Posted by Rio Vie C. Dumalag on 25 July 2018
FACTS:
Emelita Bernardo, representing the heirs of Crisanto Bernardo, filed a complaint against Alfredo Herrera for unlawful claim, interference, disturbance, harassment and trespassing before the Commission of the Settlement of Land Problem (referred hereafter as COSLAP) over 7,993-square meter portion of land. The land was claimed by the respondents to be owned by their predecessor Crisanto Bernardo and was acquired later by Crisanto S. Bernardo and covered by Tax Declaration CD-006-0828 under their name.
Celia Vda de Herrera alleged that the 700-square meter portion of the disputed land was brought by Diosdado Herrera, father of her (late) husband Alfredo, from a Domingo Villaran. Alfredo inherited the property upon his father's death.
COSLAP ruled in its 6 December 1999 decision in favor of the Bernardos. Alfredo filed a motion of reconsideration about the said decision and to reopen the proceedings, but COSLAP denied his motion in its 21 August 2002 and 6 December 1999 orders. Alfredo's surviving spouse Celia, filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. However, the CA's 12th division affirmed COSLAP's decision as stated in its 28 April 2005 decision.
The CA ruled that COSLAP has exclusive jurisdiction over the land dispute, and even if assumingly, COSLAP does not have jurisdiction over the said case, Celia is estopped to question COSLAP's jurisdiction on the grounds that first, her husband failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction before that body and second, he actively participated in the proceedings. Celia filed her motion of reconsideration but the CA denied that through its 17 October 2005 resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not COSLAP has jurisdiction over the ownership case of the land disputed by Herreras and Bernardos.
HELD:
NO, as their dispute does not fall under situation mentioned in Sec. 3 of E.O. 561. Administrative agencies, like the 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, 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 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.
Since the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the decision rendered, are null and void. A judgment issued by a quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void. It cannot be the source of any right or create any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Having no legal effect, the situation is the same as it would be as if there was no judgment at all. It leaves the parties in the position they were before the proceedings.
Respondents' allegation that petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP by reason of laches does not hold water. Petitioner is not estopped from raising the jurisdictional issue, because it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, 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 jurisdiction over the subject matter, since such jurisdiction must arise by law and not by mere consent of the parties.
FACTS:
Emelita Bernardo, representing the heirs of Crisanto Bernardo, filed a complaint against Alfredo Herrera for unlawful claim, interference, disturbance, harassment and trespassing before the Commission of the Settlement of Land Problem (referred hereafter as COSLAP) over 7,993-square meter portion of land. The land was claimed by the respondents to be owned by their predecessor Crisanto Bernardo and was acquired later by Crisanto S. Bernardo and covered by Tax Declaration CD-006-0828 under their name.
Celia Vda de Herrera alleged that the 700-square meter portion of the disputed land was brought by Diosdado Herrera, father of her (late) husband Alfredo, from a Domingo Villaran. Alfredo inherited the property upon his father's death.
COSLAP ruled in its 6 December 1999 decision in favor of the Bernardos. Alfredo filed a motion of reconsideration about the said decision and to reopen the proceedings, but COSLAP denied his motion in its 21 August 2002 and 6 December 1999 orders. Alfredo's surviving spouse Celia, filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. However, the CA's 12th division affirmed COSLAP's decision as stated in its 28 April 2005 decision.
The CA ruled that COSLAP has exclusive jurisdiction over the land dispute, and even if assumingly, COSLAP does not have jurisdiction over the said case, Celia is estopped to question COSLAP's jurisdiction on the grounds that first, her husband failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction before that body and second, he actively participated in the proceedings. Celia filed her motion of reconsideration but the CA denied that through its 17 October 2005 resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not COSLAP has jurisdiction over the ownership case of the land disputed by Herreras and Bernardos.
HELD:
NO, as their dispute does not fall under situation mentioned in Sec. 3 of E.O. 561. Administrative agencies, like the 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, 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 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.
Since the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the decision rendered, are null and void. A judgment issued by a quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void. It cannot be the source of any right or create any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Having no legal effect, the situation is the same as it would be as if there was no judgment at all. It leaves the parties in the position they were before the proceedings.
Respondents' allegation that petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP by reason of laches does not hold water. Petitioner is not estopped from raising the jurisdictional issue, because it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, 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 jurisdiction over the subject matter, since such jurisdiction must arise by law and not by mere consent of the parties.
