Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

United Resident of Dominican Hills vs. Commission on portion of the Dominican Hills property.

In a MOA, PMS
the Settlement of Land Problems and United agreed that the latter may purchase a
THE UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL, portion of the said property from HOME INSURANCE
INC., vs. COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF GUARANTY CORPORATIO, acting as originator, on a
LAND PROBLEMS selling price of P75.00 per square meter.
G.R. No. 135945
Thus, on June 12, 1991, HIGC sold 2.48 hectares of the
March 7, 2001 property to UNITED. The deed of conditional sale
provided that ten (10) per cent of the purchase price
TOPIC: AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY IS NOT A COURT. would be paid upon signing, with the balance to be
amortized within one year from its date of execution.
FACTS: Dominican Hills, formerly registered as After UNITED made its final payment on January 31,
Diplomat Hills in Baguio City, was mortgaged to the 1992, HIGC executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated
United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). It was July 1, 1992.
eventually foreclosed and acquired later on by the said
bank as the highest bidder. On 11 April 1983, through Petitioner alleges that sometime in 1993, private
its President Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., the subject respondents entered the Dominican Hills property
property was donated to the Republic of the allocated to UNITED and constructed houses thereon.
Philippines. The deed of donation stipulated that Petitioner was able to secure a demolition order from
Dominican Hills would be utilized for the "priority the city mayor. Unable to stop the razing of their
programs, projects, activities in human settlements houses, private respondents, under the name
and economic development and governmental DOMINICAN HILL BAGUIO RESIDENTS HOMELESS
purposes" of the Ministry of Human Settlements. ASSOCIATION (ASSOCIATION, for brevity) filed an
action for injunction before RTC Baguio City. Private
On December 12, 1986, then President Corazon Aquino respondents were able to obtain a temporary
issued EO 85 abolishing the Ministry of Human restraining order but their prayer for a writ of
Settlements. All agencies under the its supervision as preliminary injunction was later denied.
well as all its assets, programs and projects, were
transferred to the Presidential Management Staf The ASSOCIATION filed a separate civil case for
(PMS). damages, injunction and annulment of the said MOA.
It was later on dismissed upon motion of United. The
On 18 October 1988, United (Dominican Hills) said Order of dismissal is currently on appeal with the
submitted its application before the PMS to acquire a Court of Appeals.
The demolition order was subsequently implemented "Quasi-judicial function" is a term which applies to the
by the Office of the City Mayor and the City Engineer's actions, discretion, etc. of public administrative officers
Office of Baguio City. However, petitioner avers that or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or
private respondents returned and reconstructed the ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and
demolished structures. draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official
action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."
To forestall the re-implementation of the demolition
order, private respondents filed a petition for However, it does not depart from its basic nature as an
annulment of contracts with prayer for a temporary administrative agency, albeit one that exercises quasi-
restraining order before the Commission on the judicial functions. Still, administrative agencies are not
Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against considered courts; they are neither part of the judicial
petitioner, HIGC, PMS, the City Engineer's Office, the system nor are they deemed judicial tribunals. The
City Mayor, as well as the Register of Deeds of Baguio doctrine of separation of powers observed in our
City. On the very same day, public respondent COSLAP system of government reposes the three (3) great
issued the contested order requiring the parties to powers into its three (3) branches the legislative,
maintain the status quo. Without filing a motion for the executive, and the judiciary each department
reconsideration from the aforesaid status quo order, being co-equal and coordinate, and supreme in its own
petitioner filed the instant petition questioning the sphere. Accordingly, the executive department may
jurisdiction of the COSLAP. not, by its own fiat, impose the judgment of one of its
own agencies, upon the judiciary. Indeed, under the
ISSUE: W/O COSLAP is empowered to hear and try a expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is
petition for annulment of contracts with prayer for a empowered "to determine whether or not there has
TRO and to issue a status quo order and conduct a been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or
hearing thereof? excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government."
RULING: COSLAP is not justified in assuming
jurisdiction over the controversy. It discharges quasi-
judicial functions:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen