04-0051 and HLURB Case No. REM-03-
subdivision owner must comply with such requirement before the subdivision plan is
04-0055, were consolidated by the HLURB-RFO III.
approved and the authority to sell is issued. That said, it can be easily inferred that road
The aforementioned Complaints deal with the Ruben San Gabriel Subdivision (subject subdivision), lots, which are part and parcel of the open space, are for public use, non-buildable and are,
which is located at Barangay Wakas, Bocaue, Bulacan. The subject subdivision consists of two (2) therefore[,] beyond the commerce of men.[17]
blocks with a total of twenty (20) residential lots and one (1) road lot (subject road lot) which
served as an access of the inner lots to the MacArthur Highway. In 1978, Ruben San Gabriel (San The dispositive portion of the Consolidated Decision reads:
Gabriel), the owner of the subdivision, sold nine (9) lots to one Renato Mendoza (Mendoza). Sometime

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65372 1/8 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65372 2/8

5/2/23, 1:37 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 5/2/23, 1:37 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

Wherefore, above premises considered, this Board ORDERS the [Sps. Rodriguez] to cease The respondents filed their Comment[29] to the Petition on October 28, 2008, to which the Sps.
and desist from further including the road lot in the consolidation of their title. This Board
Rodriguez responded with their Reply,[30] which was filed on July 15, 2009.
ORDERS and makes permanent the cease and desist (sic) of the development of the road
lot. G.R. No. 209748 - Petition for Indirect Contempt

Cost against the respondent. On November 22, 2013, the Sps. Nicolas filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt against the Sps.
Rodriguez and Manlulu, alleging that "despite vigorous protestation on the part of the [Sps. Nicolas],
SO ORDERED.[18] and after having been warned of the existence of the Cease and Desist Order [issued by the HLURB],
[the Sps. Rodriguez], in complete defiance of the injunction issued by the HLURB continuously,
The Sps. Rodriguez appealed the Consolidated Decision rendered by the HLURB-RFO III before the
maliciously and feloniously dump[ed] filling materials that [would] ultimately block the road lot leading
HLURB, Board of Commissioners, First Division (Board).
to the inner lots of the subdivision."[31]
The Ruling of the HLURB Board
On April 1, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution[32] consolidating G.R. Nos. 183324 and 209748.
In its Decision[19] dated October 10, 2006, the HLURB Board overturned the HLURB-RFO III's
Consolidated Decision. The HLURB Board held that "the closure of a road lot in a subdivision is not On October 13, 2014, the Sps. Rodriguez and Manlulu filed their Comment[33] to the Petition for
absolutely prohibited. When the same is done with or pursuant to an Alteration Plan approved by this Indirect Contempt, to which the Sps. Nicolas responded by filing their Reply to Comment[34] on March
Board as required under Section 22 [of PD 957], the same is allowable."[20] 25, 2015.

The complainants filed a reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision. The Sps. Santiago filed their Manifestation[35] dated November 24, 2015, manifesting that during the
pendency of G.R. Nos. 183324 and 209748 before the Court, the Sps. Rodriguez still filed a Motion and
On January 17, 2007, the HLURB Board issued a Resolution[21] granting the complainants' motion for
Manifestation[36] before the HLURB, praying that they be allowed to construct and introduce
reconsideration, reinstating HLURB-RFO III's Consolidated Decision dated October 3, 2005.
developments with respect to the subject road lot. The Sps. Santiago also manifested that they
In reversing itself, the HLURB Board held that "until a valid alteration permit for the road lot's opposed this Motion and Manifestation of the Sps. Rodriguez before the HLURB.
conversion into a regular lot is obtained, said road lot shall remain as such and may not be
On July 15, 2016, the Sps. Nicolas filed a Manifestation,[37] alleging that the supposed continuing
appropriated, consolidated with regular lots or closed."[22] The HLURB Board explained that it
defiance by the Sps. Rodriguez' of the HLURB's Cease and Desist Order has caused the flooding of
previously "ruled that the closure of the road lot was allowable but this conclusion was based on the
their property.
premise that the alteration approval covered the road lot. While we maintain that the alteration permit
was validly issued, a closer scrutiny thereof discloses that the approval did not include the conversion Issues
of the road lot into a regular lot and hence, its consolidation with the properties of [the Sps.
Rodriguez] into one title was bereft of basis."[23] With respect to G.R. No. 183324, the singular issue is whether the CA erred in dismissing the Sps.
Rodriguez' Rule 65 Petition outright. With respect to G.R. No. 209748, the singular issue is whether
The Sps. Rodriguez filed their Motion for Reconsideration[24] dated January 28, 2007, which was the Petition for Indirect Contempt filed by the Sps. Nicolas is meritorious.

denied by the HLURB Board in its Resolution[25] dated August 10, 2007. The Court's Ruling

Without filing an appeal before the Office of the President (OP), the Sps. Rodriguez filed a Petition for The Court finds both Petitions in G.R. Nos. 183324 and 209748 unmeritorious.
Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus[26] (Rule 65 Petition) dated December 12, 2007 under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court before the CA against the HLURB, the Sps. Santiago, Rogano, and the Sps. I. G.R. No. 183324
Gamboa.
The CA did not err in dismissing the Sps. Rodriguez' Rule 65 Petition.
The Ruling of the CA
As held time and time again by the Court, for a writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only
In its first assailed Resolution, the CA dismissed outright the Sps. Rodriguez' Rule 65 Petition for failing prove that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without
to exhaust available administrative remedies, as well as for not being accompanied with the pertinent or in excess of jurisdiction. He must also show that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy
pleadings. The dispositive portion of the first assailed Resolution reads: in the ordinary course of law against what he perceives to be a legitimate grievance. An available
recourse affording prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of a
IN VIEW THEREOF, the petition is hereby DISMISSED outright. lower court or tribunal is considered a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.[38]

SO ORDERED.[27] The Sps. Rodriguez do not dispute whatsoever that they have failed to appeal the assailed Resolutions
of the HLURB Board before the OP prior to filing its Rule 65 Petition before the CA.
The Sps. Rodriguez filed their Motion for Reconsideration[28] dated January 28, 2008, which was
denied by the CA in its second assailed Resolution. To emphasize, under the Rules of Procedure of the HLURB, "[a]ny party may, upon notice to the Board
and the other party, appeal a decision rendered by the Board of Commissioners to the Office of the
Hence, the instant Petition in G.R. No. 183324. President within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, in accordance with P.D. No. 1344 and A.O. No.
18 Series of 1987."[39]

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65372 3/8 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65372 4/8

5/2/23, 1:37 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 5/2/23, 1:37 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

In the instant Petition, the Sps. Rodriguez failed to provide any explanation whatsoever to justify their contrary, the Rules of Court unambiguously state that it is the regional trial courts that have
failure to seek prior recourse before the OP. jurisdiction to hear and decide indirect contempt cases involving disobedience of quasi-judicial entities.

To stress, the special civil action of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal In the instant Petition for Indirect Contempt, the Sps. Nicolas pray that the Court conduct a hearing
which petitioner has lost. The fact that the only question raised in a petition is a jurisdictional and receive evidence on the supposed disobedience and resistance being committed by the Sps.
question is of no moment. Certiorari lies only when there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, Rodriguez and Manlulu. In other words, the Sps. Nicolas would want the Court to conduct a fact-
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[40] finding hearing to determine whether the Sps. Rodriguez and Manlulu committed indirect contempt.
Obviously, such a prayer cannot be seriously entertained. As held time and time again, it is elementary
Nevertheless, even if the Court entertains the Sps. Rodriguez' central argument in their Petition, i.e., that the Court is not a trier of facts.[46] It is within the province of the lower courts, and not the Court,
that the HLURB does not have jurisdiction over the subject road lot, the instant Petition still fails to to receive evidence and to make factual findings based on such evidence.
convince. The Sps. Rodriguez argue that "what is involved in this case is a private titled land and
definitely NOT a subdivision or condominium."[41] Hence, according to the Sps. Rodriguez' theory, Hence, the Sps. Nicolas' Petition for Indirect Contempt is dismissed.
since the subject road lot is private property owned by a private lot owner, not being owned by the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal in G.R. No. 183324 is hereby DENIED. The
subdivision, the subject matter is within the province of the regular courts.
Resolutions dated January 7, 2008 and May 6, 2008 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
This theory is directly belied by the factual findings of the HLURB, which found that "[n]either the No. 101644 are AFFIRMED.
approved alteration plan nor the permit issued therefor indicated approval for the consolidation of the
Further, in G.R. No. 209748, the Petition for Indirect Contempt instituted by petitioners Spouses Dr.
road lot with the other lots of the subdivision, much less its conversion into a regular lot."[42] Time Amelito S. Nicolas and Edna B. Nicolas is hereby DISMISSED.
and again, the Court has ruled that in reviewing administrative decisions, the findings of fact made
therein must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not SO ORDERED.
overwhelming or preponderant.[43] In the instant case, as factually held by the HLURB, the subject
Carpio (Chairperson), Jardeleza,[**] J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
road lot never became a "regular" private lot that is beyond the scope of the HLURB's jurisdiction.[44]
There is no cogent reason to overturn the HLURB's factual findings. In fact, in clear recognition of the
HLURB's jurisdiction over the subject road lot, it is not disputed that the Sps. Rodriguez themselves
[*] Spelled as "Edgie" in some parts of the rollo.
filed a Motion and Manifestation before the HLURB praying that they be allowed to construct and
introduce developments with respect to the subject road lot.
[**] Designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 14, 2018.

Hence, the Sps. Rodriguez' Petition in G.R. No. 183324 is denied for lack of merit.
[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 183324), pp. 18-27.
II. G.R. No. 209748
[2] Id. at 28-30. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a Member of this Court)
In G.R. No. 209748, the Sps. Nicolas allege in their Petition for Indirect Contempt that the Court
with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Lucas P. Bersamin (now a Member of this
should cite the Sps. Rodriguez and Manlulu in indirect contempt for allegedly defying and disobeying
Court), concurring.
the injunction issued by the HLURB when the Sps. Rodriguez began dumping filling materials that
blocked the subject road lot leading to the inner lots of the subdivision. [3] Id. at 40.

The Court holds that the Sps. Nicolas' Petition for Indirect Contempt should be dismissed.
[4] Rollo (G.R. No. 209748), pp. 3-17.

In the instant case, the Sps. Nicolas allege that there is a case for indirect contempt against the Sps.
Rodriguez and Manlulu as the latter supposedly disobeyed and resisted the lawful order of a quasi- [5] Rollo (G.R. No. 183324), pp. 165-170.

judicial body, i.e., the HLURB.

[6] Id. at 174-180.
Section 12, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is clear and unequivocal in stating that, with respect to
contumacious acts committed against quasi-judicial bodies such as the HLURB, it is the regional trial [7] Id. at 195.
court of the place where the contemptuous acts have been committed, and not the Court, that
acquires jurisdiction over the indirect contempt case: [8] Id. at 196-200.

SEC. 12. Contempt against quasi-judicial entities.— Unless otherwise provided by law, this [9] Id. at 201.
Rule shall apply to contempt committed against persons, entities, bodies or agencies
exercising quasi-judicial functions, or shall have suppletory effect to such rules as they may [10] Id. at 42.
have adopted pursuant to authority granted to them by law to punish for contempt. The
Regional Trial Court of the place wherein the contempt has been committed shall [11] Id. at 87-90.

have jurisdiction over such charges as may be filed therefor.[45]

[12] Id. at 91.
There is absolutely no basis under the Rules of Court to support the Sps. Nicolas' theory that the Court
has jurisdiction over a case for indirect contempt allegedly committed against a quasi-judicial body [13] Id. at 42-43.
just because the decision of the said quasi-judicial body is pending appeal before the Court. To the

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65372 5/8 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65372 6/8