LEONOR and ROSA BADUA vs. CORDILLERA BODONG ADMINISTRATION (Public Corporation)

G.R. No. 92649             February 14, 1991

SPOUSES LEONOR and ROSA BADUA, petitioners,

vs.

CORDILLERA BODONG ADMINISTRATION, CORDILLERA PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY, MANUEL TAO-IL, AMOGAO-EN KISSIP, DALALO ILLIQUES, JUANITO GAYYED, PEDRO CABANTO, VICENTE DAYEM and DAVID QUEMA, respondents.

FACTS:

Spouses Leonor and Rosa Badua, allegedly own a farm land in Lucaga, Lumaba, Villaviciosa, Abra. They were forcibly ejected from the land by virtue of a "decision" of the Cordillera Bodong Administration in Case No. O, entitled "David Quema vs. Leonor Badua."

Quema, as the owner of two parcels of land in Lucaga, Lumaba, Villaviciosa, Abra, mortgaged said parcels of land to Dra. Erotida Valera. He was able to redeem the land twenty-two (22) years later, long after the mortgagee had already died. He allegedly paid the redemption price of to the mortgagee's heir, Jessie Macaraeg.

On the other hand, Rosa Badua, alleged that the land was sold to her by Dra. Erotida Valera when she was still alive. However, Rosa could not produce the deed of sale because it is allegedly in the possession of Vice-Governor Benesa.

As Quema was prevented by Rosa Badua from cultivating the land, he filed a case before the Barangay Council, but it failed to settle the dispute, A certain Judge Cacho advised Quema to file his complaint in the provincial level courts. Instead, Quema filed it in the tribal court of the Maeng Tribe. The tribal court conducted a trial and ruled in favor of Quema.

ISSUE:

Whether a tribal court of the Cordillera Bodong Administration can render a valid and executory decision in a land dispute.

RULING:

No. Such tribal courts are not a part of the Philippine judicial system which consists of the Supreme Court and the lower courts which have been established by law (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). They do not possess judicial power. Like the pangkats or conciliation panels created by P.D. No. 1508 in the barangays, they are advisory and conciliatory bodies whose principal objective is to bring together the parties to a dispute and persuade them to make peace, settle, and compromise.

An amicable settlement, compromise, and arbitration award rendered by a pangkat, if not seasonably repudiated, has the force and effect of a final judgment of a court (Sec. 11, P.D. 1508), but it can be enforced only through the local city or municipal court to which the secretary of the Lupon transmits the compromise settlement or arbitration award upon expiration of the period to annul or repudiate it (Sec. 14, P.D. 1508). Similarly, the decisions of a tribal court based on compromise or arbitration, as provided in P.D. 1508, may be enforced or set aside, in and through the regular courts today.