FIRST DIVISION
SPOUSES FEDERICO
ATUEL AND SARAH ATUEL
AND SPOUSES GEORGE
GALDIANO AND ELIADA
GALDIANO,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
139561
June 10, 2003
-versus-
SPOUSES BERNABE
VALDEZ AND CONCHITA
VALDEZ,
Respondents.
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The
Case
Before us is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari[1]
seeking to reverse the Decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals dated 20 May 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48682 as
well
as the Resolution dated 14 July 1999 denying the Motion for
Reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals in its assailed decision affirmed the Decision of
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board[3]
("DARAB") which reversed the Decision[4]
of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office ("MARO") in Malaybalay,
Bukidnon.
The MARO of Bukidnon ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform ("DAR"),
Agusan del Sur, to segregate 2,000 square meters from the land of the
Spouses
Bernabe and Conchita Valdez. The MARO of Bukidnon also awarded
the
same segregated land to the Spouses Federico and Sarah Atuel and the
Spouses
George and Eliada Galdiano.
The Facts
The present controversy
springs from a battle of possession over a portion of a property in
Poblacion
(formerly Sibagat Nuevo), Sibagat, Agusan del Sur.cralaw:red
Atty. Manuel D. Cab
("Cab") is the registered owner of two parcels of land in Poblacion,
Sibagat,
Agusan del Sur with an area of 125,804 square meters ("Cab
Property").
The Cab Property is covered by OCT No. P-5638 issued pursuant to Free
Patent
No. 1318. The Cab Property is traversed by the Butuan to Davao
Road
and adjacent to the municipal building of Sibagat. From the Cab
Property,
Cab donated the lot occupied by the municipal building.[5]chanrobles virtual law library
In 1964, Cab appointed
Federico Atuel ("Atuel") as administrator of the Cab Property.chanrobles virtual law library
Sometime in 1977, Bernabe
Valdez ("Valdez") arrived in Sibagat from Baogo Bontoc, Southern
Leyte.
Valdez is the nephew of Atuel, who recommended to Cab to lease a
portion
of the Cab Property to Valdez.[6]
On 9 October 1978, Cab and Valdez entered into a "Lease of Improved
Agricultural
Land" under which Valdez leased a 1.25-hectare portion of the Cab
Property
for P300.00 per year for two years.cralaw:red
In 1982, Cab allowed
the Spouses Federico and Sarah Atuel ("Spouses Atuel") and the Spouses
George and Eliada Galdiano ("Spouses Galdiano") to occupy a
2,000-square
meter portion of the Cab Property. The Spouses Atuel and the
Spouses
Galdiano constructed their respective houses on this 2,000-square meter
lot ("Subject Lot").cralaw:red
On 27 September 1985,
the Sangguniang Bayan of Sibagat, Agusan del Sur, approved the town
plan
of the Municipality of Sibagat which classified the Cab Property as
residential,
subject to the approval of the Ministry of Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission.cralaw:red
On 25 June 1988, Cab
informed Valdez that their lease contract had already expired, and
demanded
that Valdez stop cultivating the 1.25-hectare portion of the Cab
Property
and vacate the same.cralaw:red
On 2 October 1988, responding
to Cab’s letter, the MARO of Sibagat, Agusan del Sur informed Cab that
Valdez was properly identified as a tenant, and thus deemed to be the
owner
of the land he cultivated. The MARO added that on 14 September
1988,
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, Emancipation Patent No.
A-159969
was issued to Valdez for a 2.3231-hectare portion ("PD 27 Land") of the
Cab Property. The PD 27 Land included the 2,000-square meter
Subject
Lot occupied by the houses of the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses
Galdiano.chanrobles virtual law library
On 11 May 1989, Cab
filed with the DAR in Manila a petition for cancellation of Valdez’s
emancipation
patent. Cab claimed that his property is not planted to rice and
corn and that Valdez is a civil law lessee, not a tenant.[7]
Consequently, the DAR ordered the Regional Director of Cagayan de Oro
City
to conduct an investigation regarding the petition.[8]
On 17 September 1989,
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board ("HLURB") approved the Town
Plan
and Zoning Ordinance of fifty-eight municipalities, including that of
Sibagat.
The HLURB classified the Cab Property as 90 percent residential, and
the
remaining portion as institutional and park or open space.cralaw:red
On 27 September 1991,
the Spouses Bernabe and Conchita Valdez ("Spouses Valdez") filed a
complaint[9]
for "Recovery of Possession with Damages" with the DARAB in Malaybalay,
Bukidnon against the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano. In their
complaint,
the Spouses Valdez alleged that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses
Galdiano
"stealthily and through fraud entered and occupied a portion of the
above-described
property with an area of 2,000 sq. m. more or less." The Spouses Valdez
claimed that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano, despite
repeated
demands, refused "to restore possession of the said portion of land" to
the Spouses Valdez. The Spouses Valdez prayed that the Spouses
Atuel
and the Spouses Galdiano be ordered to vacate and restore to the
Spouses
Valdez possession of the Subject Lot. The Spouses Valdez
also
prayed for payment of litigation expenses, as well as unearned income
from
the Subject Lot and moral damages.cralaw:red
In their answer, the
Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano asserted that the Spouses Valdez
had no cause of action against them because Cab is the owner of the
Subject
Lot while Atuel is the administrator of the Cab Property. The
Spouses
Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano claimed that upon Cab’s instruction and
consent, they had been occupying the Cab Property since 1964, long
before
the Spouses Valdez leased a portion of the Cab Property in 1978.
The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano also pointed out that the
Spouses
Valdez never set foot on the Subject Lot nor cultivated the same, thus,
there is no dispossession to speak of.chanrobles virtual law library
Moreover, the Spouses
Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano alleged that the emancipation patent
issued
to Valdez is null and void. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses
Galdiano
maintained that the entire Cab Property, which is covered by the Free
Patent
issued to Cab, has already been classified as residential, hence, no
longer
covered by PD No. 27.[10]
On 4 March 1993, the
DARAB Provincial Adjudicator, after hearing the case, issued a decision
which disposed of as follows:
WHEREFORE,
premises above considered, the DAR Agusan del Sur is hereby ordered to
segregate the TWO THOUSAND (2,000) SQ. METERS, more or less, from the
land
of the complainants, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1261 covered by
Emancipation Patent No. A-159969, and award the same to the
respondents;
and hereby ordered this case dismissed.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Dissatisfied with the
decision,
the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano appealed to the DARAB
Central
Office. The DARAB Central Office reversed the decision of the
DARAB
Provincial Adjudicator, thus:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED.
Judgment
is hereby rendered as follows:
(1)
Enjoining the respondents-appellants from committing acts of intrusion
and maintain the possessory rights of the complainants over the EP
(Emancipation
Patent) covered land; andchanrobles virtual law library
(2)
Ordering the MARO (Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer) or PARO
(Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer) concerned to assist the parties in determining
the amount to be reimbursed in favor of the respondents for whatever
improvements
made on the 2,000 square meter portion to be paid by the complainants.
SO ORDERED.[12]
Aggrieved by the
decision,
the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano filed a petition for review[13]
with the Court of Appeals. On 20 May 1999, the Court of Appeals
affirmed
the decision of the DARAB Central Office and dismissed the petition for
lack of merit. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano filed a
Motion for Reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied. On
14 January 1998, while the case was pending in the Court of Appeals,
the
Spouses Valdez sold 5,000 square meters out of the PD 27 Land to the
Municipality
of Sibagat.[14]
Hence, the instant petition.
The Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
In affirming the decision
of the DARAB, the Court of Appeals ruled that the DARAB has primary and
exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction
and
cancellation of emancipation patents. The Court of Appeals held
that
the DARAB’s decision should be respected because it enjoys the
presumption
of regularity.cralaw:red
The Court of Appeals
also ruled that the DARAB correctly relied on Pagtalunan v. Tamayo[15]
where this Court held that upon issuance of an emancipation patent, a
holder
acquires a vested right of absolute ownership in the land.chanrobles virtual law library
The Court of Appeals
further held that the doctrine laid down in Teodoro v. Macaraeg[16]
is applicable. In Teodoro, this Court ruled that a landowner has
full liberty to enter into a civil lease contract covering his
property.
However, "once a landowner enters into a contract of lease whereby his
land is to be devoted to agricultural production and said landholding
is
susceptible of personal cultivation by the lessee, solely or with the
help
of labor coming from his immediate farm household, then such contract
is
of the very essence of a leasehold agreement." Otherwise, the
Court
added, "it would be easy to subvert, under the guise of the liberty to
contract, the intendment of the law of protecting the underprivileged
and
ordinarily credulous farmer from the unscrupulous schemes and
pernicious
practices of the landed gentry."[17]
The Issue
After a review of the
issues raised,[18]
the question boils down to whether the Spouses Valdez are entitled to
seek
redress from the DARAB in recovering possession of the 2,000-square
meter
Subject Lot from the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano.
The Court’s Ruling
We grant the petition
based not on the arguments of the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses
Galdiano
but on an entirely different ground. We reverse the decision of
the
Court of Appeals because of the DARAB’s lack of jurisdiction to take
cognizance
of the present controversy.cralaw:red
The DARAB has no jurisdiction
to take cognizance of the Spouses Valdez’s complaint for recovery of
possession
of the Subject Lot. Though the parties do not challenge the
jurisdiction of the DARAB, the Court may motu proprio consider the
issue
of jurisdiction.[19]
The Court has discretion to determine whether the DARAB validly
acquired
jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred
only by law. It may not be conferred on the court by consent or
waiver
of the parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction
over
the subject matter of the action.[20]chanrobles virtual law library
In their complaint for
recovery of possession, the Spouses Valdez alleged, among others, that
they are farmers and beneficiaries of an emancipation patent. The
Spouses
Valdez also alleged that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano
stealthily
and fraudulently occupied the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot. The
Spouses Valdez claimed that despite repeated demands,[21]
the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano refused to vacate and
restore
possession of the Subject Lot to the Spouses Valdez.[22]
The Spouses Valdez prayed that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses
Galdiano
be ordered to vacate and restore possession of the Subject Lot to the
Spouses
Valdez.cralaw:red
The Spouses Valdez did
not allege the existence of tenancy relations, if any, between them and
the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano. In Morta, Sr. v.
Occidental,[23]
this Court ruled:
It is
axiomatic
that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has
jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the
character
of the relief sought. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined
upon the allegations made in the complaint.
In the instant case,
the
allegations in the complaint, which are contained in the decision of
the
MARO,[24]
indicate that the nature and subject matter of the instant case is for
recovery of possession or accion publiciana. The issue to be resolved
is
who between the Spouses Valdez on one hand, and the Spouses Atuel and
the
Spouses Galdiano on the other, have a better right to possession of the
2,000-square meter Subject Lot forming part of the PD 27 Land.
The
Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano likewise raise the issue of
ownership
by insisting that Cab is the real and lawful owner of the Subject
Lot.
In Cruz v. Torres,[25]
this Court had occasion to discuss the nature of an action to recover
possession
or accion publiciana, thus:chanrobles virtual law library
x
x x This is an action for recovery of the right to
posses
and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding in a regional
trial
court to determine the better right of possession of realty
independently
of the title. Accion publiciana or plenaria de posesion is also used to
refer to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from
the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
possession of the realty. In such case, the regional trial court has
jurisdiction.
x x x[26]
For the DARAB to
acquire
jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a tenancy relations
between
the parties.[27]
This Court held in Morta,[28]
that in order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it
is
essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit:
x
x x 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is
an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to
the
relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about
agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the
part
of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared
between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
x
x x[29]
(Emphasis supplied)
Emphasizing the DARAB’s
jurisdiction, this Court held in Hon. Antonio M. Nuesa, et al. v. Hon.
Court of Appeals, et al.,[30]
that:
x
x x the DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction
to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the
exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the
agrarian
reform program." The DARAB has primary, original and appellate
jurisdiction
"to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases,
controversies,
and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program under R.A. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A,
R.A. 3844 as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws
and their implementing rules and regulations. (Emphasis supplied)
Under Section 3(d) of
Republic
Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the CARP Law, an agrarian dispute is
defined
as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
(d)
xxx any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether
leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture,
including
disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of
persons
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange
terms
or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
It includes any
controversy
relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other
terms
and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers,
tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants
stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary,
landowner
and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
In the instant case,
the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano are not and do not claim to
be the owners of the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot where their houses
are constructed. They also do not claim ownership to any other portion
of the PD 27 Land. They and the Spouses Valdez have no tenurial,
leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that will bring this
controversy
within Section 3(d) of RA No. 6657.[31]
The instant case is similar to Chico v. CA,[32]
where this Court ruled that the DARAB had no jurisdiction over a case
which
did not involve any tenurial or agrarian relations between the
parties.
Since the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the present controversy, it
should
not have taken cognizance of the Spouses Valdez’s complaint for
recovery
of possession. Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a
court
of general jurisdiction.[33]
Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original
jurisdiction
"in all civil actions which involve x x x possession of real property."[34]
However, if the assessed value of the real property involved does not
exceed
P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the
municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover
possession
of real property.[35]
Moreover, the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over all
cases
of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.cralaw:red
The Court of Appeals
correctly stated that the DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction
over
cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of registered
emancipation patents. However, the Spouses Valdez’s complaint for
recovery of possession does not involve or seek the cancellation of any
emancipation patent. It was the Spouses Atuel and the
Spouses
Galdiano who attacked the validity of the emancipation patent as part
of
their affirmative defenses in their answer to the complaint. The
rule is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court (or agency in
this
case) cannot be made to depend on the defenses made by the defendant in
his answer or motion to dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.[36]
Jurisdiction over the
subject matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or
omission
of the parties.[37]
The active participation of the parties in the proceedings before the
DARAB
does not vest jurisdiction on the DARAB, as jurisdiction is conferred
only
by law. The courts or the parties cannot disregard the rule of
non-waiver
of jurisdiction. Likewise, estoppel does not apply to confer
jurisdiction
to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action.[38]
The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB
does
not prevent this Court from addressing the issue, as the DARAB’s lack
of
jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint. Issues of
jurisdiction are not subject to the whims of the parties.[39]chanrobles virtual law library
In a long line of decisions,
this Court has consistently held that an order or decision rendered by
a tribunal or agency without jurisdiction is a total nullity.[40]
Accordingly, we rule that the decision of the DARAB in the instant case
is null and void. Consequently, the decision of the Court of
Appeals
affirming the decision of the DARAB is likewise invalid. This
Court
finds no compelling reason to rule on the other issues raised by the
Spouses
Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the petition
is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 20 May
1999
and the Resolution dated 14 July 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48682 are
REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The MARO’s Decision dated 4 March 1993, and the
DARAB’s
Decision dated 17 June 1998, are declared NULL and VOID for lack of
jurisdiction.
No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. with Associate
Justices
Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez and Romeo A. Brawner, concurring.
[3]
Composed of Ernesto D. Garilao, Lorenzo R. Reyes, Artemio A. Adasa,
Jr.,
Victor Gerardo J. Bulatao, Augusto P. Quijano, Sergio B. Serrano and
Clifford
C. Burkley.
[4]
Penned by Provincial Adjudicator Fidel H. Borres, Jr.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 13, 16.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Rollo, p. 145.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
CA Rollo, pp. 60-61.
[8]
Ibid., p. 62.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Docketed as DARAB Case No. X-407 (Agusan del Sur).
[10]
CA Rollo, p. 49.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Ibid., p. 52-B.
[12]
Ibid., p. 46.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
[14]
Annex "K," Rollo, p. 66.
[15]
G.R. No. 54281, 19 March 1990, 183 SCRA 252.
[16]
136 Phil. 265 (1969).chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Teodoro v. Macaraeg, ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Petitioners’ Memorandum, Rollo, pp. 148-150.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Lagman v. CA and Hon. Romero, etc., et al., 150 Phil. 1032 (1972);
Government
v. American Surety Co., 11 Phil. 203 (1908).
[20]
Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Registry of Deeds of Parañaque
City,
G.R. No. 133240, 15 November 2000, 344 SCRA 680.
[21]
The date of last demand is unclear but the Spouses Valdez made a demand
sometime in 1990 as alleged in the petition (page 8) of the Spouses
Atuel
and the Spouses Galdiano.
[22]
CA Rollo, p. 48.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
367 Phil. 438 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
CA Rollo, pp. 48-52-B.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
G.R. No. 121939, 4 October 1999, 316 SCRA 193.
[26]
Cruz v. Torres, ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
Benavidez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125848, 6 September 1999, 313
SCRA
714; Isidro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105586, 15 December 1993, 228
SCRA 503.
[28]
Supra, see note 23.chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
Supra, see note 23.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
G.R. No. 132048, 6 March 2002 citing Centeno v. Centeno, G.R. No.
140825,
13 October 2000, 343 SCRA 153.
[31]
Almuete v. Andres, G.R. No. 122276, 20 November 2001, 369 SCRA 619;
Heirs
of the Late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109992, 7
March
2000, 327 SCRA 293.
[32]
348 Phil. 37 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
Laguna Estates Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
119357,
5 July 2000, 335 SCRA 29.
[34]
Section 19 (2) of BP Blg. 129, otherwise known as The Judiciary
Reorganization
Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 (25 March 1994).
[35]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[36]
Multinational Village Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals,
G.R. No. 98023, 17 October 1991, 203 SCRA 104 citing Magay v.
Estiandan,
69 SCRA 456.
[37]
Lagman v. CA and Hon. Romero, etc., et al., supra, see note 19.chanrobles virtual law library
[38]
Paguio v. NLRC, 323 Phil. 203 (1996).chanrobles virtual law library
[39]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[40]
AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 102199, 28
January
1997, 267 SCRA 47. |