FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230464. September 22, 2020.]
ULYSSES RUDI V. BANICO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP) DIR. ALFONSO B. CATOLIN (AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR), NCIP REGIONAL OFFICE VI & VII, ENGRS. DARREL D. HONORARIO AND EDGARDO P. LABRADO, JR. (AS MEMBERS OF NCIP SURVEY TEAM, NCIP REGIONAL OFFICE VI & VII), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 22, 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230464 — ULYSSES RUDI V. BANICO, petitioner,versus NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP) DIR. ALFONSO B. CATOLIN (as Regional Director), NCIP Regional Office VI & VII, ENGRS. DARREL D. HONORARIO and EDGARDO P. LABRADO, JR. (as members of NCIP Survey Team, NCIP Regional Office VI & VII), respondents.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Ulysses Rudi V. Banico (petitioner), assailing the Decision 2 dated March 29, 2016 and the Resolution 3 dated February 3, 2017 of the Court of Appeals 4 (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 06109. The CA Decision granted respondents' petition for certiorari, annulled the February 24, 2011 and April 29, 2011 Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Kalibo, Aklan (RTC) in Civil Case No. 8769, and ordered the RTC to dismiss the main case filed by petitioner. The CA Resolution denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The CA Decision narrates these facts:
A Petition for Identification, Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Domain Claim and for the Issuance of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title was filed by Mrs. Delsa Justo, the representative of the Ati Indigenous Cultural Community of Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan, before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). After complying with all the procedural requirements, the NCIP Chairperson issued a Work Order, and the NCIP En Banc issued Resolution No. 123, Series of 2009 [(Res. 123)], which ordered the ground survey of the ancestral domain of the Ati Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples of Boracay (hereafter, Ati).
A SurveyNotification, dated [November 6, 2009], was sent to all claimants/possessors of lands that may have overlapped with the ancestral domain area sought to be surveyed. On [November 15, 2009, petitioner] received the said notification, which informed all the claimants/possessors of the schedule of the survey, instructed them to file their opposition to the Ati's claim with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Community Environment and Natural Resources Office x x x, and furnish the NCIP the pertinent documents. Subsequently, a Mission Planning was held on November 19, 2011, attended by [petitioner], who alleged that he is the owner of Lots 201 and 202 that partly or wholly overlap with the area to be surveyed.
Thereafter, [petitioner] filed a Petition before the RTC x x x, which prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and [a] Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) and damages against the NCIP and its officers, to enjoin them from surveying the subject land.
However, the RTC did not issue a TRO against the NCIP and its officers, and a second Survey Notification Letter was sent to [petitioner]. Before the survey was conducted, the NCIP filed its Answer, arguing that the RTC had no jurisdiction to issue a TRO/WPI according to Sections 67 and 70 of Republic Act [No.] 8371. The NCIP further contended that the survey team acted under the Decision of the NCIP through [Res. 123], which is subject to an appeal with the Court of Appeals and not with the inferior courts.
Thereafter, [petitioner] manifested his intention to amend his [Petition] to implead the NCIP Commissioners and drop the team of engineers as parties to the case. The RTC issued an Order, dated January 14, 2010, giving [petitioner 30] days within which to file the same. [Petitioner] filed the [Amended Petition], now impleading the NCIP Commissioners, yet, still including the team of engineers as parties thereto. x x x
x x x Before the date of the pre-trial, the NCIP filed a Manifestation and Motion, praying for the dismissal of the [Petition] due to lack of jurisdiction and the fact that the case had become moot and academic by virtue of the NCIP's issuance of the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) No. R06-MAL-0610-157, which was registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Kalibo, Aklan. [Petitioner]'s counsel filed an [Opposition/Comment], arguing, in part, that the RTC had jurisdiction over the case since the case involves private property rights and the NCIP has already submitted to its jurisdiction. [Petitioner] further contended that the CADT was illegally issued and that the RTC has the power to confirm his right over the land and stop the NCIP from divesting him of its possession.
On [February 24, 2011], the RTC issued an Order denying the NCIP's [Manifestation and Motion]. The NCIP x x x filed a [Motion for Reconsideration] but the same was denied by the [RTC] through its (April 29, 2011] Order.
Aggrieved, [respondents went to the CA via a certiorari Petition], seeking the nullification of the RTC's Orders and the dismissal of the case. x x x 5
The CA issued a Decision 6 dated March 29, 2016, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The [February 24, 2011] and [April 29, 2011] Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Kalibo, Aklan, in Civil Case No. 8769, entitled, Ulysses Rudi V. Banico vs. NCIP, et al., are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The RTC is hereby ORDERED to DISMISS the main case filed by Ulysses Rudi V. Banico.
SO ORDERED. 7
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in its Resolution 8 dated February 3, 2017. Hence, the present Petition.
The Petition lacks merit. The CA correctly ruled that the case filed by petitioner has become moot and academic.
A careful examination of petitioner's Amended Petition indubitably shows that it is plainly a petition for injunction with a prayer for TRO and WPI. It contains four causes of action, namely: (1) issuance of a TRO and WPI "to enjoin all the [r]espondents x x x and all other persons acting under them from surveying the land of the petitioner"; (2) the issuance of a TRO and WPI "to enjoin the [r]espondents/[s]urveyors to refrain from surveying, entering, occupying and claiming the land of the petitioner"; (3) entitlement to exemplary damages of P100,000.00 "[b]y way of example or correction for the public good and to prevent the land from being surveyed;" and (4) entitlement to attorney's fees and litigation expenses of P100,000.00 because "petitioner was constrained to further seek the intervention of the courts and to engage the services of counsel." 9
The Amended Petition's main prayer is the issuance of a TRO upon its filing, "URGENTLY AND IMMEDIATELY restraining and enjoining the respondents x x x from entering the land and conducting the survey over the subject properties of the petitioner, and that a [WPI] be issued." 10 The Amended Petition likewise prayed that the RTC issue an Order "[t]o permanently enjoin all the respondents x x x from conducting further survey over the subject properties of the petitioner." 11
Since the RTC did not issue a TRO or a WPI, the survey proceeded as planned and the NCIP correspondingly issued the CADT, which was subsequently registered with the Registry of Deeds of Kalibo, Aklan. Thus, as correctly concluded by the CA, the acts of the NCIP and its agents which petitioner sought to restrain and enjoin having been accomplished — a fait accompli — his petition for injunction has been rendered moot. Indeed, it is a universal principle of law that an injunction will not issue to restrain the performance of an act already done. 12
Petitioner insists that "[a]lthough the original Petition x x x pray[ed] for a permanent injunction to enjoin respondents from further conducting survey on [his] properties, the x x x Amended Petition x x x included the additional relief of quieting of title" 13 when he "likewise prayed that the [RTC] issue an Order x x x [d]eclaring the [petitioner] as the lawful owner and actual possessor of his land x x x" and "[d]eclaring the [p]etitioner x x x as having already acquired his vested rights of his land x x x." 14 The mere addition of those in the prayer of the Amended Petition does not automatically translate to the inclusion of quieting of title as an additional cause of action without the essential allegations being pleaded in its body to substantiate such additional cause. A cursory reading of the Amended Petition's allegations shows that the so-called quieting of title cause of action is not supported by any allegation in the body of the Amended Petition. That cause suddenly, out of nowhere, appears in its prayer.
If quieting of title is included as a cause of action, then the registered owners of the CADT that the NCIP issued should have been impleaded as necessary parties. The fact that they were not impleaded in the Amended Petition as defendants is a clear indication that quieting of title is not included as a cause of action therein.
In this connection, the CA also correctly ruled that injunction being the main cause of action of the Amended Petition, declaring petitioner as lawful owner of Lots 101 and 102, which partly or wholly overlap the land covered by the CADT, will be tantamount to sanctioning a collateral attack of a certificate of title which is proscribed under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, which provides:
SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. — A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated March 29, 2016 and the Resolution dated February 3, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 06109 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-50, excluding Annexes.
2.Id. at 52-64. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of the Court) and Edward B. Contreras concurring.
3.Id. at 67-69.
4. Nineteenth Division.
5.Rollo, pp. 53-55.
6.Supra note 2.
7.Id. at 63-64.
8.Supra note 3.
9.Id. at 111-112.
10.Id. at 112.
11.Id. at 113.
12.Reyes v. Harty, 21 Phil. 422, 425 (1912).
13.Rollo, p. 36.
14.Id. at 113.