Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
HEIRS OF CANDIDO Petitioners, - versus - MONICA Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 181548
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO,
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 20,
2012 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Nature of the Petition
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court filed by the Heirs of Candido Del Rosario and the Heirs
of Gil Del Rosario (petitioners), assailing the Decision[1] dated January 21, 2008 issued by the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85483.
The Antecedent Facts
This
involves a parcel of land with an area of 9,536 square meters situated in Barangay Caingin, Bocaue, Bulacan. The subject land was formerly owned by Pedro
G. Lazaro and tenanted by the spouses Jose Del Rosario and Florentina De Guzman
(Spouses Del Rosario).
Spouses
Del Rosario had three children: Monica Del Rosario (Monica), Candido Del
Rosario (Candido) and Gil Del Rosario (Gil). The petitioners claimed that when Spouses Del
Rosario died, only they continued to tenant and actually till the subject land.
Sometime
in February 1991, Monica and Gil agreed that the latter would facilitate the application
for an Emancipation Patent over the subject land in the name of the former. In exchange, Monica agreed to cede to Gil
one-third of the said land after the Emancipation Patent had been issued to her.
On
May 29, 1998, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued to Monica
Emancipation Patent No. 00733146 over the land. Subsequently, on October 22, 1998, the
Registry of Deeds for the
The
petitioners claimed that Monica, despite repeated demands, refused to cede to
Gil the one-third portion of the subject land pursuant to their agreement. Thus, on April 17, 2000, the petitioners filed
with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in
Malolos, Bulacan a complaint against Monica for amendment of TCT No. EP-257-M
and partition of the subject land.
For
her part, Monica claimed that their father entrusted to her the cultivation of
the subject land after the latter became ill and incapacitated sometime in
1950. Gil and Candido, in turn, were
entrusted with the cultivation of other parcels of land tenanted by Spouses Del
Rosario. Further, after Presidential
Decree No. 27 (P.D. No. 27) took effect, Monica claimed that she was the one
listed in the files of the DAR as the tenant-beneficiary of the subject land
and that she was the one who was paying the amortizations over the same.
The PARADs Decision
On
May 22, 2002, PARAD Provincial Adjudicator Toribio E. Ilao, Jr. (PA Ilao)
rendered a Decision[2] the
decretal portion of which, in part, reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered in the following manner:
1). Ordering the Register of Deeds of Bulacan
to cancel TCT/EP No. 257(M)/00733146 containing an area of 9,536 square meters,
more or less, issued to Monica del Rosario and partitioned (sic) the covered
lot among the heirs of the late spouses Jose del Rosario and Florentina de
Guzman;
2). Ordering the respondent to cede the ONE
THIRD (1/3) portion of the 9,536 square meters, equivalent to 3,178 square
meters of the subject agricultural land in favor of the heirs of the late Gil
Del Rosario in compliance with their agreement;
3). Ordering the remaining portion of 6,358
square meters to be subdivided into four (4) equal shares: to the surviving
heirs of the late spouses Jose del Rosario and Florentina de Guzman as follows,
to wit:
a.
Respondent
Monica del Rosario 1,589 square meters;
b.
Heirs
of Candido del Rosario represented by his children 1,589 square meters;
c.
Heirs
of Gil del Rosario represented by his children 1,589 square meters; and
d.
Consolacion
del Rosario 1,589 square meters.
4). Directing the PARO of Bulacan thru the
Operations Division and all DAR personnel concerned to generate and issue
EPs/titles in the name of the parties concerned with the corresponding area of
tillage as indicated above, in accordance with the DAR existing rules and
regulations, and cause the registration of the new EPs/titles with the Registry
of Deeds of Bulacan.[3]
PA
Ilao found that Monica was not the bona
fide tenant-farmer of the subject land and that she had continuously failed
to cultivate or develop the same.
Unperturbed,
Monica appealed from the foregoing disposition of PA Ilao to the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
The DARABs Decision
On
January 8, 2004, the DARAB rendered a Decision,[4]
which reversed and set aside the Decision dated May 22, 2002 of PA Ilao. The DARAB held that:
[Monica] and her siblings are not co-heirs to
the landholding in question. The said
land was not a part of the inheritance of their late parents. This conclusion is based on the simple reason
that tenants are not the owners of the landholding they cultivate. Under the law, inheritance includes all the
property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his
death x x x. In the case of a tenant,
what he may transfer to his successor upon his death is merely the right to
cultivate the landholding. Such transfer
of right to cultivate, however, cannot be applied in the instant case. The right to cultivate the subject landholding
was being exercised by [Monicas] father until he became incapacitated (due to
high blood pressure) to till the land, at which time, he passed the
responsibility of cultivation to his eldest child, [Monica]. x x x The records show that the parents of
[Monica] gave her the right to till the property of Pedro Lazaro. This is corroborated by the fact that Pedro
Lazaro has recognized [Monica] as the only registered tenant of the subject
property as evidenced by their Kasunduan
Sa Pamumuwisan dated 25 September 1973 x x x.[5]
Further,
the DARAB ruled that the agreement between Monica and Gil that one-third of the
subject land would be ceded to the latter after the same had been registered
under Monicas name is contrary to law as P.D. No. 27 prohibits the transfer of
parcels of land given to qualified farmer-beneficiaries other than by
hereditary succession or to the government.
The
petitioners sought a reconsideration of the Decision dated January 8, 2004, but
it was denied by the DARAB in its Resolution[6]
dated July 8, 2004.
Subsequently,
the petitioners filed a petition for review[7]
with the CA alleging that the DARAB erred in ruling that they and Monica are
not co-owners of the subject land.
The CAs Decision
On
January 21, 2008, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision denying the
petition for review filed by the petitioners.
The CA held that the PARAD and the DARAB had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the petitioners complaint for amendment of the Emancipation
Patent and partition of the subject land, there being no agrarian dispute or
tenancy relations between the parties. Thus:
While it is true that the DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), which include those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority, however, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties, which does not obtain in the petition at bench.
The jurisdiction of a tribunal or quasi-judicial body over the subject matter is determined by the averments of the complaint/petition and the law extant at the time of the commencement of the suit/complaint/petition. All proceedings before a tribunal or quasi-judicial agency bereft of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action are null and void.[8] (Citations omitted)
Nevertheless,
the CA also held that the petitioners are bound by the decision of the DARAB
declaring Monica as the bona fide holder
of TCT No. EP-257-M since they participated in the proceedings before the PARAD
and the DARAB without raising any objection thereto.
Issues
In the instant petition, the petitioners submit the following
issues for this Courts resolution:
[I]
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED AND GRAVELY
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON GROUND OF LACK
OF JURISDICTION ON [THE] PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD (DARAB).
[II]
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED AND GRAVELY
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONERS ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION
OF THE DARAB DECLARING MONICA DEL ROSARIO AS BONA FIDE TCT/EP HOLDER, THAT THEY
ARE NOT CO-HEIRS TO THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING, THAT THE AGREEMENT THAT ONE THIRD
(1/3) OF THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING SHALL BE GIVEN TO GIL DEL ROSARIO IS NULL AND
VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY [TO] AGRARIAN LAWS AND ORDERING THEM NOT TO INTERFERE
WITH MONICA DEL ROSARIOS CULTIVATION OF SUBJECT LANDHOLDING.[9]
Simply put, the issues for this Courts resolution are the
following: first, whether the PARAD
and the DARAB have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petitioners
complaint for amendment
and partition; and second, if the
PARAD and the DARAB have no jurisdiction over the complaint
for amendment and partition, whether the petitioners are bound by their
respective dispositions.
The Courts Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
First Issue: Jurisdiction
of the PARAD and the DARAB
Contrary to the CAs
disposition, the petitioners insist that the PARAD and the DARAB have the
jurisdiction to take cognizance of their complaint for amendment of the Emancipation
Patent and partition of the subject land notwithstanding the absence of tenancy
relationship between them and Monica. They
assert that the complaint below essentially involves a determination of the
actual tenant and eventual rightful beneficiary of the subject land.
On the other hand, Monica asserts
that the CA did not err in declaring that the PARAD and the DARAB have no
jurisdiction over the said complaint for amendment and partition since there
was simply no tenancy relationship alleged therein.
The
jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is limited only to all agrarian disputes and matters or incidents involving the implementation
of the CARP.
In the process
of reorganizing the DAR, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 129-A created the DARAB to
assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian
reform matters.[10]
At the time the complaint for
amendment and partition was filed by the petitioners, the proceedings before
the PARAD and the DARAB were governed by the DARAB New Rules of Procedures,
which were adopted and promulgated on May 30, 1994, and came into effect on
June 21, 1994 after publication (1994 DARAB Rules). The 1994 DARAB Rules identified the cases
over which the DARAB shall have jurisdiction, to wit:
RULE II
JURISDICTION OF THE ADJUDICATION BOARD
SECTION 1.
Primary and Exclusive Original and
Appellate Jurisdiction. The Board shall have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under
Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, and 129-A, Republic Act No.
3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include
but not be limited to cases involving the following:
a) The
rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the
management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP
and other agrarian laws;
b) The
valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and payment of just
compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation,
amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the functions of the
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP);
c) The
annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their
amendments involving lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR
or LBP;
d) Those
case arising from, or connected with membership or representation in compact
farms, farmers cooperatives and other registered farmers associations or
organizations, related to lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
e) Those
involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and
redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other
agrarian laws;
f) Those
involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land
Registration Authority;
g) Those
cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential No. 946,
except sub-paragraph (Q) thereof and Presidential Decree No. 815.
It is understood that the aforementioned
cases, complaints or petitions were filed with the DARAB after August 29, 1987.
Matters involving strictly the administrative
implementation of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARP) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by
pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the
Secretary of the DAR.
h) And
such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the
Secretary of the DAR.
SECTION 2. Jurisdiction of the Regional and Provincial Adjudicator. The
RARAD and the PARAD shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the Board
to hear, determine and adjudicate all agrarian cases and disputes, and
incidents in connection therewith, arising within their assigned territorial
jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied.)
Specifically, the PARAD
and the DARAB have primary and exclusive jurisdiction,
both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, E.O.
Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as amended by R.A. No. 6389, P.D. No.
27 and other agrarian laws and their Implementing Rules and Regulations.[11]
(d) Agrarian
dispute refers to 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 R.A. 6657 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.
The
petitioners complaint for amendment and partition is beyond the jurisdiction
of the PARAD and the DARAB.
Where
a question of jurisdiction between the DARAB and the RTC is at the core of a
dispute, basic jurisprudential tenets come into play. It is the rule that the jurisdiction of a
tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the
nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the
material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for
irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all
such reliefs.[12]
Accordingly,
we turn to the petitioners complaint for amendment and partition, wherein they
alleged that:
2. The subject agricultural land identified
as Lot No. C, Psd-03-091057 (AR) consisting of an area of 9,536 square meters
more or less situated at Brgy.
Caingin, Bocaue, Bulacan, was formerly owned by Pedro Lazaro and was tenanted
by SPOUSES JOSE DEL ROSARIO AND FLORENTINA DE GUZMAN, the late grandparents of
herein petitioners, as the registered tenant-farmers over the subject
agricultural land devoted to planting of palay;
3. When the late grandparents of herein
petitioners died, the children of the former, specifically, brothers CANDIDO
DEL ROSARIO and GIL DEL ROSARIO, predecessors-in-interest of herein petitioners,
continued in the tillage of the subject agricultural land;
x x x x
6. The EP was issued by the DAR to the
respondent with the help of her brother Gil Del Rosario who, aside from
shouldering all expenses relative thereto, lodged the petition in Monica del
Rosarios name for the issuance of EP over the subject agricultural land being
tilled by them, including the co-tenant farmers that are adjacent and adjoining
in that area;
7. The
respondent, after receiving the EP over the subject agricultural land, refused
to give the shares of her brothers (predecessors-in-interest of herein
petitioners) and subdivide equally the subject land among them, they being
surviving heirs of their late parents who first tilled the subject agricultural
land despite persistent demand;
x x x x
10. An
agreement was likewise entered into by the respondent and the other tenant
farmers of the adjoining lots, with the late Gil del Rosario dated February
1991, committing themselves that after the issuance of their EPs by the DAR,
the ONE THIRD (1/3) portion of their tillage will be segregated and given to
her brother Gil del Rosario in consideration of the assistance of the latter,
x x x;
x x x x
12. The petitioners are seeking the
assistance of this Honorable Board to amend
and partition the EP issued to the respondent and the subject agricultural land
be divided equally among the respondent and the predecessors-in-interest of
herein petitioners;[13]
(Emphasis supplied)
Based on these allegations, the
petitioners sought the following reliefs:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it [is] most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Board that after due hearing, judgment be
rendered in the above-entitled petition as follows:
(a)
Ordering respondent to partition or subdivide
equally among the respondent and herein petitioners, in representation of their
respective predecessors-in-interest, the subject agricultural land;
(b)
Ordering
respondent to stop collecting lease rentals from the herein petitioners
relative to their establishments and those erected by their
predecessors-in-interest;
(c)
Ordering
respondent to stop cutting [of] trees and other improvements thereon established
by the herein petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest;
(d)
Ordering
respondent to allow the petitioners to plant palay or vegetable plants (sic) over the agricultural land occupied
by them;
(e)
Ordering
respondent to pay attorneys fees of [P]50,000.00 to petitioners and
costs of litigation.[14]
(Emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the foregoing will
readily show that the complaint essentially sought the following: first, the enforcement of the agreement
entered into by and between Gil and Monica wherein the latter promised to cede
to the former one-third portion of the subject land upon the issuance of the
emancipation patent over the same; and second,
the recovery of petitioners purported hereditary share over the subject land,
in representation of Gil and Candido.
Indubitably, the said complaint for
amendment and partition does not involve any agrarian dispute, nor does it
involve any incident arising from the implementation of agrarian laws. The petitioners and Monica have no tenurial,
leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that will bring this
controversy within the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB. Since the PARAD and the DARAB have no
jurisdiction over the present controversy, they should not have taken
cognizance of the petitioners complaint for amendment of the Emancipation
Patent and partition.
Further, the instant case does not involve
an incident arising from the
implementation of agrarian laws as would place it within the jurisdiction of
the PARAD and the DARAB. Admittedly,
the petitioners alleged that it was Gil and Candido who continued the tillage
of the subject land after the death of Spouses Del Rosario. While the foregoing allegation seems to raise
a challenge to Monicas qualification as a farmer-beneficiary of the subject
land, we nevertheless find the same insufficient to clothe the PARAD and the DARAB
with jurisdiction over the complaint.
While ostensibly assailing Monicas
qualification as a farmer-beneficiary, the petitioners did not seek the
nullification of the emancipation patent issued to Monica and the issuance of a
new one in their names. Instead, the
petitioners merely sought that the subject land be equally partitioned among
the surviving heirs of Spouses Del Rosario, including Monica. Verily, by merely asking for the recovery of
their alleged hereditary share in the subject land, the petitioners implicitly
recognized the validity of the issuance of the emancipation patent over the
subject land in favor of Monica.
Second Issue: Effect of the DARABs Decision
Despite its finding that the PARAD
and the DARAB lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petitioners
complaint for amendment and partition, the CA nevertheless ruled that the petitioners
were bound by the DARABs Decision dated January 8, 2004. Thus:
However, considering that petitioners invoked
the jurisdiction of the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator by opposing Monicas
motion to dismiss the case on the ground that said Adjudicator has no
jurisdiction over the case, they are, therefore, bound by the Decision of the
DARAB declaring Monica as the bona fide
TCT/EP holder; that they are not co-heirs to the subject landholding; and that
the agreement that one third (1/3) of the subject landholding shall be given to
Gil del Rosario is null and void for being contrary to agrarian laws; and
ordering them not to interfere with Monicas cultivation of her landholding. Settled is the rule that participation by
certain parties in the administrative proceedings without raising any objection
thereto, bars them from any jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision
is rendered against them.[15]
(Citation omitted)
We
do not agree with the foregoing ratiocination of the CA. The Decision dated January
8, 2004 of the DARAB is null and void and, thus, produced no effect whatsoever,
the DARAB having no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petitioners complaint
for amendment and partition.
On
this point, our disquisition in Spouses
Atuel v. Spouses Valdez[16] is instructive, thus:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be
acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. 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. The failure of the parties to challenge
the jurisdiction of the DARAB does not prevent this Court from addressing the
issue, as the DARABs lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the
complaint. Issues of jurisdiction
are not subject to the whims of the parties.
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. 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.[17]
(Citations omitted and emphases supplied)
WHEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the Decision dated January 21,
2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85483 is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicators Decision
dated May 22, 2002, and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Boards Decision dated
January 8, 2004 and Resolution dated July 8, 2004, are declared NULL and
VOID for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
MARIA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I
C A T I O N
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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as Amended)
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Heirs of Florencio Adolfo v. Cabral,
G.R. No. 164934, August 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 111, 118-119.
[11] 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure, Rule
II, Section 1.
[12] Del
Monte Philippines, Inc. Employees Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative
(DEARBC) v. Sangunay, G.R.
No. 180013, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA 87, 96. (Citation omitted)
[13] Rollo, pp. 67-69.
[14]
[15]
[16] 451
Phil. 631 (2003).
[17]