Case Digest: JULIO MERCADO v. EDMUNDO MERCADO

JULIO MERCADO v. EDMUNDO MERCADO

582 SCRA 474 (2009), SECOND DIVISION

Julio Mercado (Julio) was a tenant of an agricultural land owned by the grandfather of Edmundo Mercado (Edmundo). Julio acquired a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) and an Emancipation Patent (EP). Edmundo then filed a complaint against Julio for rescission of contract, cancellation of the CLT and EP on the ground that the same were irregularly issued because such were covered by his Certificate of Retention. The Provincial Adjudication Board dismissed Edmundo‘s complaint. On appeal, the Department of Agricultural Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed the decision of the Provincial Adjudication Board (PARAB) on the ground that Julio deliberately failed to comply with the law.

Julio filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari which was then denied. Julio subsequently filed a Relief for Judgment of the DARAB which was also denied. Julio then challenged the denial with the Court of Appeals which was later denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the DARAB committed a grave abuse of discretion when it issued the assailed resolutions denying the petition and Julio‘s Motion for Reconsideration

HELD:

The DARAB decision in DARAB Case No. 4389 had long become final and executory, hence, immutable and unalterable. It may thus no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. Excepted from this rule is when the modification involves correction of 1) clerical errors, 2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and 3) void judgments. None of these exceptions is present in the case at bar, however.

Jurisdiction over a case does not thus disappear the moment a certificate of title is issued, for the issuance of such certificate is not a mode of transfer of property but merely an evidence of such transfer.

In any event, Julio may not question the jurisdiction of the DARAB and its adjudicative arm at this late juncture of the proceedings, he having actively participated in the proceedings.

Relief from judgment is available only against the decision of an adjudicator, to be filed before the adjudicator, when the party seeking it has no other adequate remedy available to him in the ordinary course of law. In the case at bar, Julio sought relief from the decision of the DARAB, not that of the adjudicator, before the DARAB.