12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA, G.R.No.170251

Petitioner,
Present:

CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,

NACHURA,
versus
PERALTA,

ABAD,and

MENDOZA,JJ.

Promulgated:
EMELITA BERNARDO, EVELYN
June1,2011
BERNARDO as Guardian of Erlyn,
CrislynandCrisantoBernardo,*
Respondents.
xx

DECISION

PERALTA,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to
[1]
[2]
reverseandsetasidetheDecision andResolution oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCA
G.R.SPNo.73674.

Theantecedentsareasfollows:

Respondents heirs of Crisanto S. Bernardo, represented by Emelita Bernardo, filed a

complaint before the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against
Alfredo Herrera (Alfredo) for interference, disturbance, unlawful claim, harassment and
trespassingoveraportionofaparceloflandsituatedatBarangayDalig,Cardona,Rizal,with
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

1/10

12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

anareaof7,993squaremeters.ThecomplaintwasdocketedasCOSLAPCaseNo.99221.

Respondents claimed that said parcel of land was originally owned by their predecessorin
interest,CrisantoBernardo,andwaslateronacquiredbyCrisantoS.Bernardo.Theparcelof
land was later on covered by Tax Declaration No. CD0060828 under the name of the
respondents.

Petitioner, on the other hand, alleged that the portion of the subject property consisting of
about 700 square meters was bought by Diosdado Herrera, Alfredo's father, from a certain
Domingo Villaran. Upon the death of Diosdado Herrera, Alfredo inherited the 700square
meterlot.

[3]
The COSLAP, in a Resolution dated December 6, 1999, ruled that respondents have a
rightful claim over the subject property. Consequently, a motion for reconsideration and/or
[4]
reopening of the proceedings was filed by Alfredo. The COSLAP, in an Order dated
August 21, 2002, denied the motion and reiterated its Order dated December 6, 1999.
Aggrieved, petitioner Celia S. Vda. de Herrera, as the surviving spouse of Alfredo, filed a
[5]
petitionforcertiorariwiththeCA. TheCA,TwelfthDivision,initsDecisiondatedApril
28,2005,dismissedthepetitionandaffirmedtheresolutionoftheCOSLAP.TheCAruled
thattheCOSLAPhasexclusivejurisdictionoverthepresentcaseand,evenassumingthatthe
COSLAPhasnojurisdictionoverthelanddisputeofthepartiesherein,petitionerisalready
estoppedfromraisingtheissueofjurisdictionbecauseAlfredofailedtoraisetheissueoflack
ofjurisdictionbeforetheCOSLAPandheactivelyparticipatedintheproceedingsbeforethe
said body. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a
ResolutiondatedOctober17,2005.

Hence,petitionerelevatedthecasetothisCourtviaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari under
Rule45oftheRulesofCourt,withthefollowingissues:

I
WHETHER OR NOT COSLAP HAD JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE
QUESTIONOFOWNERSHIP.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

2/10

12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

II
WHETHERORNOTTHEISSUANCEOFATORRENSTITLEINTHENAME
OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND IN 2002 RENDERED THE INSTANT
CONTROVERSY ON THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT
[6]
PROPERTYMOOTANDACADEMIC.

Petitioner averred that the COSLAP has no adjudicatory powers to settle and decide the
questionofownershipoverthesubjectland.Further,thepresentcasecannotbeclassifiedas
explosive in nature as the parties never resorted to violence in resolving the controversy.
PetitionersubmitsthatitistheRegionalTrialCourtwhichhasjurisdictionovercontroversies
relativetoownershipofthesubjectproperty.
Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that the COSLAP has jurisdiction over the present
case.Further,respondentsarguedthatpetitionerisestoppedfromquestioningthejurisdiction
of the COSLAP by reason of laches due to Alfredo's active participation in the actual
proceedings before the COSLAP. Respondents said that Alfredo's filing of the Motion for
Reconsiderationand/orReopeningoftheproceedingsbeforetheCOSLAPisindicativeofhis
conformitywiththequestionedresolutionoftheCOSLAP.
The main issue for our resolution is whether the COSLAP has jurisdiction to decide the
questionofownershipbetweentheparties.

Thepetitionismeritorious.

TheCOSLAPwascreatedbyvirtueofExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No.561,issuedonSeptember
21,1979bythenPresidentFerdinandE.Marcos.Itisanadministrativebodyestablishedasa
means of providing a mechanism for the expeditious settlement of land problems among
smallsettlers,landownersandmembersoftheculturalminoritiestoavoidsocialunrest.

Section 3 of E.O. No. 561 specifically enumerates the instances when the COSLAP can
exerciseitsadjudicatoryfunctions:

Section3.PowersandFunctions.TheCommissionshallhavethefollowingpowers
andfunctions:

xxxx

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,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

3/10

12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

assumejurisdictionandresolvelandproblemsordisputeswhicharecritical
and explosive in nature considering, for instance, the large number of the
parties involved, the presence or emergence of social tension or unrest, or
othersimilarcriticalsituationsrequiringimmediateaction:

(a) Between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement

holdersortimberconcessionaires
(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
ofthepublicdomainand
(e) Other similar land problems of grave urgency and magnitude.
[7]

Administrativeagencies,liketheCOSLAP,aretribunalsoflimitedjurisdictionthatcanonly
[8]
wieldpowerswhicharespecificallygrantedtoitbyitsenablingstatute. UnderSection3of
E.O. No. 561, the 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
paragraph2(a)to(e)ofthelaw,ifsuchcaseiscriticalandexplosiveinnature,takinginto
accountthelargenumberofpartiesinvolved,thepresenceoremergenceofsocialunrest,or
other similar critical situations requiring immediate action. In resolving whether to assume
jurisdictionoveracaseortoreferthesametotheparticularagencyconcerned,theCOSLAP
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
[9]
jurisdictionontheCOSLAPoveranylanddisputeorproblem.

Intheinstantcase,the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of respondents'

complaint.ThepresentcasedoesnotfallunderanyofthecasesenumeratedunderSection3,
paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of E.O. No. 561. The dispute between the parties is not critical and
explosiveinnature,nordoesitinvolvealargenumberofparties,noristhereapresenceor
emergence of social tension or unrest. It can also hardly be characterized as involving a
criticalsituationthatrequiresimmediateaction.

It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasijudicial officer or

government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

4/10

12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for,
[10]
irrespectiveofwhetherthepetitionerorcomplainantisentitledtoanyorallsuchreliefs.

Respondents' cause of action before the COSLAP pertains to their claim of ownership over
thesubjectproperty,whichisanactioninvolvingtitletoorpossessionofrealproperty,orany
[11]
interesttherein,
thejurisdictionofwhichisvestedwiththeRegionalTrialCourtsorthe
[12]
MunicipalTrialCourtsdependingontheassessedvalueofthesubjectproperty.

[13]
ThecaseofBanagav.CommissionontheSettlementofLandProblems,
applied by the
CA and invoked by the respondents, is inapplicable to the present case. Banaga involved
partieswithconflictingfreepatentapplicationsoveraparcelofpubliclandandpendingwith
theBureauofLands.BecauseoftheBureauofLand'sinactionwithinaconsiderableperiodof
timeontheclaimsandprotestsofthepartiesandtoconductaninvestigation,theCOSLAP
assumed jurisdiction and resolved the conflicting claims of the parties. The Court held that
since the dispute involved a parcel of public land on a free patent issue, the COSLAP had
jurisdiction over that case. In the present case, there is no showing that the parties have
conflicting free patent applications over the subject parcel of land that would justify the
exerciseoftheCOSLAP'sjurisdiction.

SincetheCOSLAPhasnojurisdictionovertheaction,alltheproceedingstherein,including
[14]
the decision rendered, are null and void.
A judgment issued by a quasijudicial body
[15]
withoutjurisdictionisvoid.Itcannotbethesourceofanyrightorcreateanyobligation.
[16]
All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.
Havingnolegaleffect,thesituationisthesameasitwouldbeasiftherewasnojudgmentat
[17]
all.Itleavesthepartiesinthepositiontheywerebeforetheproceedings.

Respondents allegation that petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the
COSLAPbyreasonoflachesdoesnotholdwater.Petitionerisnotestoppedfromraisingthe
jurisdictionalissue,becauseitmayberaisedatanystageoftheproceedings,evenonappeal,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

5/10

12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

[18]
and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
The fact that a person attempts to invoke
unauthorized jurisdiction of a court does not estop him from thereafter challenging its
jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter,sincesuchjurisdictionmustarisebylawandnotbymere
[19]
consentoftheparties.

[20]
In Regalado v. Go,
the Court held that laches should be clearly present for the
[21]
Sibonghanoy
doctrinetoapply,thus:
Lachesisdefinedasthe"failureorneglectforanunreasonableandunexplainedlength
oftime,todothatwhich,byexercisingduediligence,couldorshouldhavebeendoneearlier,
itisnegligenceoromissiontoassertarightwithinareasonablelengthoftime,warrantinga
presumptionthatthepartyentitledtoassertiteitherhasabandoneditordeclinedtoassertit.

TherulinginPeoplev.Regalariothatwasbasedonthelandmarkdoctrineenunciated
inTijamv.Sibonghanoyonthematterofjurisdictionbyestoppelistheexceptionratherthan
the rule. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in
casesinwhichthefactualmilieuisanalogoustothatinthecitedcase.Insuchcontroversies,
lachesshouldhavebeenclearlypresentthatis,lackofjurisdictionmusthavebeenraisedso
belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it had abandoned or
declinedtoassertit.

In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a
motion to dismiss filed by the Surety almost 15 years after the questioned ruling had been
rendered.Atseveralstagesofthe proceedings,inthecourtaquo as well as in the Court of
Appeals,theSuretyinvokedthejurisdictionofthesaidcourtstoobtainaffirmativereliefand
submitteditscaseforfinaladjudicationonthemerits.Itwasonlywhentheadversedecision
was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of
[22]
jurisdiction.

The factual settings attendant in Sibonghanoy are not present in the case at bar that would
justifytheapplicationofestoppelbylachesagainstthepetitioner.Here,petitionerassailedthe
jurisdiction of the COSLAP when she appealed the case to the CA and at that time, no
considerableperiodhadyetelapsedforlachestoattach.Therefore,petitionerisnotestopped
from assailing the jurisdiction of the COSLAP. Additionally, no laches will even attach
[23]
becausethejudgmentisnullandvoidforwantofjurisdiction.

AnenttheissuanceofOCTNo.M10991infavorofpetitionershusbandAlfredoHerrerrain
2002, respondents alleged that there was fraud, misrepresentation and bad faith in the
issuancethereof.Thus,respondentsarenowquestioningthelegalityofOCTNo.M10991,
anissuewhichthisCourtcannotpassuponinthispresentpetition.Itisarulethatthevalidity
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

6/10

12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

[24]
of a Torrens title cannot be assailed collaterally.
Section 48 of Presidential Decree No.
1529providesthat:

Certificate not Subject to Collateral Attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to
collateralattack.Itcannotbealtered,modified,orcanceled,exceptinadirectproceedingin
accordancewithlaw.

The issue of the validity of the Title was brought only during the proceedings before this
Courtassaidtitlewasissuedinthenameofpetitioner'shusbandonlyduringthependencyof
the appeal before the CA. The issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was
[25]
fraudulentlyissued,canonlyberaisedinanactionexpresslyinstitutedforthatpurpose
andthepresentappealbeforeus,issimplynotthedirectproceedingcontemplatedbylaw.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheDecisionandtheResolutionoftheCourtof
Appeals,datedApril28,2005andOctober17,2005,respectively,inCAG.R.SPNo.73674
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision and Order of the Commission on the
SettlementofLandProblems,datedDecember6,1999andAugust21,2002,respectively,in
COSLAPCaseNo.99221,aredeclaredNULLandVOID for having been issued without
jurisdiction.

SOORDERED.

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURAROBERTOA.ABAD
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

7/10

12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
SecondDivision,Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

*AlsoknownasArnelCrisantoBernardo(RespondentsPositionPaper,COSLAPrecords,p.146)andCrisantoBernardoII(Tax
DeclarationNo.CD0060828,COSLAPrecords,p.110).
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeRegaladoE.Maambong,withAssociateJusticesMartinS.Villarama,Jr.(nowamemberofthis
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

8/10

12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

Court)andLucenitoN.Tagle,concurringrollo,pp.6284.
[2]
Id.at8889.
[3]
COSLAPrecords,pp.289297.
[4]
Id.at365366.
[5]
Id.at430439.
[6]
Rollo,p.162.
[7]
Emphasissupplied.
[8]
NationalHousingAuthorityv.CommissionontheSettlementofLandProblems,G.R.No.142601,October23,2006,505
SCRA38,44.
[9]
Ga,Jr.v.Tubungan,G.R.No.182185,September18,2009,600SCRA739,747.
[10]
HeirsofJulianDelaCruzandLeonoraTalarov.HeirsofAlbertoCruz,G.R.No.162890,November22,2005,475SCRA
743,755756.
[11]
Anaction"involvingtitletorealproperty"meansthattheplaintiff'scauseofactionisbasedonaclaimthatheownssuch
propertyorthathehasthelegalrightstohaveexclusivecontrol,possession,enjoyment,ordispositionofthesame.(Heirs of
GenerosoSebev.HeirsofVeronicoSevilla,G.R.No.174497,October12,2009,603SCRA395,404).
[12]
BatasPambansaBlg.129,asamended,provides:
SEC.19.JurisdictioninCivilCases.RegionalTrialCourtsshallexerciseexclusiveoriginaljurisdiction:
(1)Inallcivilactionsinwhichthesubjectofthelitigationsisincapableofpecuniaryestimation.
(2)Inallcivilactionswhichinvolvethetitleto,orpossessionof,realproperty,oranyinteresttherein,
where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), or for civil
actionsinMetroManila,wheresuchvalueexceedsFiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00)exceptactionsforforcible
entryintoandunlawfuldetaineroflandsorbuildings,originaljurisdictionoverwhichisconferreduponthe
MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourts,andMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsxxx.

SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
TrialCourtsinCivilCases.MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrial
Courtsshallexercise:
xxxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
Twentythousandpesos(P20,000.00)or,incivilactionsinMetroManila,wheresuchassessedvaluedoesnot
exceedFiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00)xxx.
[13]
210Phil.643(1990)
[14]
Frianelav.Banayad,Jr.,G.R.No.169700,July30,2009,594SCRA380,392.
[15]
Machadov.Gatdula,G.R.No.156287,February16,2010,612SCRA546,560.
[16]
NationalHousingAuthorityv.CommissionontheSettlementofLandProblems,supranote8,at46.
[17]
Id.at4647.
[18]
Figueroav.People,G.R.No.147406,July14,2008,558SCRA63,81.
[19]
Id.
[20]
G.R.No.167988,February6,2007,514SCRA616,635.
[21]
In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 131 Phil. 556, the Court held that a party may be barred by laches from invoking lack of
jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party
invokingthepleaoflackofjurisdiction.
[22]
Regaladov.Go,supranote20,at635636.
[23]
FigueroavPeople,G.R.No.147406,July14,2008,558SCRA63,82.
[24]
Vda.deGualbertov.Go,G.R.No.139843,July21,2005,463SCRA671,677.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

9/10

12/2/2015

G.R.No.170251

[25]
Tanenglianv.Lorenzo,G.R.No.173415,March28,2008,550SCRA348,380.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/170251.htm

10/10