8/3/2019 Badua v Cordillera Bodong

1/1

BADUA V CORDILLERA BODONG

ADMINISTRATION

194 SCRA 101GRIO-AQUINO; February 14, 1991

NATURE

Petition for certiorari and prohibition to review thedecision of the Maeng Tribal Court

FACTS- Quema mortgaged his 2 parcels of land to Dra.Valera. He was able to redeem the land 22 yearslater, long after the mortgagee had already died. Heallegedly paid the redemption price to themortgagee's heir.- On the other hand, Rosa Badua, alleged that theland was sold to her by Dra.Valera when she was stillalive. However, she could not produce the deed ofsale for it is allegedly in the possession of Vice-Gov.Benesa.- As Quema was prevented by Rosa from cultivatingthe land, he filed a case before the Barangay Council,but it failed to settle the dispute. Judge Cachoadvised Quema to file his complaint in the provincial

level courts. Instead, Quema filed it in the tribal courtof the Maeng Tribe, which decided in favor of Quema.- The Baduas did not immediately vacate the land.

They subsequently received a "warning order" from azone commander of the Cordillera People's LiberationArmy. The order stated that, "Non-compliance of thesaid decision of the Court and any attempt to bringthis case to another Court will force the CPLA tosettle the matter, in which case, you will have no oneto blame since the case has been settled."- Fearful for his life, Leonor Badua went into hiding.Later, his wife, Rosa, was arrested by the CPLA anddetained for 2 days.- Spouses Baduas filed this petition "for Special andExtraordinary Reliefs"

- Respondents alleged that: the Maeng Tribe is acultural minority group of Tingguians. The tribe is apart of the Cordillera Bodong Association orAdministration whose military arm is the CPLA. Thetribal court, or council of elders, is composed ofprominent and respected residents in the locality. Itdecides and settles all kinds of disputes morespeedily than the regular courts, without theintervention of lawyers. The proceedings anddecisions of the tribal courts are respected andobeyed by the parties, the municipal and barangayofficials, and the people in the locality, ostracismbeing the penalty for disobedience of, or non-compliance with, the decisions of the council ofelders in the areas where tribal courts operate. They

contend that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction

over the tribal courts because they are not a part ofthe judicial system.

ISSUE

WON a tribal court of the Cordillera BodongAdministration can render a valid and executorydecision in a land dispute

HELD

NORatio: An amicable settlement, compromise, andarbitration award rendered by a pangkat, if notseasonably repudiated, has the force and effect of afinal judgment of a court (Sec. 11, P.D. 1508), but itcan be enforced only through the local city ormunicipal court to which the secretary of the Lupontransmits the compromise settlement or arbitrationaward upon expiration of the period to annul orrepudiate it (Sec. 14, P.D. 1508). Similarly, thedecisions of a tribal court based on compromise orarbitration, as provided in P.D. 1508, may beenforced or set aside, in and through the regularcourts today.Reasoning:- In "Cordillera Regional Assembly Member AlexanderP. Ordillo, et al. vs. COMELEC, the SC en banc, foundthat in the plebiscite pursuant to RA 6766, thecreation of the Cordillera Autonomous Region wasrejected by all the provinces and city of the Cordilleraregion, except Ifugao province, hence, the CAR didnot come to be. Thus Resolution No. 2259 of theCOMELEC, insofar as it upholds the creation of anautonomous region, the Feb. 14, 1990 memorandumof the Secretary of Justice, the Feb. 5, 1990memorandum of the Executive Secretary, Admin.Order No. 160, and RA 6861 were declared null andvoid while E.O. 220 is declared to be still in force andeffect until properly repealed or amended."- Thus, the Cordillera Bodong Administration createdunder Sec 13 of E.O.220, the indigenous and special

courts for the indigenous cultural communities of theCordillera region (Sec. 1, Art. VII, RA 6766), and theCPLA, as a regional police force or a regionalcommand of the AFP (Secs. 2 and 4, Article XVIII ofR.A. 6766), do not legally exist.- Since the CAR did not come into legal existence,the Maeng Tribal Court was not constituted into anindigenous or special court under R.A. No. 6766.Hence, the Maeng Tribal Court is an ordinary tribalcourt existing under the customs and traditions of anindigenous cultural community.- Such tribal courts are not a part of the Philippine

judicial system which consists of the Supreme Courtand the lower courts which have been established bylaw. They do not possess judicial power. Like the

pangkats or conciliation panels created by P.D. No.1508 in the barangays, they are advisory andconciliatory bodies whose principal objective is to

bring together the parties to a dispute and persuadethem to make peace, settle, and compromise.Disposition Petition GRANTED.