View full case

FROILAN DEJURAS v. RENE C. VILLA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review filed by the petitioner, contesting the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied due course to and dismissed the petitioner's petition for mandamus, which requested the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.

The petition pertains to the redemption of a piece of land located in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest initially filed a complaint for redemption against the respondents. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator dismissed the complaint. However, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board reversed this decision and recognized the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest's right of redemption.

Following a motion for reconsideration by the respondents, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board reversed its earlier decision and reinstated the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator's decision. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it remained pending as the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board issued an entry of judgment.

Meanwhile, the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary issued an Exemption Order, exempting the subject property from agrarian reform. Subsequently, a deed of absolute sale was executed in favor of SM Prime Holdings, Inc.

Consequently, the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest filed a petition for coverage and revocation of the exemption order, along with a request for the issuance of a cease-and-desist order. The Department of Agrarian Reform denied the petition and lifted the cease-and-desist order.

The petitioner appealed this denial and simultaneously filed a motion for the issuance of a cease-and-desist order or writ of preliminary injunction. Eventually, the petitioner resorted to filing a petition for mandamus before the Court of Appeals, seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining order to prevent SM Prime Holdings, Inc. from proceeding with construction operations. However, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for mandamus.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in declining to issue the writ of mandamus and in not compelling the DARAB to resolve the motion for reconsideration in the Petition for Redemption and the DAR to issue the cease-and-desist order.

  2. Whether or not the DAR and the DARAB exceeded their authority and committed grave abuse of discretion and manifest injustice in issuing the February 23, 2005 DAR Order and the April 20, 2005 DARAB Resolution.

  3. Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in this case is compellable by mandamus.

  4. Whether the DAR and the DARAB could be compelled to grant the "Urgent Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Cease-and-Desist Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction" and resolve the pending motion for reconsideration.

RULING:

  1. The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals was correct in declining to issue the writ of mandamus and in not compelling the DARAB to resolve the motion for reconsideration in the Petition for Redemption and the DAR to issue the cease-and-desist order. The DAR and the DARAB did not exceed their authority nor did they commit grave abuse of discretion and manifest injustice in issuing the February 23, 2005 DAR Order and the April 20, 2005 DARAB Resolution.

  2. The grant of an injunctive relief in this case is not properly compellable by mandamus as it requires discretion and judgment on the part of both the DAR and the DARAB to determine whether the petitioner has a clear legal right that needs to be protected and if the acts of SMPHI are violative of such right. Therefore, the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for refusing to issue the writ of mandamus.

  3. The issue of whether the DAR and the DARAB could be compelled to grant the motion for injunction and resolve the pending motion for reconsideration is already moot and academic. The DAR has already denied the motion for injunctive relief, and the DARAB has already denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the relief sought in the petition for mandamus is already accomplished.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A writ of mandamus generally lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, but not the performance of an official act or duty which necessarily involves the exercise of judgment. When the act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion, the respondent may only be directed by mandamus to act but not to act in one way or the other. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Mandamus is the proper remedy in cases where there is gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority.

  • The grant of a writ of preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the issuing authority and can only be availed of upon the grounds expressly provided by law.

  • The determination of whether to grant an injunctive relief requires caution as it affects the protective rights of the parties involved.

  • A petition becomes moot and academic when the issue raised has already been resolved, and there is no practical use or value in declaring a further judgment.