478 Phil. 592
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
âWHEREFORE, based on the findings of the Board, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered:The above-named petitioners and Leonarda Mercado, et al. appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Petitionersâ appeal was docketed as DARAB Case No. 6086, while that of Leonarda Mercado, et al. was docketed as DARAB Case No. 6060.SO ORDERED.â
- Finding and declaring all the complainants in the above-entitled cases not bona fide tenants on the property in question;
- Denying them the right to security of tenure thereby declaring them not entitled to reinstatement or to be maintained in the peaceful possession and cultivation of their alleged areas of cultivation;
- In a proper case, directing them to vacate and surrender their possession and cultivation to the defendants-landowners.
âWHEREFORE, finding the grounds for intervention to be meritorious and supported by substantial evidence, this Board hereby reconsiders its Order dated September 29, 1998 and the same is hereby SET ASIDE and Tricom is allowed to intervene. The parties are hereby directed to file an answer or comment to movantâs Intervention dated January 14, 1998.On April 8, 1999 and June 1999, petitioners filed two urgent motions to resolve their motion for execution, but were denied by the DARAB. This prompted petitioners to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus praying that the DARAB be ordered to issue a writ of execution of its final and executory Decision.
In the meantime, the Decision of this Board dated October 5, 1998 is hereby held in abeyance subject to further amendments thereof until all substantive rights of the parties over the subject landholding had been fully ascertained by this Board considering that the Motion for Intervention was filed before said decision was rendered.
SO ORDERED.â
âWHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that the complainants-appellants are hereby directed to vacate the premises in favor of the herein intervenor Tricom Development Corporation. The decision of this Board dated October 5, 1998 is now considered superseded by this decision and the same is hereby withdrawn.As a consequence, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals an amended petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.
SO ORDERED.â
âThe petition lacks merit.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court in a Resolution dated December 26, 2000.
In regard to the first ground, it is manifest that the consolidated decision dated October 5, 1998 (Rollo, pp. 57-65) had not become final. Its effectivity was ordered held in abeyance subject to further amendments as pronounced in DARAB Resolution dated March 4, 1999 (Rollo, p. 101, supra.) owing to TRICOMâs motion for intervention. The consolidated Decision dated October 5, 1999 refers to both DARAB cases DCN-6060 and DCN-6086.
The motion for reconsideration filed seasonably by respondent TRICOM of the Order dated September 29, 1998 denying their motion for intervention was pursuant to Rule VIII, Section 12 of the DARAB New Rules of Procedures. TRICOMâs motion for intervention was allowed to be filed at any time before the rendition of final judgment pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Lichauco vs. Court of Appeals (63 SCRA 123). x x x:x x x
In this connection, Rule XII, Section 1 of the DARAB Rules provides that execution shall issue only upon final order or decision, to wit:
âSection 1. Execution Upon Final Order or Decision. Execution shall issue upon an order, resolution or decision that finally disposes of the action or proceeding.â
Hence, since the consolidated decision dated October 5, 1998 never became final and executory by virtue of DARAB Resolution dated March 4, 1999, there can be no issuance of a writ of execution thereon.
On the second ground, We find and so hold that respondent TRICOMâs intervention in DCN-6060 is essentially an intervention also in DCN-6086 since the two cases had been earlier already consolidated in the PARAD of Cavite (Rollo, p. 70). Respondent TRICOM cannot be faulted for filing a motion for intervention in DCN-6060 only since it had notice of DCN-6086 only after January 18, 2000 when it requested to be furnished with pleadings or processes relative to DCN-6086 (Rollo, p. 106). x x x.
We also take note that the petitioners did not disclose in their original petition for mandamus dated August 10, 1999 (Rollo, p. 29) that the consolidated decision dated October 5, 1998 had been held in abeyance per DARAB Resolution dated March 4, 1999 of which they were furnished copy as shown by the record (Rollo, p. 98). Such failure on their part to disclose this matter which is indubitably material and relevant puts in question their credibility.
On the third ground, x x x. The assailed Decision which is in the nature of an amended judgment is a follow-through of the March 4, 1999 DARAB Resolution.
We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent DARAB in issuing the questioned Decision. x x x.
Finally, the failure of the petitioners to file a motion for reconsideration of the DARAB Decision dated December 27, 1999 is fatal to their cause. x x x.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.â
â1. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THEPetitioners basically contend that the DARAB acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion (1) in granting respondent TRICOMâs motion for intervention and (2) in suspending the effectivity of its Decision dated October 5, 1998 and then withdrawing it despite its finality.CONSOLIDATED DECISION DATED OCTOBER 5, 1998 IN DARAB CASE NOS. DCN-6060 AND DCN-6086 NEVER BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY BECAUSE ITS EFFECTIVITY WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE BY DARAB RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 4, 1999.
â2. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THATRESPONDENT TRICOMâS INTERVENTION IN DARAB CASE NO. DCN 6060 IS ESSENTIALLY AN INTERVENTION ALSO IN DARAB CASE NO. DCN 6086 DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO INTERVENTION WAS FILED BY TRICOM IN CASE NO. DCN 6086.
â3. RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DARABDECISION DATED DECEMBER 27, 1999 WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF AN AMENDED JUDGMENT IS A âFOLLOW THROUGHâ OF THE MARCH 4, 1999 DARAB RESOLUTION.
â4. RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERSâFAILURE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DARAB DECISION DATED DECEMBER 27, 1999, IS FATAL TO THEIR CASE.
â5. RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS NOGRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT DARAB IN ISSUING THE QUESTIONED DECISION DATED DECEMBER 27, 1999.â
âSECTION 1. Who may intervene. â A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or in interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenorâs rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.âIn Cariño vs. Ofilada,[7] we defined âlegal interestâ as follows:
âThe interest contemplated by law must be actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or expectant; it must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. The words âan interest in the subjectâ means a direct interest in the cause of action as pleaded, and which would put the intervenor in the legal position to litigate a fact averred in the complaint, without the establishment of which plaintiff could not recover.âHere, respondent TRICOMâs legal interest in the subject property cannot be disputed. As shown by the Deed of Assignment dated January 29, 1990 and the Deed of Sale on Installments dated August 17, 1992, respondents transferred and sold to respondent TRICOM the subject landholding. As a purchaser, respondent acquired an interest in the property, and thus, has standing to intervene to protect such interest.
âSECTION 2. Time to intervene. â The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.âIn the instant case, respondent TRICOMâs motion for intervention was filed on January 29, 1998 or before the DARAB rendered its Decision on October 5, 1998. Clearly, the motion for intervention was seasonably filed.
âSECTION 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the x x x Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, x x x.[6] San Miguel Corporation vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 104637-38 and 109797, September 14, 2000, 340 SCRA 289, 325, citing Section 2 (b), Rule 12 of the Rules of Court and Big Country Ranch Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 161 (1993).