JOAQUIN GA,
JR., JUDITH GA G.R. No.
182185
GADNANAN and
JESUSA GA
ESMAÑA,
Petitioners, Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Chico-Nazario,
Velasco, Jr.,
Nachura, and
Peralta, JJ.
SPOUSES ANTONIO TUBUNGAN
AND ROSALINDA TUBUNGAN Promulgated:
and NORBERTO GA,
Respondents. September 18, 2009
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Assailed in this petition for review
on certiorari is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated February 22, 2007 in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 00779, which
set aside the Order dated
The facts are undisputed.
Sometime in 1985, petitioner
On November 20, 2000, the COSLAP
rendered judgment declaring petitioner Joaquin and his heirs as the lawful
owners of the disputed lot.[2]
Respondent Norberto moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by COSLAP
in an Order dated June 14, 2001.
On June 14, 2002, respondent
Norberto, together with respondents Antonio and Rosalinda Tubungan, filed a
Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Preliminary Injunction, Quieting of Title
and Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order[3]
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65,
On
Consequently, respondents filed a Petition
for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the trial court’s order of
dismissal. On February 22, 2007, the
appellate court rendered the herein assailed Decision, the dispositive part of
which reads:
WHEREFORE,
the instant petition is GRANTED. The Order dated
SO ORDERED.[9]
The
appellate court noted that respondents erred in filing a petition for
certiorari before the trial court when they assailed the validity of the COSLAP. According to the appellate court, respondents
should have directly filed the petition with the Court of Appeals, and not the
trial court, in accordance with the Court’s decision in Sy v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems.[10] Nevertheless, the appellate court held that
suspension of the rules on appeal was warranted, considering that the
determination of respondents’ substantive rights over the disputed lot far
outweighs any procedural lapse that may have been committed.[11]
Moreover,
the appellate court held that COSLAP had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the complaint filed by petitioners.
Citing Davao New Town Development
Corporation v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,[12] it
held that COSLAP’s jurisdiction over land disputes is limited only to those
involving public lands or those covered by a specific license or grant from the
government. In this case, the records do
not show that the parcel of land subject of petitioners’ complaint is public
land. Thus, the determination of which
party was entitled to ownership and possession of said lot belonged to the
regular courts and not the COSLAP.[13]
Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution[14]
dated February 21, 2008.
Hence, this petition raising the sole
issue of whether the appellate court erred in relaxing the rules on appeal considering
its findings that respondents failed to avail of the proper remedy before the
appropriate court from the adverse decision of the COSLAP. Due to respondents’ procedural lapse,
petitioners contend that the COSLAP decision had become final and executory and
that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed respondents’ petition outright.
We find no reversible error in the
assailed decision.
In Sy v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,[15]
the Court held that all appeals from orders, resolutions or decisions of the
COSLAP should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
If a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the prescribed remedy due to
grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, the same should also be
brought to the Court of Appeals, as the said court cannot be bypassed without
running afoul of the doctrine of judicial hierarchy. In this case, respondents did not timely
appeal the COSLAP decision to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43, and instead filed a petition for certiorari under Rule
65, although with the Regional Trial Court, a body that is co-equal with the
COSLAP. Only later did they file a
petition for certiorari with the appellate court assailing the trial court’s
dismissal of their petition.
We find that the Court of Appeals
correctly held that respondents’ remedy from the decision of the COSLAP was to
file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as they assailed the lack of
jurisdiction of said body over the dispute. However, the petition should have been filed
before the Court of Appeals and not the trial court. In other words, while respondents availed of
the correct remedy, they sought the same from the wrong court. This mistake would have rendered the assailed
COSLAP decision final and executory, were it not for its patent nullity and invalidity.
In National Housing Authority v. Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems,[16] we held
that a judgment rendered by a body or tribunal that has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case is no judgment at all. Thus, it cannot be the source of any right or
the creator of any obligation. All acts
pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. The void judgment can never become final and
any writ of execution based on it is likewise void.
We also declared in the same case
that such a nullity is correctible only through a petition for certiorari. A petition for certiorari that seeks the
nullification of a void judgment cannot be dismissed for timeliness as the same
does not prescribe. A judgment issued by
a quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void. It can never become final
and executory, hence, an appeal is out of the question.[17]
In the instant case, COSLAP had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of petitioners’ complaint. The disputed lot was not shown to be public
land and the nature of the dispute is not among those which fall under the jurisdiction
of the COSLAP. Executive Order No. 561
enumerates the instances when COSLAP may exercise adjudicatory functions, as
follows:
SECTION 3. Powers and Functions.- The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:
x x x x
2. Refer and follow-up for immediate action by the agency having appropriate jurisdiction any land problem or dispute referred to the Commission: Provided, That the Commission may, in the following cases, assume jurisdiction and resolve land problems or disputes which are critical and explosive in nature considering, for instance, the large number of the parties involved, the presence or emergence of social tension or unrest, or other similar critical situations requiring immediate action:
(a) Between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement holders or timber concessionaires;
(b) Between occupants/squatters and government reservation grantees;
(c) Between occupants/squatters and public land claimants or applicants;
(d) Petitions for classification, release and/or subdivision of lands of the public domain; and
(e) Other similar land problems of grave urgency and magnitude.
x x x x.
Administrative
agencies like COSLAP are tribunals of limited jurisdiction that can only wield powers
which are specifically granted to it by its enabling statute. Under Section 3 of E.O. No. 561, COSLAP has
two options in acting on a land dispute or problem lodged before it, to wit:
(a) refer the matter to the agency having appropriate jurisdiction for
settlement/resolution; or (b) assume jurisdiction if the matter is one of those
enumerated in paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of the law, if such case is critical and
explosive in nature, taking into account the large number of parties involved,
the presence or emergence of social unrest, or other similar critical situations
requiring immediate action. In resolving
whether to assume jurisdiction over a case or to refer the same to the
particular agency concerned, the COSLAP has to consider the nature or
classification of the land involved, the parties to the case, the nature of the
questions raised, and the need for immediate and urgent action thereon to
prevent injuries to persons and damage or destruction to property. The law does not vest jurisdiction on the
COSLAP over any land dispute or problem.[18]
Thus,
the COSLAP may resolve land disputes that involve only public lands or lands of
the public domain or those covered with a specific license from the government
such as a pasture lease agreement, a timber concession, or a reservation grant.[19] However, the lot subject of the instant
petition was not shown to fall under any of these categories of land and
appears to be a private unregistered land. Neither is the dispute between petitioners and
respondents critical and explosive in nature nor does it involve a large number
of parties that could result to social tension and unrest. It can also hardly be characterized as
involving a critical situation that requires immediate action.
As
such, the COSLAP should have dismissed petitioners’ complaint for lack of
jurisdiction or referred the same to the regular courts, which has jurisdiction
over controversies relating to ownership and possession of private lands. The records show that respondents have
consistently assailed the jurisdiction of the COSLAP,[20] and
yet, the latter ignored the matter and simply proceeded to resolve petitioners’
complaint. Since the COSLAP had no
jurisdiction over the land dispute between petitioners and respondents, the
judgment it rendered on the case is null and void.
As
stated earlier, a void judgment can never be final and executory and may be
assailed at any time. It is thus clear
that the Court of Appeals did not err in taking cognizance of respondents’
petition for certiorari as the judgment of the COSLAP could not have attained
finality. In other words, the failure of
respondents to properly appeal from the COSLAP decision before the appropriate
court was not fatal to the petition for certiorari that they eventually filed with
the Court of Appeals. The latter remedy
remained available despite the lapse of the period to appeal from the void
COSLAP decision.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
February 22, 2007 in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 00779 setting aside the November 20,
2000 Order of the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems in COSLAP Case No.
IL-00-06-085 and the Writ of Execution dated May 19, 2004 for having been
issued without jurisdiction, and the Resolution dated February 21, 2008 denying
the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were 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] Rollo, pp. 32-47; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] 417 Phil. 378 (2001).
[11] Rollo, pp. 37-40.
[12] G.R. No. 141523, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 491.
[13] Rollo, pp. 44-46.
[14]
[15] Supra note 10 at 393.
[16] G.R. No. 142601, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 38, 46-47.
[17]
[18] Barranco v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 168990, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 222, 235.
[19] Sy v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, supra note 10 at 510.
[20] See Respondents’ Position Paper and Motion for Reconsideration; rollo, pp. 58 and 64.