Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anillo vs. Commission On The Settlement of Land Problems
Anillo vs. Commission On The Settlement of Land Problems
*
G.R. No. 157856. September 27, 2007.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
229
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
230
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
231
TINGA, J.:
4
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
4
The instant controversy stemmed from a letter dated
29 May 2001 of Jessie B. Castillo, Municipal Mayor of
Bacoor,
_______________
232
which reads:
_______________
5 Supra note 1.
233
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
234
8
Upon motion, COSLAP issued a Writ of Execution on 23
October 2001, directing the Sheriff of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Bacoor, with the assistance of the Cavite
Provincial Director of the Philippine National Police, to
implement its Resolution dated 30 July 2001. Edwin A. San
Miguel, Sheriff IV of the RTC-Bacoor, filed a Sheriff’s
Report stating that 9he served copies of the writ and a ten-
day notice to vacate to the squatters but the latter refused
to leave and remove the structures.
On 21 January 2002, a Rule 47 petition, docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 68640, was filed with the Court of Appeals
by a certain Eduardo Cabesa Abear and 106 others
included as petitioners. Named respondents in said
petition, which sought to nullify the COSLAP Resolution
dated 30 July 2001, were Green Valley Homeowners
Association, Inc., South Rich Acres Inc. and COSLAP.
On 4 February
10
2002, the Court of Appeals issued a
Resolution in the said case, denying the petition on
grounds of improper remedy and lack of jurisdiction.
Because the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied
and in view of the finality of the Court of Appeals’11
resolution, COSLAP issued a Writ of Demolition on 29
January 2003 directing Sheriff San Miguel to remove the
structures and improvements illegally constructed within
Green Valley.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
8 Supra note 2.
9 Id., at p. 85.
10 Id., at pp. 91-92.
11 Supra note 3.
235
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
12 Id., at p. 89.
13 Rollo, pp. 3-60.
236
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
14 Id., at p. 16.
15 Id., at pp. 100-104.
16 Id., at pp. 355-356.
17 Id., at pp. 357-359.
18 Ouano v. PGTT International Investment Corp., 434 Phil. 28, 34; 384
SCRA 589, 592-593 (2002).
19 Paradero v. Abrogan, G.R. No. 158917, 1 March 2004, 424 SCRA 155,
163.
237
“It is readily apparent that appeals from the COSLAP may not be
brought directly before us in view of Rule 45, Section 1. Likewise,
if a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the prescribed remedy,
the Court of Appeals cannot be bypassed without running afoul
of the doctrine of judicial hierarchy. In this connection, it cannot
be doubted that the COSLAP is among those quasi-judicial
agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions. No convincing reason
exists why appeals from the COSLAP should be treated
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
238
_______________
25 Casimiro v. Tandog, G.R. No. 146137, 8 June 2005, 459 SCRA 624,
631.
26 Lanuza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131394, 28 March 2005, 454
SCRA 54, 61.
240
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
27 Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 412, 417; 330 SCRA 208, 214
(2000).
28 Balindong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159962, December 16, 2004,
447 SCRA 200, 212.
29 Heirs of Lourdes Padilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147205, March
10, 2004, 425 SCRA 236, 242.
241
Petition dismissed.
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ca3ef568f53c924e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15