Dumdum revokes decision to evict NRA residents

CEBU, Philippines - Residents of Lot 18 Block 15 along J. de Veyra St. in the North Reclamation Area have a reason to celebrate.

For lack of jurisdiction, Regional Trial Court Judge Simeon Dumdum Jr. of Branch 7 dismissed the civil case filed by Domingo Garcia against them.

 In his seven-page order, Dumdum revoked his decision dated November 13, 2009 based on the compromise agreement signed by Garcia and the defendants’ representative, Bernardino Tuico.

 Aside from that, all writs issued pursuant to the decision have been revoked. Thus, no demolition of houses will be conducted.

 Earlier, the residents composed of 56 houses asked the court to reconsider its decision after Dumdum dismissed their omnibus motion.

In their motion, the occupants asked the court to dismiss the case and to nullify its decision citing lack of jurisdiction.

 Dumdum however ruled, a mere omnibus motion filed by the occupants cannot question the decision of the court which has become final more than three years ago.

 In his opposition, Garcia asked Dumdum to deny the motion for reconsideration filed by the occupants. He said the occupants were given reasonable time to remove their houses but failed.

 In 2008, Garcia filed the case against the occupants citing he did not allow them to use his 810-square-meter lot. He demanded the occupants to vacate but asked for a huge amount of money for their relocation.

 On October 26, 2009, the parties entered into a compromise agreement.

The defendants, represented by Tuico, agreed to voluntarily vacate the property on or before May 15, 2010.

 Garcia, however, said the occupants failed to comply with the agreement prompting the court to issue a writ of execution in 2010.

 However, after the issuance of the order of demolition in 2011, the occupants claimed that they did not authorize Tuico to enter a deal in their behalf. Thus, occupants asked that the compromise agreement be declared void.

 Furthermore, in their motion for reconsideration the occupants argued that the court has no jurisdiction over the case.

 â€œGoing by the allegations in the complaint, the case is not accion publiciana but unlawful detainer and summing that the case is accion publiciana, the complaint dies not allege the assessed value of the lot in question, which is a jurisdictional requirement in as much as, if the action involves titles,” motion for reconsideration reads.

 With the foregoing evidences, Dumdum ruled in favor of the occupants. He said in the complaint filed by Garcia, the latter failed to state the assessed value of the land in question.

 â€œA scrutiny of the complaint fails to yield any reference to the assessed value of the property. The same should have been specified inasmuch as this is determinant of the court having jurisdiction over the case. Because the assessed value is not set forth, jurisdiction does not attach to this court,” the order reads.  (FREEMAN)