007zabat vs. Court of Appeals
007zabat vs. Court of Appeals
007zabat vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
552
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f4701a3dab990a2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 338
ers pray that the NHA be enjoined from evicting them and from
demolishing their structure. What they truly and ultimately desire, however,
is to overturn the award of the lot solely to the Mauris. This, in our view, is
not legally feasible. The award of the lot has already been accomplished.
Same; Same; Administrative decisions on matters within the execu-tive
jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion,
fraud or error of law.—Courts cannot enjoin an agency from performing an
act within its prerogative, except when in the exercise of its authority it
gravely abused or exceeded its jurisdiction. Administrative decisions on
matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of
grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law. Absent these badges of
executive excesses, no injunction may be granted.
Same; Administrative Law; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies;
Before a party may seek the intervention of the court, it is a precondition
that he should first avail of all the means afforded by administrative
processes.—Here we find applicable the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Before a party may seek the intervention of the
court, it is a precondition that he should first avail of all the means afforded
by administrative processes. A party aggrieved must not merely initiate the
prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, but must also pursue it
to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in order to
give that administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter by itself
correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to court.
QUISUMBING, J.:
_______________
553
_______________
2 CA Rollo, p. 128.
3 Supra, note 1 at 44-53.
554
A motion to reconsider that Order was filed by Zabat but was denied by
the AAC on August 16, 1985.
Eight (8) days later or on August 24, 1985, the lot was awarded to the
Mauris and a conditional contract to sell was executed by the NHA in the
former’s favor.
Thereafter NHA sent several notices of demolition to the plaintiffs-
appellants.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f4701a3dab990a2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 338
On July 23, 1991, the plaintiffs-appellants filed Civil Case No. 8294
before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City to enjoin the defendants-
appellees from proceeding with their eviction. (Records, p. 37.) In the
course of the proceedings before the trial court, the City Hall of Pasay City
was gutted by fire destroying the Court records therein including those of
Civil Case No. 8294.
On October 21, 1992, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a motion for
reconstitution of the records of the case and for the resumption of
proceedings which was denied by the trial court in its Order dated October
22, 1992 for being filed beyond the reglementary period. (Records, pp. 42-
43; Records, p. 44.)
On October 22, 1992, plaintiffs-appellants again filed Civil Case No.
9365, likewise for Injunction with Prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants-appellees and the persons
working under them to refrain from demolishing the structure of the
plaintiffs-appellants. (Records, p. 2.)
The Mauris and the NHA filed separate motions to dismiss on the ground
that the case is barred by prior judgment, laches and that the plaintiffs-
appellants have neither existing nor inchoate right over the property.
(Records, pp. 27-36.)
The Court denied the motions to dismiss on November 17, 1992.
(Records, p. 57.) The Mauris and the NHA thereafter filed their respective
Answers. (Records, pp. 58-63.)
Meanwhile, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction by the plaintiffs-appellants was denied in view of their failure to
establish a clear and positive right over the lot in dispute
4
in an Order dated
March 1, 1993 of the trial court. (Records, p. 104.)”
_______________
4 Id., at 33-35.
555
On August 23, 1993, the trial court rendered its judgment finding
that the award of the lot to the Mauris was valid and lawful, thus:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f4701a3dab990a2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 338
“I
II
_______________
5 Id., at 53.
6 Id., at 41.
556
III
IV
_______________
7 Id., at 18-19.
557
bat moved for reconsideration but the AAC denied her plea to
coown the lot already awarded to the Mauris.
On August 24, 1985, after the NHA General Manager approved
the award to the Mauris, a conditional contract to sell was executed
between the NHA and the Mauris, who tendered amortized
payments. Thereafter, notices requesting petitioners (Zabats) to
transfer to the lot earmarked for them and notices for the demolition
of their house were sent.
It was only in 1991, six years after the lot was awarded by the
NHA to the Mauris, that petitioners sought to enjoin the NHA from
evicting them. They filed Civil Case No. 8294 with the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City. Petitioners failed to seasonably file a
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f4701a3dab990a2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 338
motion for reconstitution of the case records, lost when the Pasay
City Hall burned down, so the case was dismissed.
In 1992, petitioners subsequently filed Civil Case No. 9365 for
injunction with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction to enjoin the NHA from demolishing their house. They
asserted that the NHA erroneously awarded the disputed lot solely to
the Mauris. They pointed out that the NHA was wrong in finding
that the lot was too small for both parties to co-own, despite reversal
of its own decision that earlier disqualified petitioners as project
beneficiaries. Other than pointing out the allegedly flawed reasoning
behind the award solely to the Mauris, petitioners stated that they
should also be 8the rightful awardees of the lot on which their
structure stands. However, they offered no legal basis for their
claim. Note that in their complaint, they merely referred to
themselves9
as registered occupants, and not as owners of the subject
property.
As a rule, injunction is not granted to take property out of the
possession or control of one party to be placed into that 10of another
whose title has not been clearly established by law. For the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to be proper, it must be
shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is mate-
_______________
8 Records, p. 4.
9 Id. at 2.
10 Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion vs. Gervacio, Jr., 304 SCRA 322, 330 (1999).
558
award of the lot has already been accomplished. The NHA awarded
the subject lot to the Mauris on August 24, 1985, while petitioners’
complaint for injunction was filed only on October 22, 1992. A span
of seven years has intervened. While petitioners might not have been
ejected earlier from the disputed property, this did not mean they had
ipso facto acquired legal ownership. The Mauris were awarded the
property long before and they have made amortized14 payments on it.
Injunction here would just mean exercise in futility.
Note further that petitioners did not allege that the NHA, through
the AAC, committed grave abuse of discretion, or acted without or
in excess of its jurisdiction in awarding the lot solely to the Mauris.
While it was alleged that the basis 15for the decision of the AAC was a
falsehood and an outright fraud, there was no sufficient proof
thereof. Nor was evidence offered to show that the
_______________
559
_______________
560
_______________
xxx
7. . . . . .All decisions of the AAC shall be subject to review and approval of the General
Manager of the Authority . . .
x x x”
24 Rollo, p. 34.
25 Prescribing Rules and Regulations For Appeals To The Office Of The President
And For Finality Of Decisions Thereof; issued April 2, 1966.
561
Judgment affirmed.
——o0o——
______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f4701a3dab990a2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 338
26 Id., “8. The foregoing rules shall apply to and be observed in ap-peals to this
Office taken by private parties adversely affected by decisions of the departments,
offices and entities specified below, as well as other appeals of similar nature not
governed by special laws.
xxx
(5) Government-owned or controlled corporations;
(a) Awards of contracts
x x x”
27 Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Torres, 286 SCRA 666, 681
(1998).
562
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f4701a3dab990a2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11