Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD
Region III
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
Branch I
Landline: (044) 600-6957; Email: darabbranch1ne@gmail.com
Facebook: Darab Nueva Ecija

JAYSON WISCO, HAROLD

SANTOS, ROMMEL WISCO and
LUCILO URMA,
Petitioners,

DARAB Case No. 1211’NNE’09

--versus--

ONSHORE STRATIGIC ASSETS

(SPV-AMC) INC., rep by it’s
MANAGER, GREGORIO DEL
ROSARIO, in his capacity as
SHERIFF RTC, Baloc, Sto.
Domingo
Respondents,
x------------------------------------------x

MIGUEL GRANATIN,
Petitioner,

--versus-- DARAB Case No. 1644’NNE’10

ONSHORE STRATIGIC ASSETS

(SPV-AMC) INC., rep by it’s
PRESIDENT / CHIEF
EXECUTVE OFFICER
COSSETE W. LACANILAO
Respondents,
x------------------------------------------x

ORDER
For resolution are 1.) Motion for Reconsideration filed by Rizalino D.
Basubas thru counsel1 and 2.) Motion to be Dropped as Respondent 2
incorporated in Manifestation filed by Onshore Strategic Assets Inc (OSAI)
thru counsel.
1
Dated August 6, 2019
2
Dated October 10, 2019
JOINT ORDER
Wisco v. Onshore Et.al., Page
DARAB Case No.1211 and 1644’NNE’09, 10
_____________________________________________________________________________

In the Motion for Reconsideration, Movant Rizalino D. Basubas

avers that: The Board denied Motion to Lift Writ of Execution due to the
alleged Writ of Execution, making the same moot and academic; Movant
moves for the reconsideration of the said Order dated June 27, 2019 on
the ground of supervening events; The Movant is now the recipient of two
(2) titles issued by the DAR covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
CARPO2017000298/Certificate of Land Ownership Award No. 01432324 3
and Transfer Certificate of Title No. CARP2017000299/Certificate of Land
Ownership Award No. 01432325 involving the landholdings subject of this
case4; In view of the issuance of the two (2) CLOAs in favor of the
movants, they are now declared the farmer-beneficiaries of the subject
landholdings and would render the Order and previous Decision as moot
and academic; The issuance of CLOA titles to the movants would mooted
the issue in this case for the tenancy rights.

In the Manifestation in Lieu of Comment (RE: Order dated

September 9, 2019) With Motion to be Dropped as a Respondent, OSAI
thru counsel averred that: The counsel of OSAI received a copy of the
Board’s Order dated September 9, 2019, directing them to file a Comment
or Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration within Ten (10) days from
receipt thereof; While respondent OSAI has not been furnished and has
not received the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the movant, OSAI
respectfully manifest that the property covered by TCT No. 050-
2011003269 under the name of OSAI located in Munoz, Nueva Ecija which
is the subject matter of this case, has been place under Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program. On record is a copy of the Order to Deposit
Land Owner Compensation dated January 25, 2017 from DAR, City of San
Fernando Pampanga; Considering that the foregoing property has been
acquired by the government, which will be eventually distributed to the
beneficiaries, OSAI will no longer have ownership and possession over the
said property. Thus, Osai respectfully moves that it be dropped as a
respondent in the instant case; In the event that OSAI is not dropped as a

3
4
Annex A and B in Motion for Reconsideration
JOINT ORDER
Wisco v. Onshore Et.al., Page
DARAB Case No.1211 and 1644’NNE’09, 10
_____________________________________________________________________________

respondent in the instant case, respondent OSAI respectfully moves that it

be given a period of at least Ten (10) days from receipt of the Motion for
Reconsideration to file its Comment, Opposition of Manifestation thereto.

In an Order dated October 15, 2021, the petitioners were given Ten
(10) days from receipt of the Order to file their Comment/Opposition. The
parties failed to comply with the said Order.

After careful consideration of the allegation of the respondent, we

find that the instant motion is bereft of merit.

Considering that the instant case has already attained finality and
the same was already executed, the Board can no longer entertain
motions or manifestations filed herein that will modify or disturbed the
finality and execution of the judgments.

A final judgment or final order is one that finally disposes of a case.

It leaves nothing more to be done by the court in respect thereto. Once
rendered, the task of the court is ended as far as deciding the controversy
or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned.5

The Supreme Court enunciated in the case of Douglas F. Anama v.

Philippine Savings Bank, et. al., G.R No. 187021. January 25, 2012:

“An Order of Execution of a final judgment is not

appealable. Otherwise, as was said by this Court in Molina
v. de la Riva, a case could never end. Once a court renders
a final judgment, all the issues between or among the
parties before it are deemed resolved and its judicial
function as regards any matter related to the
controversy litigated comes to an end. The execution of
its judgment is purely a ministerial phase of adjudication.
The nature of its duty to see to it that the claim of the
prevailing party is fully satisfied from the properties of the
loser is generally ministerial.”
5
Fundamentals of Civil Procedures by Serafin S. Salazar. 2021. Page 228
JOINT ORDER
Wisco v. Onshore Et.al., Page
DARAB Case No.1211 and 1644’NNE’09, 10
_____________________________________________________________________________

The highest law of the land also explained the doctrine of

immutability of judgment in the case of One Shipping Corp Et.Al., G.R. No.
192406. January 21, 2015:

“The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on

fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
practice that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of
adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on
some definite date fixed by law. […], the Supreme Court
reiterated that the doctrine of immutability of final judgment
is adhered to by necessity notwithstanding occasional
errors that may result thereby, since litigations must
somehow come to an end for otherwise, it would "be even
more intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed
to correct”

Considering that the Decision in the herein case has already

attained finality and the Writ of Execution was already implemented as per
Implementation Report issued by the Board’s Sheriff, the Board will no
longer entertain any more motions or manifestations based on the principle
of Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.6.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant motions and

manifestations filed by both parties are hereby DENIED.

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. March 23, 2022

JOSEPH NOEL C. LONGBOAN

Presiding Adjudicator
Copy Furnished:

Atty. Felipe De Belen

No. 150-A, Agabaldon St, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

Atty. Alvin Soriano

DAR-BALA, Cabanatuan City

Jayson Wisco
Harold Santos
Rommel Wisco
Lucilo Urma
All of Brgy. Maligaya, Munoz, Nueva Ecija

Gregorio Del Rosario

RTC-Baloc Sto. Domingo

6
Republic of the Philippines rep. by DPWH v. Hrs. of Cirilo Gotengco. G.R No. G.R No. 226355. January
24, 2018.
JOINT ORDER
Wisco v. Onshore Et.al., Page
DARAB Case No.1211 and 1644’NNE’09, 10
_____________________________________________________________________________

Manuel Gragatin
Baloc, Sto. Domingo

Cosette V. Canilao
Unit 2-5 G/F One Mckinley Place, 26th St, Bonifacio, Global City, Taguig

Atty. Marcelino Arellamo/Atty. Enrico Lainez

Suite 1415 President Tower, 81
Timog Avenue, Quezon City

Onshore Strategic Assessment (SPV-AMC) c/o

Atty. Karla Regina D. Valara Chua
Vilaraza & Argangco V & A law Center
11th Ave. Cor. 39th St, Bonifacio Triangle, Bonifacio Global City, 1634, Taguig City