Republic of the
Supreme Court
FELICITAS M. MACHADO and
MARCELINO P. MACHADO,
Petitioners, -
versus
- RICARDO L. GATDULA,
COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, and IRINEO S. PAZ, Sheriff IV,
Office of the Provincial Sheriff, San Pedro, Laguna, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 156287
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES,* BRION, ABAD, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: February 16, 2010 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
Before this Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] filed by petitioners
Felicitas M. Machado and Marcelino P. Machado (the Machados), assailing the decision[2] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated
THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
The dispute involves two adjoining parcels of land
located in Barangay San Vicente, San Pedro, Laguna, one belonging to the
Machados, and the other belonging to respondent Ricardo L. Gatdula (Gatdula).
On
Acting on Gatdula’s letter, the COSLAP conducted a mediation
conference on
As scheduled, a private surveyor, Junior Geodetic
Engineer Abet F. Arellano (Engr. Arellano),
conducted a verification survey of the properties in the presence of both
parties. Engr. Arellano submitted a
report to the COSLAP finding that the structure built by the Machados
encroached upon an alley found within the Gatdula property. Engr. Arellano’s findings corroborated the
separate report of Engineer Noel V. Soqueco of the CENRO, Los Baños, Laguna that
had also been submitted to the COSLAP.
The Machados contested these reports in their position
paper dated
The COSLAP Ruling
On
The COSLAP declared the
Machados estopped from questioning its jurisdiction to decide the case, since they
actively participated in the mediation conferences and the verification surveys
without raising any jurisdictional objection. It ruled that its jurisdiction does not depend
on the convenience of the Machados.
The Machados filed a
motion for reconsideration which the COSLAP denied in a resolution dated
On
While this appeal was pending,
the COSLAP, upon Gatdula’s motion, issued a writ of execution[8]
enforcing the terms of the
Since the Machados persistently refused to reopen the
right of way they closed, the provincial sheriff recommended to COSLAP the
issuance of a writ of demolition. The COSLAP issued the writ of demolition[10] on
The CA Ruling
On
The CA found the Machados’
claim unfounded and, accordingly, dismissed their petition in its decision of
orders and resolutions. Under
Section 3 (2)[13]
of Executive Order No. 561 (EO 561),
the resolutions, orders, and decisions of the COSLAP become final and executory
30 days after promulgation, and are appealable by certiorari only to the Supreme Court. In Sy v. Commission on the Settlement of
Land Problems,[14] it was held
that under the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, the orders, resolutions and
decisions of the COSLAP, as a quasi-judicial agency, are directly appealable to
the CA under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and not to the
Supreme Court. Thus, the CA ruled that the
Machados’ appeal to the OP was not the proper remedy and did not suspend the running
of the period for finality of the
On the issue of
jurisdiction, the CA found that the COSLAP was created to provide a more
effective mechanism for the expeditious settlement of land problems, in
general;
the present case, therefore, falls within its jurisdiction.[15]
Moreover, the Machados’ active participation
in the mediation conference and their consent to bring about the verification
survey bound them to the COSLAP’s decisions, orders and resolutions.
From this CA decision, the
Machados filed a motion for reconsideration,[16] which the CA subsequently
denied in its Resolution of
The Machados thus filed the present Rule 45 petition
with this Court, raising two vital issues:
1.
Whether the COSLAP has jurisdiction over Gatdula’s complaint
for right of way against the Machados; and
2.
Whether the COSLAP can validly issue the writs of execution
and demolition against the Machados.
THE COURT’S RULING
We find the petition meritorious.
|
The COSLAP does not have
jurisdiction over the present case |
|
In resolving the issue of
whether the COSLAP has jurisdiction over the present case, a review of the
history of the COSLAP and an account of the laws creating the COSLAP and its
predecessor, the Presidential Action Committee on Land Problems (PACLAP), is in order.
The COSLAP’s forerunner,
the PACLAP, was created on
On
1. To investigate, coordinate, and resolve
expeditiously land disputes, streamline administrative proceedings, and, in
general, to adopt bold and decisive measures
to solve problems involving public lands and lands of the public domain.[19]
[emphasis supplied]
Thereafter, Presidential
Decree No. 832 (PD 832)[20]
was issued on
Section 2. Functions and duties
of the PACLAP. – The PACLAP shall have the following functions and duties:
1. Direct and coordinate the activities, particularly the investigation
work, of the various government agencies and agencies involved in land problems
or disputes, and streamline administrative procedures to relieve small settlers and landholders and members of cultural
minorities of the expense and time-consuming delay attendant to the solution of
such problems or disputes;
2. Refer for immediate action any land problem or dispute brought to
the attention of the PACLAP, to any member agency having jurisdiction thereof:
Provided, That when the Executive Committee
decides to act on a case, its resolution, order or decision thereon shall have
the force and effect of a regular administrative resolution, order or decision,
and shall be binding upon the parties therein involved and upon the member
agency having jurisdiction thereof;
x x x x
4. Evolve and implement a system of procedure for the speedy
investigation and resolution of land disputes or problems at provincial level,
if possible. [emphasis supplied]
The PACLAP was abolished
by EO 561 effective on
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.
The Commission shall promulgate such rules and procedures as will ensure
expeditious resolution and action on the above cases. The resolution, order or
decision of the Commission on any of the foregoing cases shall have the force
and effect of a regular administrative resolution, order or decision and shall
be binding upon the parties therein and upon the agency having jurisdiction
over the same. Said resolution, order or decision shall become final and
executory within thirty (30) days from its promulgation and shall be appealable
by certiorari only to the Supreme Court. [emphasis supplied]
Under these terms, the
COSLAP has two different rules in acting on a land dispute or problem lodged
before it, e.g., COSLAP can assume jurisdiction only if the matter is
one of those enumerated in paragraph 2(a) to (e) of the law. Otherwise, it should refer the case to the
agency having appropriate jurisdiction for settlement or resolution.[21] In resolving whether to assume jurisdiction
over a case or to refer it to the particular agency concerned, the COSLAP
considers: (a) the nature or
classification of the land involved; (b) the parties to the case; (c) the
nature of the questions raised; and (d) the need for immediate and urgent action
thereon to prevent injury to persons and damage or destruction to property. The terms of the law clearly do not vest on the
COSLAP the general power to assume jurisdiction over any land dispute or problem.[22] Thus, under EO
561, the instances when the COSLAP may resolve land disputes are limited only
to those involving public lands or those covered by a specific license from the
government, such as pasture lease agreements, timber concessions, or
reservation grants.[23]
Undisputably, the
properties involved in the present dispute are private lands owned by private
parties, none of whom is a squatter, a patent lease agreement holder, a government
reservation grantee, a public land claimant or a member of any cultural
minority.[24]
Moreover, the dispute between the parties can hardly
be classified as critical or explosive in nature that would generate social
tension or unrest, or a critical situation that would require immediate and
urgent action. The issues raised in the present case primarily involve the
application of the Civil Code provisions on Property and the Easement of Right of
Way. As held in Longino v. General,[25]
“disputes requiring no special skill or technical expertise of an
administrative body that could be resolved by applying pertinent provisions of
the Civil Code are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts.”
The Machados cannot invoke
Section 3, paragraph 2(e) of EO 561, which provides that the COSLAP may assume
jurisdiction over complaints involving “other similar land problems of grave
urgency,” to justify the COSLAP’s intervention in this case. The statutory construction principle of ejusdem generic prescribes that where general words follow an enumeration of
persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general
words are not to be construed in their widest extent but are to be held as
applying only to persons or things of the same kind as those specifically
mentioned.[26]
A dispute between two parties concerning
the right of way over private lands cannot be characterized as similar to those
enumerated under Section 3, paragraph 2(a) to (d) of EO 561.
In Davao New Town Development Corporation v. Commission on the
Settlement of Land Problems[27]
– where we ruled that the COSLAP does
not have blanket authority to assume every matter referred to it – we made it
clear that its jurisdiction is confined only to disputes over lands in which
the government has a proprietary or regulatory interest.
The CA apparently misread
and misapplied the Court’s ruling in Bañaga
v. Court of Appeals.[28] Bañaga involved two contending parties
who filed free patent applications for a parcel of public land with the Bureau of Lands. Because of the Bureau of Lands’ failure to act
within a reasonable time on the applications and to conduct an investigation, the
COSLAP decided to assume jurisdiction over the case. Since the dispute involved
a public land on a free patent issue,
the COSLAP undeniably had jurisdiction over the Bañaga case.
|
Jurisdiction is conferred
by law and a judgment issued by a quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is
void |
|
By reason of the
Machados’ active participation in the mediation conferences and the
COSLAP verification surveys, the CA declared the Machados estopped from
questioning the body’s jurisdiction and bound by its decisions, orders and
resolutions. We disagree with this
ruling.
Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law and
not by the parties’ action or conduct.[29] Estoppel generally does not confer jurisdiction over a cause of action to a tribunal where
none, by law, exists. In Lozon v. NLRC,[30]
we declared that:
Lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit is yet another matter.
Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the action shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time,
during appeal or even after final judgment. Such is understandable, as this
kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone
the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside. In People v. Casiano, this Court, on the
issue of estoppel, held:
The operation of
the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends
upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was
tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not
barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same ‘must exist
as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by
estoppel’ However if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was
heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court
had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be
permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position – that the lower court
had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies. The rule that
jurisdiction in conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the
parties, has no bearing thereon. [emphasis supplied]
In this case, the COSLAP did not have jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the complaint filed by Gatdula, yet it proceeded to
assume jurisdiction over the case and even issued writs of execution and
demolition against the Machados. The lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by
the parties’ participation in the proceedings before the COSLAP.[31]
Under the circumstances, the Machados can rightfully question its jurisdiction
at anytime, even during appeal or after final judgment. A judgment issued by a
quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void.[32]
It cannot be the source of any right or create 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.[33]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petition for review on certiorari. The assailed Court of Appeals decision dated
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
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.
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Designated additional Member of the Second Division vice Associate
Justice Mariano C. del Castillo per raffle dated
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 15-29.
[2] Penned by Associate
Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, and concurred in by Associate Justice
Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. and Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a
member of this Court); id. at 42-53.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; id. at 92-103.
[12] Supra note 2.
[13] Section 3. Powers and Functions. The Commission
shall have the following powers and functions:
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 concessioners;
(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.
The
Commission shall promulgate such rules and procedures as will ensure
expeditious resolution and action on the above cases. The resolution, order or decision of the Commission on any of the
foregoing cases shall have the force and effect of a regular administrative
resolution, order or decision and shall be binding upon the parties therein
and upon the agency having jurisdiction over the same. Said resolution, order or decision shall become final and executory
within thirty (30) days from its promulgation and shall be appealable by certiorari only to the Supreme Court.
[emphasis supplied]
[14] 417 Phil. 378 (2000).
[15] Citing Bañaga v. Commission
on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 66386,
[18] The United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v.
Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, 406 Phil. 354, 366 (2001).
[19] Davao New Town Development Corporation v.
Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, 498 Phil. 530, 545 (2005).
[20] Reorganizing the Presidential Action Committee
on Land Problems.
[21] Ga v. Spouses Tubungan,
G.R. No. 182185,
[22] Longino v. Atty. General, 491 Phil. 600, 621 (2005).
[23] Barranco v. Commission on the
Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 168990, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 222, 235-236.
[24] ADMINISTRATIVE CODE,
Book IV, Title III, Chapter 11, Section 32 states:
Section 32. The Commission on the Settlement of
Land Problems shall also be responsible for the settlement of land problems
involving small landowners and members of cultural minorities.
[25] Supra note 22 at 619, citing Ty
v. Court of Appeals, 408 Phil. 792 (2002).
[26]
[27] Supra note 19 at 548.
[28] G.R. No. 66386,
[29] Spouses Vargas v. Spouses Caminas, G.R. Nos. 137839-40, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA
305, 317; Metromedia Times Corporation v.
Pastorin, G.R. No. 154295, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 320, 335; Dy v. National Labor Relations Commission,
229 Phil. 234, 242 (1986).
[30] 310 Phil. 1, 12-13 (1995), citing
La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 78 (1994).
[31] As earlier mentioned, the Machados, in fact, questioned the COSLAP’s jurisdiction as early as the position paper they filed questioning the COSLAP Report; rollo, p. 63.
[32] National Housing Authority v. Commission on the
Settlement of Land Problems,
G.R. No. 142601, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 38, 43.
[33] Supra note 21.