|
HEIRS OF FLORENCIO
ADOLFO, Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 164934
|
|
- versus - |
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio
Morales, Tinga, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. |
|
VICTORIA P. CABRAL, GREGORIA ADOLFO
and GREGORIO LAZARO, Respondents. |
Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
For review are the Resolutions,[1]
dated
The present
controversy involves two parcels of land consisting of 29,759 square meters and
957 square meters, respectively, situated in Barangay Iba (now Pantok),
Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Petitioners
are the heirs of the late Florencio Adolfo, Sr. They alleged that the parcels were
included in the Operation Land Transfer program under Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 27.[5]
Thus, their father applied with the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform (now Department of Agrarian Reform) for the
purchase of these parcels. On
Petitioners
added that in 1999, they applied with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15, for the issuance of new owner’s duplicate copies of
TCT Nos. EP-003(M) and EP-004(M) after the same were lost. The trial court granted their petition and ordered
the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, to issue new owner’s duplicate
copies of the certificates of titles.[7]
On their part, respondent Victoria P. Cabral alleged that she is the
lawful and registered owner of the lands covered by petitioners’ emancipation
patents and certificates of titles as evidenced by Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 0-1670 [now OCT No. 0-220(M)] of the Registry of Deeds of
Meycauayan, Bulacan, issued on January 6, 1960.[8] She
also averred that petitioners’ emancipation patents should be cancelled since
(1) these covered non-agricultural lands outside the coverage of P.D. No. 27;
(2) these were issued without due notice and hearing; and (3) no Certificates
of Land Transfer (CLTs) were previously issued.
On August 26, 2003,[9] respondent Cabral filed
with the DARAB, Region III, Branch II, Malolos City, Bulacan, a petition for
the cancellation of petitioners’ emancipation patents and torrens titles and the
revival of OCT No. 0-1670 [now OCT No. 0-220(M)]. Petitioners moved to dismiss the petition due
to (1) lack of jurisdiction, (2) lack of legal personality to sue, and (3) prescription.
On
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. On
WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, must be as it [is] hereby DENIED DUE COURSE, and consequently DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Meanwhile, the PARAD rendered a Decision[12]
on June 18, 2004, canceling petitioners’ emancipation patents and ordering the
Registry of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, to revive respondent Cabral’s OCT No.
0-1670 [now OCT No. 0-220(M)]. That
decision is on appeal with the DARAB.
In the
instant petition, petitioners raise the following issues:
I.
[WHETHER] THE COURT [A QUO]
COMMITTED A SERIOUS MISTAKE OR ERROR IN [RULING] THAT IN CASE OF DENIAL OF A MOTION
TO DISMISS BASED ON “LACK OF JURISDICTION”, THE PROPER REMEDY IS RULE 43 AND
NOT RULE 65 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE[.]
II.
[WHETHER]
THE COURT A QUO FAILED TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE [ON] THE “LACK OF
JURISDICTION” OF [THE] DARAB, TO HEAR, TRY AND DECIDE CASES INVOLVING
CANCELLATION OF
Simply stated, the issues are: (1)
Is Rule 65 the proper remedy in this case where the motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction is denied? and (2) Does the DARAB have
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases for the cancellation of emancipation
patents and certificates of titles?
Petitioners contend that where a party assails the jurisdiction of the
lower tribunal, the proper remedy is Rule 65 and not Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court. They also argue that an action
for cancellation of a certificate of title falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.[14] They also contend that the jurisdiction of the
DARAB is limited to agrarian disputes and agrarian reform under Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657.[15] They cite the case of Llonillo v. Cruz,[16] where the Court
of Appeals ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to cancel a certificate of
title duly issued in accordance with P.D. No. 1529.[17]
Respondent Cabral counters that an order denying a
motion to dismiss cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The proper remedy is to file an answer to the
petition, proceed to trial, and await judgment before making an appeal to the
DARAB which has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review the orders of
the adjudicators. She also contends that
the cancellation of emancipation patents is an agrarian matter over which the
DARAB has jurisdiction.
After a thorough consideration of the contentions of
the parties, we hold that the petition lacks merit.
An order denying a motion to
dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates nor finally disposes
of a case, as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is
finally decided on the merits.[18]
Thus, the general rule is that the
denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil action
for certiorari which is not
intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling.[19]
It is a remedy designed to correct
errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[20]
Neither can a denial of a motion to
dismiss be the subject of an appeal unless and until a final judgment or order
is rendered. In order to justify the
grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari,
the denial of the motion to dismiss must have been tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[21]
The petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners with the Court
of Appeals was not the proper remedy to assail the PARAD’s denial of their
motion to dismiss. The denial was merely
an interlocutory order. Even assuming
that certiorari was the proper
remedy, the PARAD did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying
petitioners’ motion. It is a well
settled rule that after the trial court denies a motion to dismiss the
complaint, the defendant should file an answer, proceed to trial and await judgment
before interposing an appeal.[22]
On the issue of jurisdiction, basic is the rule that it
is conferred
by law and determined by the material averments in the complaint as well as the
character of the relief sought.[23] Defenses resorted to in the answer or motion
to dismiss are disregarded, otherwise the question of jurisdiction would depend
entirely upon the whim of the defendant.[24]
Specific and general provisions of Rep. Act No. 6657
and its implementing rules and procedure address the issue of jurisdiction. Section 50 of Rep. Act No. 6657 confers on the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate agrarian reform matters. In the process of reorganizing the DAR,
Executive Order No. 129-A[25] created the DARAB to assume the powers
and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform matters.[26]
Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB 2003 Rules of
Procedure[27]
enumerates the cases falling within its primary and exclusive original jurisdiction,
as follows:
SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original Jurisdiction. The Adjudicator shall have primary and
exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate the following
cases:
1.1 The rights and obligations of persons,
whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation, and use
of all agricultural lands covered by Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), and other related
agrarian laws;
x x x x
1.6 Those
involving the correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent
issuances of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation
Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;
x
x x x
1.12 Those cases
previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct
Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of PD No. 946 except those cases
falling under the proper courts or other quasi-judicial bodies;
1.13 Such other
agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary
of the DAR. (Emphasis supplied.)
Subparagraph
1.6 provides that the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the
correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent issuances of Certificates
of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are
registered with the Land Registration Authority (the Registry of Deeds).[28] Incidentally, under DAR Memorandum Order No.
02,[29] one of the grounds
for the cancellation of registered EPs is that the land is exempt or excluded
from P.D. No. 27.[30]
In respondent Cabral’s petition before the DARAB, she sought the
cancellation of petitioners’ emancipation patents and torrens titles. She impugned the legality of the emancipation
patents since (1) these covered non-agricultural lands outside the coverage of
P.D. No. 27, (2) these were issued without due notice and hearing, and (3) no
CLTs were previously issued. Based on these material averments, it is crystal-clear that the action
was one for cancellation of emancipation patents on the ground of exemption or
exclusion from the coverage of P.D. No. 27. Indisputably, jurisdiction is properly vested with the DARAB. Therefore, we find that there is neither persuasive justification nor compelling
reason to reverse the decision reached by the Court of Appeals.
Wherefore, the instant petition is Denied for lack of merit. The Resolutions dated
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with then Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong concurring.
[2] Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[3]
[4] Records, pp. 323-329.
[5] Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from
the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They
Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor, approved on
[6] Records, pp. 127-132.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[12] Records, pp. 482-489.
[13] Rollo, p. 15.
[14] The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
(B.P. Blg. 129, as amended), approved on
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. – Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
x x x x
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the
Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
x x x x
[15] Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,
approved on
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. – The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
x x x x
[16] CA-G.R. SP No. 39821; records, pp. 159-166.
[17] Amending and Codifying the Laws Relative to
Registration of Property and for Other Purposes, otherwise known as the
Property Registration Decree, approved on
[18] Lu Ym v. Nabua, G.R. No. 161309, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 298, 305-306; See Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation v. Perlas-Bernabe, G.R. No. 148174, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 392, 396.
[19] Indiana
Aerospace University v. Commission on Higher Education, G.R. No. 139371,
April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 367, 384.
[20] Lu Ym v. Nabua, supra at 306.
[21]
[22] Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation v. Perlas-Bernabe, supra at 398.
[23] Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 154112, September 23, 2004, 439 SCRA 15, 22; See Lacson Hermanas, Inc. v. Heirs of Cenon Ignacio, G.R. No. 165973, June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 290, 295; Esteban v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 146646-49, March 11, 2005, 453 SCRA 236, 243; Umpoc v. Mercado, G.R. No. 158166, January 21, 2005, 449 SCRA 220, 232.
[24] Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca, supra at 22-23.
[25] Modifying Executive Order No. 129 Reorganizing and Strengthening the Department of Agrarian Reform and For Other Purposes, approved on July 26, 1987.
Section 13. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. – There is hereby created an
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board under the Office of the Secretary.…The Board
shall assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of
agrarian reform cases under Executive Order No. 229 and this Executive Order. These powers and functions may be delegated to
the regional offices of the Department in accordance with rules and regulations
to be promulgated by the Board.
[26] David
v. Rivera, G.R. Nos. 139913 & 140159, January 16, 2004, 420 SCRA 90,
98; See Social Security System v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No.
139254, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 659, 665; Padunan v.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, G.R.
No. 132163, January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 196, 204-205.
[27] Approved on
[28] See Aninao v. Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc.,
G.R. No. 160420,
[29] Also known as “Rules Governing the
Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered Emancipation Patents
(EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due to Unlawful Acts
and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs)
and for Other Causes” (1994), cited in Padunan v.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, supra at 205.
[30] Padunan v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, supra at 205-206.