In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of immutability of judgment—the principle that final judgments should not be altered—is not absolute and can be relaxed when supervening events, like the issuance of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) under agrarian reform, render the execution of a prior judgment unjust. This ruling protects the rights of farmer-beneficiaries and ensures that agrarian reform laws are not undermined by rigid adherence to procedural rules. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to social justice and the protection of vulnerable sectors.

From Ejectment to Ownership: Can Agrarian Reform Trump a Final Court Order?

This case revolves around a long-standing dispute over a 138-hectare property known as the “Banasi Ranch” in Camarines Sur. The respondents, the Fajardo family, claimed ownership, while the petitioners, a group of farmers, asserted their rights as beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The legal battle began in the 1960s when some farmers were allowed to construct temporary shelters on the land. Over time, these farmers claimed tenancy rights, leading to a series of legal challenges, including ejectment suits and petitions for the cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs).

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the Fajardo family, ordering the farmers to vacate the land. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), and it became final in 2003. However, subsequent to this final judgment, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed a significant portion of the land under CARP coverage and issued CLOAs to the farmers in 1997. This development created a conflict between the final ejectment order and the farmers’ rights as CARP beneficiaries. The central legal question was whether the issuance of the CLOAs constituted a supervening event that rendered the execution of the prior judgment unjust.

The petitioners argued that their status as agrarian reform beneficiaries and owners of the land, as evidenced by the CLOA, should override the earlier ejectment order. They contended that enforcing the RTC’s decision would dispossess them of their homes and livelihoods, thereby undermining the goals of agrarian reform. The respondents, on the other hand, relied on the doctrine of immutability of judgment, asserting that the final and executory decision of the RTC should be enforced without exception. They maintained that the RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain any issues raised by the petitioners after the judgment became final.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of the doctrine of immutability of judgment, which seeks to ensure the finality and stability of judicial decisions. However, the Court also recognized that this doctrine is not absolute and is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception arises when circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision, rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. The Court cited several precedents where it had relaxed the doctrine of immutability of judgment to serve substantial justice, particularly in cases involving matters of life, liberty, or property.

In analyzing the case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the issuance of DAR CLOA No. 00495527 (TCT No. 5983) in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries constituted a supervening event that rendered the execution of the RTC’s joint decision unjust and inequitable. The Court explained that a supervening event changes the substance of the judgment and makes its execution contrary to law and justice. The Court highlighted that the supervening event must have transpired after the judgment became final and executory, and it must affect or change the judgment’s substance such that its execution becomes inequitable. Citing Gelito v. Heirs of Tirol, the Court reiterated these requirements.

The rule nevertheless admits of exceptions. Specifically, when facts and events transpired after a judgment had become final and executory, which on equitable grounds render its execution impossible or unjust. In which case a stay or preclusion of execution may properly be sought. A suspension or refusal of execution of judgment or order on equitable grounds can only be justified upon facts and events transpiring after the judgment or order had become executory, materially affecting the judgment obligation.

The Court noted that the RTC’s joint decision became final in 2003, while the supervening event, the final resolution of the Court in G.R. No. 234933 affirming the CARP coverage, occurred in 2019. This satisfied the first requirement. Regarding the second requirement, the Court emphasized that its ruling in G.R. No. 234933 had conclusively determined that the petitioners were the rightful owners of the subject land under CARP. This change in the status of the petitioners rendered the earlier ejectment order moot and unjust.

The Court also addressed the issue of whether the RTC had a ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution despite the supervening events. While acknowledging that the prevailing party is generally entitled to a writ of execution, the Court clarified that this duty is not absolute. When facts and circumstances transpire that render the execution impossible or unjust, the court has the authority to stay or prevent its enforcement. In this case, the Court found that the RTC’s duty to issue a writ of execution was no longer ministerial because the land subject of the ejectment case had already been awarded to the petitioners through the issuance of the CLOA.

The Supreme Court distinguished the present case from cases where a party’s subsequent acquisition of ownership was held not to bar the execution of a judgment in an ejectment case. The Court explained that those cases typically involved actions for unlawful detainer, which focus solely on the issue of material possession. In contrast, the complaint filed by the respondents in this case was essentially an action for recovery of possession, not merely for unlawful detainer. Therefore, the issue of ownership was relevant and the Court’s prior ruling on the petitioners’ ownership rights under CARP was controlling.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the CLOA issued to the petitioners enjoyed the same indefeasibility and security under the Torrens System as any other certificate of title. Applying the RTC’s joint decision to the petitioners would amount to a collateral attack against their title, which is prohibited. The Court also pointed out that the RTC’s orders directing the petitioners to vacate their property were void because many of the individuals being directed to vacate were not parties to the original case.

Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that enforcing the RTC’s orders would lead to an absurd situation where the petitioners would be dispossessed of their farms only to be re-installed by virtue of CARP. The Court emphasized that courts must exercise their jurisdiction to apply the law in a way that avoids conflicting actions by co-equal branches of government and upholds the principles of justice and equity. Thus, by emphasizing the importance of agrarian reform, the court demonstrated that social justice concerns can sometimes override strict adherence to procedural rules.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the issuance of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) under agrarian reform constituted a supervening event that rendered the execution of a prior ejectment order unjust.
What is the doctrine of immutability of judgment?	The doctrine of immutability of judgment states that once a judgment becomes final, it should not be altered or modified, even if the modification is meant to correct errors of fact or law.
What is a supervening event?	A supervening event is a fact or event that occurs after a judgment becomes final and executory, which changes the substance of the judgment and renders its execution inequitable.
Why did the Supreme Court relax the doctrine of immutability of judgment in this case?	The Court relaxed the doctrine because the issuance of the CLOA to the farmers was a supervening event that made the execution of the prior ejectment order unjust and inconsistent with the goals of agrarian reform.
What is the significance of CARP in this case?	CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) is significant because it grants land ownership to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. The Court recognized that enforcing the ejectment order would undermine the rights granted to the farmers under CARP.
What was the RTC’s initial decision in the case?	The RTC initially ruled in favor of the Fajardo family, ordering the farmers to vacate the land. However, this decision was later deemed unenforceable due to the supervening event of the CLOA issuance.
What was the role of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in this case?	The DAR played a crucial role by placing the land under CARP coverage and issuing CLOAs to the farmer-beneficiaries, which ultimately led the Supreme Court to rule in their favor.
How does this ruling affect future cases involving agrarian reform?	This ruling reinforces the principle that agrarian reform laws should be upheld and that courts should consider supervening events that may render prior judgments unjust, especially when those events involve the rights of farmer-beneficiaries.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricafort v. Fajardo underscores the importance of balancing the doctrine of immutability of judgment with the need to achieve social justice and protect the rights of vulnerable sectors. The Court’s willingness to relax the doctrine in light of the supervening event of the CLOA issuance demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that agrarian reform laws are not undermined by rigid adherence to procedural rules.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FELISISIMA RICAFORT, ET AL. VS. CORAZON P. FAJARDO, ET AL., G.R. No. 215590, November 10, 2021