Court rules in favor of Ormoc gov’t over land dispute

THE Regional Trial Court Branch 35 here dismissed the case filed by a clan over a 1.74-hectare property being claimed by the local government unit (LGU). The case pertains to the prayer for Cancelation of Annotations, Damages and Attorney’s Fees with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction sought by the descendants of sps. Agaton and Anecita Parilla.

The property in contest is covered by Lot No. 2223 which is almost 1.5 hectares and Lot No. 2224 with a size of 2,109 sq.m. located in Dalindingan St. at the government center right across City Hall. The lots were expropriated and made part of the government center on Jan. 26, 1965 for which the court issued an order of condemnation and writ of possession in favor of the LGU.

Feeling aggrieved, Parilla elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, making it final and executory on June 20, 1979. The CA pronounced that the lots had been long acquired by the LGU by virtue of a decree of expropriation.

Despite the finality of judgment, the heirs of Agaton Parilla refused to give up ownership of the lots years after. They claim they were not given just compensation which was belied by the LGU which says the compensation was deposited at Philippine National Bank and the Court of First Instance.

The heirs also contend that ownership over the property did not pass to the LGU due to its failure to assert its right to possess and as such, the family continues possession thereof. True enough, a settlement continues to occupy the subject lots up to this day.

But Judge Girlie M. Borrel-Yu said her court no longer has jurisdiction over the case considering that the dispute over the lots had long been settled by the appropriate courts. She cited several jurisprudence demanding “that the parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once, that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties…”

The judge also described as “highly improbable” plaintiff’s claim that they were not paid just compensation. If such was the case, “plaintiff’s recourse is to claim this compensation with the depository bank,” the seven-page decision dated Mar. 29, 2016 read.

Yu further reprimanded the plaintiffs for violating the rule against forum shopping. “Going back to the case at bar, while a certification against non-forum shopping was attached to the instant complaint, the same is not a truthful certification as there was no statement on the filing and judgments in two previous cases, for this alone the court can even dismiss the instant case,” the decision went on.

Finally, Yu wrote that “Every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable … To frustrate it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts.”