1. The petitioner farmers occupied and farmed portions of land owned by Celso Nene Zayco. When the land was foreclosed and sold, titles were issued to the new owners who filed an unlawful detainer case against the petitioner farmers.
2. The petitioner farmers argued they were legitimate tenants and beneficiaries of agrarian reform, with security of tenure over the portions of land they farmed. They were issued Emancipation Patents by the DAR.
3. The case involved a dispute over whether the petitioner farmers had rights to the land as legitimate agrarian reform beneficiaries or could be ejected by the new land owners.
1. The petitioner farmers occupied and farmed portions of land owned by Celso Nene Zayco. When the land was foreclosed and sold, titles were issued to the new owners who filed an unlawful detainer case against the petitioner farmers.
2. The petitioner farmers argued they were legitimate tenants and beneficiaries of agrarian reform, with security of tenure over the portions of land they farmed. They were issued Emancipation Patents by the DAR.
3. The case involved a dispute over whether the petitioner farmers had rights to the land as legitimate agrarian reform beneficiaries or could be ejected by the new land owners.
1. The petitioner farmers occupied and farmed portions of land owned by Celso Nene Zayco. When the land was foreclosed and sold, titles were issued to the new owners who filed an unlawful detainer case against the petitioner farmers.
2. The petitioner farmers argued they were legitimate tenants and beneficiaries of agrarian reform, with security of tenure over the portions of land they farmed. They were issued Emancipation Patents by the DAR.
3. The case involved a dispute over whether the petitioner farmers had rights to the land as legitimate agrarian reform beneficiaries or could be ejected by the new land owners.
96-39 in 1996, partly for light industry and partly
[G.R. No. 134742. September 22, 2004] residential. MELCHOR HILADO, CESAR ARAL, ADELA ARAL, ARTURO VILLARENA, The respondent prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in its TARCELO MIRANO, ROBERTO PEDUHAN, ANTONIO SOLITO, MANUEL favor, thus: CANIENDO, FELIX ORTEGA, ANTONIO BALLENTOS, SALVADOR MIRANO, WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable VICENTE ONLAYAO, FEDERICO ORLANO, ROGELIO SEMILLANO, Court that, after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff SALVADOR DE GUZMAN, PACIFICO TALIBUTAB, NESTOR BELLIRAN, and against defendants as follows: SALUSTIANO BELLIRAN, EDGARDO CABRA, and YOLANDA LESTINO, 1. Ordering defendants to vacate the areas they respectively occupy in Lot No. petitioners, vs. HON. ROLANDO CHAVEZ, PERPETUAL HELP 343 and to return the same to plaintiff; DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY CORP., represented by the Chairman of the 2. Ordering defendants to pay to plaintiff P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; Board JULIETA C. SALGADO, respondents. P50,000.00 as attorneys fees, plus P1,000.00 for every court appearance and DECISION P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. CALLEJO, SR., J.: Plaintiff prays for such other reliefs and remedies just and equitable in the Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of premises.[7] Civil Procedure, as amended, of the Decision [1] and the Resolution[2] of the Appended to the complaint was a photocopy of TCT No. 133298. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabankalan City, Branch 61, in Civil Case No. 830. In their answer with motion to dismiss the complaint, the petitioners, who were The Antecedents represented by DAR lawyer Atty. Quirico Infante, alleged that the landholding had Celso Nene Zayco was the owner of a large parcel of agricultural land with an long been placed under Operation Land Transfer, and that they became the area of 540,248 square meters, located in Kabankalan Poblacion, Negros owners thereof under Presidential Decree No. 27. They interposed the following Occidental, now Kabankalan City. The property was identified as Lot No. 343 and special and affirmative defenses: was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 133298, and portions 12.- That the landholding, subject matter of the case more particularly described thereof were occupied and cultivated by tenants. Zayco mortgaged the property as Lot No. 343, has been placed within the ambit of the Operation Land Transfer to the Pacific Banking Corporation as security for a loan; however, the bank program per P.D. 27 as amended; foreclosed the mortgage upon Zaycos failure to pay his account. When the 13.- That defendants herein are actual-occupants and tenant-tillers of the land property was sold at public auction by the sheriff, the bank was adjudged as the wayback in [the] 1970s, having been installed thereat by Lorenzo Zayco, the highest bidder. Zayco failed to redeem the property, and the bank consolidated original landowner with the defendants sharing [with] the landowner the produce its title thereon; TCT No. 115264 was issued in its favor on March 20, 1980.[3] of the land up to 1981 as evidenced by receipts which will be presented in due On December 21, 1984, the bank sold the property to Julieta C. Salgado, the time; Chairman of the Board of the respondent, Perpetual Help Development and 14.- That being bonafide tenant-tillers thereat, they were identified by the Realty Corporation (PHDRC). TCT No. 133298 was, thereafter, issued in favor of Department of Agrarian Reform as qualified farmers-beneficiaries and PHDRC on January 18, 1985. No liens or encumbrances whatsoever or any consequently were issued Emancipation Patents; notice that the property had been placed under the agrarian reform laws were 15.- That in 1982-83, the subject landholding was conveyed by way of sale by annotated at the dorsal portion thereof.[4] the former landowner to J. Salgado; Subsequently, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) granted Emancipation 16.- That despite the sale thereof to the plaintiff herein, defendants continued to Patents to the twenty (20) tenants on the property from April 28, 1988 to July 1, cultivate the land and extend payment of lease rentals to the new landowner 1988 on the basis of which titles were issued in their favor during the period of thereof; September 16, 1988 to August 24, 1990.[5] 17.- That in 1988-1989, being beneficiaries of the program, caused to directly The foregoing notwithstanding, the Sangguniang Bayan ng Kabankalan pay their amortization to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP); approved, on February 14, 1996, Resolution No. 96-39, reclassifying the property 18.- That defendants, having been issued EPs, are therefore considered owners partly as property for light industry, and the rest as residential.[6] of the land and now deemed full owners of the land they till as provided for under On August 26, 1997, the respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer P.D. 27 and E.O. 328 respectively, thus, cannot be ejected/ousted therefrom against the twenty (20) petitioners, who were all occupants-farmers on the without circumventing their right to [s]ecurity of tenure as amplified in the case of property, with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Kabankalan City, De Jesus vs. IAC, SCRA 559 (sic) and Dolorfino vs. CA, 191 SCRA 880, Dec. 3, docketed as Civil Case No. 034-97. 1990, where the Highest Tribunal ruled that: The respondent alleged, inter alia, in its complaint that on May 27, 1997, it Once a leasehold relation has been established, the agricultural lessee is entitled obtained a certified xerox copy of TCT No. 133298 from the Register of Deeds to security of tenure. He has a right to continue working on the land and he may and discovered that of the twenty (20) petitioners, seven (7) had been issued not be ejected therefrom except for cause as provided by law. Emancipation Patents on July 1, 1988 which were inscribed at the dorsal portion The agricultural relationship is not extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of said title. Nevertheless, according to the respondent, the petitioners were not of the legal possession of the landholding. The purchaser or transferee is simply agricultural tenants under the agrarian reform laws because (a) they entered the subjugated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural property without its consent and did not pay any consideration for the use of the lessor. (Sec. 10, R.A. 3844) (Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals, supra). land they occupied; and (b) the property was, as resolved by the Sangguniang 19.- That granting that the property in question has already been classified as residential, commercial and industrial zone per Res. No. 96-39, dated February following the failure of the petitioners to perfect their appeal to the RTC. On April 14, 1996, however, the landowner has failed to present a Conversion Order to be 2, 1998 and April 21, 1998, writs of execution were issued by the MTCC. issued by the DAR Secretary, thus, in absence thereof, the subject landholding The petitioners did not assail the order of the MTCC. Instead, the petitioners filed remains agricultural, in the light of A.O. 12, Series of 1994 the same provides and on April 23, 1998 a petition with the Regional Trial Court against the respondent we quote: for the annulment of the decision of the MTC in Civil Case No. 034-97. II. LEGAL MANDATE The petitioners alleged, inter alia, that they were agricultural tenants of the late A.- The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to approved (sic) or Cesar Zayco as evidenced by the receipts signed by him, where he disapproved (sic) applications for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of acknowledged receipt of their rentals over the portions of the landholding agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses, pursuant to Section 4(j) of Executive tenanted by them, respectively, and the affidavit of Lorenzo Zayco, the son of Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987. Cesar Zayco, appended to the petition as Annex J thereof. They also alleged, B.- Section 5(1) of E.O. No. 129-A, Series of 1987, vests in the DAR, exclusive thus: authority to approve or disapprove applications for conversion of agricultural 2. That subject landholding has the following farmers- beneficiaries, whose lands for residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses.[8] respective farmholdings were identified under [the] Operation Land Transfer The petitioners prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (OLT) program of the government pursuant to PD 27 as follows: over the subject matter of the action. 1. Melchor Hilado 11. Federico Orlano The court a quo applied the Rules of Summary Procedure. Instead of ruling on 2. Cesar Aral 12. Felix Ortega the motion to dismiss, it ordered the parties to file their position papers. The 3. Adela Aral 13. Rogelio Semillano petitioners appended to their position paper, as Annexes 1 to 36, photocopies of 4. Arturo Villarena 14. Antonio Ballentos sample receipts purportedly signed by Celso Zayco and Julieta Salgado, 5. Salvador Mirano 15. Pacifico Talibutab acknowledging receipt of their respective shares in the produce of the 6. Tarcelo Mirano 16. Nestor Belliran landholding.[9] 7. Roberto Pedulan 17. Salustiano Belliran On December 18, 1997, after due proceedings, the court a quo rendered 8. Antonio Solito 18. Salvador de Guzman judgment in favor of the respondent. The decretal portion of the decision reads: 9. Vicente Onlayao 19. Edgardo Cabra WHEREFORE and upon the foregoing disquisitions, the Court hereby renders 10. Manuel Caniendo 20. Yolanda Lestino judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, to wit: 3. That when my father Celso Nene Zayco, during his lifetime, administered 1.- Ordering the named defendants to vacate the portions they had been subject landholding, he received yearly rental consideration in the amount fixed occupying of Lot No. 343, situated in Sitio Lapui, Barangay Hilamanan, by humber (sic) of cavans of palay, from the above-named farmer-beneficiaries. Kabankalan City, and to turn-over the possession thereof to the plaintiff; and In fact, when my father was already sickly I was assigned to collect yearly rentals 2.- Ordering the DISMISSAL of plaintiffs claims for litigation expenses, attorneys from said farmers-beneficiaries; fees and exemplary damages. 4. That in 1981, unfortunately, the Pacific Banking Corporation foreclosed said SO ORDERED.[10] farmholding of my late father and before the Zayco family knew it, it was already The court a quo ruled that the petitioners failed to prove that they were farmers- purchased by Julieta C. Salgado, the latter likewise, as far as my knowledge is beneficiaries on the landholding and that based on Resolution No. 96-39 of the concerned, also collected yearly rental consideration from the above-named Municipal Council, the said property had already been reclassified as part parties.[13] residential and part industrial/commercial areas. The court a quo also ruled that The petitioners also averred that, after she purchased the property in 1981, thirteen (13) of the petitioners occupied portions of the landholding only by Julieta Salgado received rentals over the landholding from them, as evidenced tolerance of the respondent and its predecessors, and failed to pay any amount by the receipts[14]signed by her. They averred that in 1988, Emancipation as consideration for their occupancy of the petitioners property. It rejected the Patents[15] over their respective landholdings were issued in their favor. The petitioners contention that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board petitioners also claimed that they had made partial payments to the Land Bank of (DARAB) had exclusive original jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, the Philippines (LBP) for the price of the lots covered by their respective patents, ruling that the action was one for unlawful detainer over which it had exclusive as evidenced by the certification attached as Annex BBB of the petition. They original jurisdiction. also appended a Certification by the Register of Deeds that thirteen (13) of them Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal dated January 19, 1998 on the were issued Transfer Certificates of Title based on the Emancipation Patents ground that grave errors were committed by the court a quo in its findings of facts executed in their favor, viz: and conclusions of law in its decision.[11] EP TITLE NO. LOT NO. NAME OF FARMERS AREA/SQ.M. On February 6, 1998, a motion to disapprove the notice of appeal and for EP-1716 343-9 Pacifico B. Talibutab 8,735 execution of final judgment was filed by the respondent on its claim that the EP-1717 343-15 Felix S. Ortega 8,106 required appellate docket and other lawful fees had not been paid to the clerk of EP-1718 343-22 Roberto D. Peduhan 7,779 court within the reglementary period therefor. The court a quo issued an Order on EP-1719 343-25 Arturo T. Villarena 8,346 March 31, 1998, granting the motion of the respondent and disapproved the EP-1720 343-19 Vicente C. Onlayao 7,709 notice of appeal filed by the petitioners. [12] It also ordered the issuance of a writ of EP-1722 343-11 Antonio E. Ballentos 9,066 execution on its finding that its decision had become final and executory, EP-1723 343-29 Cesar C. Aral 8,485 EP-1724 343-18 Manuel P. Caniendo 10,110 EP-1725 343-24 Salvador G. Mirano 8,215 Ma. Yolanda S. EP- 5656 July 1, 1988 A-192802 August 24, EP-1740 343-8 Salustiano P. Billeran 23,391 Lestino 1990 EP-1751 343-16 Federico L. Orlano 10,453 EP-1754 343-14 Rogelio U. Semillano 7,668 EP-1813 343-23 Tarcelo S. Mirano 7,920[16] Felix S. Ortega EP-1717 April 28, A-192816 September 1988 16, 1988 The petitioners asserted that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action of the respondent in Civil Case No. 034-97, it being an agrarian dispute between the petitioners, as patentees, and the respondent; hence, the Melchor T. EP-5139 July 1, 1988 A-192831 March 21, court a quos decision was null and void. They contended that the Provincial Hilado 1990 Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (PARAD) had exclusive jurisdiction over the action in Civil Case No. 034-97. The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance and directed the respondent to file its comment on or answer to the petition.[17] Antonio D. Solito EP-5414 July 1, 1988 A-192821 July 12, In its verified answer to the petition, the respondent averred that the receipts 1990 purportedly signed by Julieta C. Salgado were spurious. It also asserted that the petitioners failed to submit the said receipts to the court a quo and, as such, they Arturo T. EP-1719 April 28, A-192826 September were barred from submitting the same before the RTC. The respondent also Vellarena 1988 16, 1988 countered that the petitioners participated in the proceedings in the MTCC and were, thus, estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the court a quo. It posited that the petitioners were not entitled to injunctive relief because the decision of the MTC had become final and executory. Antonio E. EP-1722 April 28, A-192812 September On April 29, 1998, the RTC issued an Order declaring that the case involved only Ballentos 1988 16, 1988 questions of law and not of facts, and ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda.[18] On May 26, 1998, the RTC rendered judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that the MTCC had exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 034-97 and over the persons of the defendants Salvador J. De EP-5415 July 1, 1988 A-192808 July 12, therein.[19] The RTC also held that the petitioners failed to file a motion to dismiss Guzman 1990 the complaint in the MTCC and even participated in the proceedings therein; hence, they were estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the MTCC. The Rogelio U. EP-1754 April 28, A-192815 September petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, but on June 26, Semellano 1988 20, 1988 1998, the RTC issued an order denying the same. The Present Petition Instead of appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals by writ of error, the petitioners filed their petition with this Court, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Salustiano P. EP-1740 April 28, A-192809 September as amended, assailing the decision of the RTC on questions of law. They Billeran 1988 20, 1988 appended to their petition, as Annexes Q to JJ thereof, certified true copies of the transfer certificates of title issued to each of them during the period of September 16, 1988 to August 24, 1990 by the Register of Deeds based on Emancipation Vicente Onlayao EP-1720 April 28, A-192820 September Patents executed by the President of the Philippines, through the Secretary of 1988 16, 1988 Agrarian Reform, to prove that long before the respondent filed its complaint with the MTCC, the Register of Deeds had issued such titles to each of them, thus: OWNER EMANCIPATIO DATE OF TCT DATE OF Salvador G. EP-1725 April 28, A-192825 September N PATENT APPROVAL NUMBER ISSUE Mirano 1988 16, 1988
Federico L. EP-1751 April 28, A-192817 September
Orlano 1988 20, 1988 Nestor P. Billeran EP-5416 July 1, 1988 A-192804 July 12, 1990 Reform even before such complaint for ejectment was filed against them. They Tarcelo S. EP-1813 April 28, A-192824 September note that the issue involved the validity of the Emancipation Patents issued to Mirano 1988 22, 1988 them, and was decisive of the issue of jurisdiction in the MTCC; hence, the MTCC had no original jurisdiction over the action of the respondent, conformably to Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and the DARAB Rules of Procedure.The Pacifico P. EP-1716 April 28, A-192810 September petitioners assert that by virtue of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 and the Talibutab 1988 16, 1988 Emancipation Patents issued to them, they became owners of the property and were entitled to the possession thereof. For its part, the respondent asserts that, if at all, the RTC decision is appealable, the proper remedy of the petitioners from the said decision was to appeal, by writ Edgardo D. EP-5417 July 1, 1988 A-192807 July 12, of error, to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as Cabra 1990 amended, and not via a petition for review on certiorari to this Court under Rule 45 of the said Rules. It contends that, as gleaned from the petition, the petitioners Manuel P. EP-1724 April 28, A-192819 September raised factual issues. It notes that the petitioners assailed the factual findings Caniendo 1988 16, 1988 made by the MTCC that they (the petitioners) are not agricultural tenants of the late Cesar Zayco and Julieta C. Salgado, and that the subject landholding is residential and not agricultural. In reply, the petitioners contend that this appeal via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Adela O. Aral EP-5657 July 1, 1988 A-192827 August 24, is proper, considering that they raised purely legal issues in their petition. They 1990 note that the RTC itself, per its Order on April 29, 1998, succinctly states that the issue raised by the parties is one of law, namely, whether the MTCC had jurisdiction over the action of the respondent against the petitioners. They point Roberto D. EP-1718 April 28, A-192823 September out that the RTC required the parties to merely file their respective memoranda, Peduhan 1988 16, 1988 instead of adducing evidence in their favor. We agree with the respondent that the remedy of a party aggrieved by the decision of the RTC, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, is to appeal by writ of error to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 [20] of the Rules of Court, in which Cesar C. Aral EP-1723 April 28, A-192830 September questions of facts and/or of law may be raised by the parties. However, under 1988 16, 1988 Section 2(c),[21] Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, where only questions of law are raised or are involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules.However, even if only questions The issues for resolution are the following: or issues are raised by the party in his appeal, it should be made to the Court of 1. Whether it is proper for the petitioners to file a petition for review under Rule Appeals and not to the Supreme Court, unless there are compelling reasons to 45 of the Rules of Court with this Court from the decision of the RTC; allow such appeal. 2. Whether the MTCC had exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the In Reyes v. Court of Appeals,[22] we held that for a question to be one of law, it respondent; and, must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by 3. Whether the decision of the MTCC is null and void the litigants or any one of them. In an avuncular case, we held that there is a On the first issue, the petitioners assert that, instead of appealing the decision of question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the RTC to the Court of Appeals, they filed their petition under Rule 45 of the the law is pertaining to a certain set of facts, and there is a question of fact when Rules of Court because the issues raised by them are only legal issues. They the doubt arises as to the truth or the falsity of alleged facts.[23] aver that the RTC erred when it declared that instead of filing their answer to the We agree with the petitioners and the RTC that the issues before it were legal: respondents complaint in the MTCC, participating in the proceedings and praying (1) whether the MTCC had properly exercised jurisdiction over the subject matter for reliefs therein, the petitioners as defendants in said case, should have filed a of the action of the respondent based on the material allegations of said motion to dismiss the complaint. The petitioners posit that they could not have complaint, as well as the relevant pleadings of the parties in said case; and (2) filed such motion because the proceedings in ejectment cases are summary in whether the petitioners were estopped from assailing the decision of the MTCC nature and such motion to dismiss the complaint is a prohibited pleading. The on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. petitioners point out that they incorporated in their answer to the complaint a We resolved to give due course to the petition. Indeed, unless the issues, which motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of are cogent and substantial, are resolved, in all likelihood, suits may again be filed the action which should be considered as a motion for a hearing on their by the aggrieved parties in suits involving landholdings where the validity of the affirmative defenses. They also aver that the action filed before the MTCC is an decision of the MTCC is assailed for lack of jurisdiction. agrarian case involving agricultural land placed under Operation Land Transfer, On the issue of jurisdiction, Section 33, paragraph 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. for which they were issued Emancipation Patents by the Secretary of Agrarian 129, as amended by Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 7691 provides that Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court, have exclusive the judgment only. original jurisdiction over cases for unlawful detainer. The proceedings in The MTCC does not lose its jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the simple ejectment cases are covered by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and the Rules on expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a Summary Procedure. However, such courts have no original jurisdiction to tenancy relationship between the parties.[30] But it is the duty of the court to determine and adjudicate agrarian disputes under Rep. Act No. 6657, as receive evidence to determine the allegations of tenancy. [31] If after hearing, amended, and the Rules of Procedure issued by the DARAB implementing said tenancy had in fact been shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the laws, which are within the exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction of the case for lack of jurisdiction.[32] DARAB, thus: Earlier in Bayog v. Natino,[33] we held that if a defendant in an action for ejectment SECTION 1. Primary And Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The interposed the defense of being the agricultural tenant in the property subject of Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, the complaint, the MTCC should hear and receive the evidence for the purpose to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of of determining whether or not it possessed jurisdiction over the case, and if, upon the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. such hearing, tenancy is shown to be the issue, the MTCC should dismiss the 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended case for lack of jurisdiction. Our ruling in said case is a reiteration of our rulings in by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws Ignacio v. CFI,[34] and in Concepcion v. Presiding Judge of CFI, Bulacan, Br. V.[35] and their implementing rules and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall In this case, even on the basis of the material allegations of the complaint, more include but not be limited to cases involving the following: so if the answer with motion to dismiss the petition and position papers of the a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in parties are considered, the DARAB, and not the MTCC, had primary and original the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the jurisdiction over the action of the respondent. The latter alleged, in its complaint, CARP and other agrarian laws; that seven (7) of the petitioners were issued Emancipation Patents which were f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of annotated at the dorsal portion of TCT No. 133298, a copy of which is appended Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are to the complaint. Indeed, the title contains the following annotations: registered with the Land Registration Authority; g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of ENTRY NO. EP LOT NO AREA/SQ.M NAME OF the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential Decree FARMER No. 946, except sub-paragraph (Q) thereof and Presidential Decree No. 1815. 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. EP-1539 343-30 8,597 Melchor T. Hilado 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (sic) (CARP) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be The property described in this Title has been partially cancelled Emancipation the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR. Patent Issued By Department of Agrarian Reform, containing an Area as stated h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by to above. the Secretary of the DAR. The DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian Date of Instrument July 1, 1988. reform matters and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the Date of Inscription March 21, 1990. implementation of agrarian reform programs. The rule is that the DARAB has (Sgd.) Illegible jurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian dispute or any incident involving the Register of Deeds implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.[24] In Tirona v. Alejo,[25] we held that the MTCC has no jurisdiction over an ejectment case where ENTRY NO. EP LOT NO. AREA/SQ.M. NAME OF the issue of possession is inextricably interwoven with an agrarian dispute. FARMERS The well-entrenched principle is that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein.[26] In Movers-Baseco Integrated Port EP-5414 343-20 7,232 Antonio D. Solito Services, Inc. v. Cyborg Leasing Corporation,[27] we ruled that the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the action and the subject matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to EP-5415 343-7 7,518 Salvador J. de dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely Guzman on the defendant.[28] Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation. We also held in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals[29] that in EP-5416 343-3 6,531 Nestor P. Billeran American jurisprudence, the nullity of a decision arising from lack of jurisdiction may be determined from the record of the case, not necessarily from the face of been brought under Operation Land Transfer and that the Register of Deeds had EP-5417 343-6 14,529 Edgardo D. Cabra issued to all the petitioners their respective transfer certificates of title based on the Emancipation Patents issued by the President of the Philippines, through the The property described in this Transfer Certificate of Title has been PARTIALLY DAR. However, the MTCC rendered judgment against the petitioners and CANCELLED by Emancipation Patent issued by Department of Agrarian Reform ordered their eviction on the following findings: containing an area of 35,810 SQ/M. as stated above. Firstly, they asseverate that they had been giving the original landowner Lorenzo Date of Instrument July 1, 1988. Date of Inscription July 12, 1990. Zayco (but the owner was Celso Zayco) his shares of the produce from 191970 (sic) to 1981 and that in 1982-83, they had been paying the lease rentals to the (Sgd.) Illegible new landowner Julieta C. Salgado. Obviously, defendants predicate their tenurial Register of Deeds rights on their perceived landowner Lorenzo Zayco (sic) and that therefore, the new landowner Julieta C. Salgado has assumed her liabilities to them as her alleged tenants. On this point, there is not a shred of evidence proving that either ENTRY NO. EP LOT NO. AREA/SQ.M NAME OF Lorenzo Zayco or Julieta C. Salgado had ever received their respective shares of FARMERS the harvests. Secondly, how was Celso Zayco (not Lorenzo Zayco, as erroneously claimed by defendants) able to mortgage Lot No. 343 with the Pacific Banking Corporation (PBC), despite this alleged tenancy relationship between him and the EP-5656 343-1 14,916 Maria Yolanda S. defendants? Equally baffling to the Court is this undisputed fact: although the Lestino Emancipation Patents (EPs) in the names of the seven (7) defendants were issued on July 1, 1988; yet, those were, respectively, registered on plaintiffs title only on March 21, 1990, July 12, 1990 and August 24, 1990. EP-5657 343-26 9,558 Adela O. Aral Thirdly, of the other thirteen (13) defendants, plaintiffs Exhibit A clearly shows that they had not been cultivating personally the portions occupied by them or The property described in this Transfer Certificate of Title has been PARTIALLY with the help of the immediate members of their families; but that they had been CANCELLED by Emancipation Patent issued by the Department of Agrarian leasing such portions to several persons.[40] Reform containing an area of TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED The MTCC even ignored the receipts appended by the petitioners to their SEVENTY-FOUR (24,474) SQ. METERS as stated to above. position paper showing that the landowner and/or Julieta C. Salgado received Date of Instrument July 1, 1988. their share of the produce of the landholding as rental of the petitioners. Date of Inscription August 24, 1990. The validity and efficacy of the Emancipation Patents were not negated by the Register of Deeds delay in the annotation thereof at the dorsal portion of TCT No. (Sgd.) Illegible 133298. As certified by the Register of Deeds, the failure to make the annotations Register of Deeds[36] in the following patents earlier were inadvertent: The foregoing annotation confirmed the claim of the petitioners in their answer EP TITLE NO LOT NO. NAME OF AREA/SQ.M. with motion to dismiss that the entirety of the landholding had been placed under FARMERS the Operation Land Transfer program under P.D. No. 27 and that the petitioners to whom the said patents were granted by the government became the owners of EP-1716 343-9 Pacifico P. Talibutab 8,735 the property covered by the said patents. In fact, TCT No. 133298 had been partially cancelled by the said patents. Consequently, the petitioners who were EP-1717 343-15 Felix S. Ortega 8,106 the beneficiaries under the Emancipation Patents are entitled to possess the property covered by said patents.[37] It bears stressing that before Emancipation Patents are issued to farmers- EP-1718 343-22 Roberto D. 7,779 beneficiaries, the DAR is mandated to comply with the requirements of P.D. No. Peduhan 266 and the procedural requirements set forth by Rep. Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. [38] EP-1719 343-25 Arturo T. Villarena 8,346 Conformably to our ruling in Bayog v. Natino,[39] the MTCC should not have applied the Rules on Summary Procedure; it should have dismissed the EP-1720 343-19 Vicente C. Onlayao 7,709 complaint for lack of jurisdiction; or, at the very least, should have proceeded to hear the parties on the petitioners motion to dismiss and receive their respective EP-1722 343-11 Antonio E. Ballentos 9,066 evidence on the issue of whether or not it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. Had the MTCC followed our ruling in Bayog, it would have confirmed that, before the respondent filed its complaint, the property had long EP-1723 343-29 Cesar C. Aral 8,485 application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected EP-1724 343-18 Manuel P. Caniendo 10,110 parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification of conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall EP-1725 343-24 Salvador G. Mirano 8,215 have fully paid his obligation. In this case, there is no showing that the DAR ever approved the reclassification EP-1740 343-8 Salustiano P. 23,391 of the property. It appears that the reclassification of the landholding was Billeran unilaterally made by the Sangguniang Bayan despite the issuance to the petitioners of Emancipation Patents and transfer certificates of title in their names EP-1751 343-16 Federico L. Orlano 10,453 over the portions of the landholdings respectively occupied by them. The petitioners appended to their petition in the RTC a Certification of the Register of Deeds indicating that thirteen (13) of the petitioners were issued EP-1754 343-14 Rogelio U. 7,668 transfer certificates of title based on the Emancipation Patents filed with said Semellano office, made of record in the Primary Entry Book on September 16, 20, and 22, 1998; and an LBP certificate stating that eighteen (18) of the petitioners had EP-1813 343-23 Tarcelo S. Mirano 7,920[41] made advance payments for the portions of the landholding occupied by them. And yet, the RTC dismissed the petition and affirmed the ruling of the MTCC that It must be underscored that the said patents were already annotated at the it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. dorsal portion of TCT No. 133298 long before the respondent filed its complaint It is evident from the face of the complaint and the pleadings of the parties and with the MTCC against the petitioners. the appendages thereof that the issue of possession of the subject property was The MTCC also took into account and gave emphasis to Resolution No. 96-39 inextricably interwoven with the issue of whether the Emancipation Patents approved by the Sangguniang Bayan on February 14, 1996, thus: issued by the DAR to the petitioners were valid. Under the DAR Rules of At this point, it bears stressing that in its Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), Procedure, the DARAB has primary and exclusive original jurisdiction over cases per Resolution No. 96-39 dated February 14, 1996, the then Sangguniang Bayan involving the issuance and cancellation of Emancipation Patents. Moreover, the of Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, now a component city under R.A. No. 8297, respondent claimed possession over the property based on TCT No. 133298, had reclassified Lot No. 343 into light industrial, commercial and residential which had already been partially cancelled by the Emancipation Patents and areas. To the mind of the Court, this reclassification falls squarely within the Torrens titles issued to the petitioners. ambit of Title VI, B.2.b of Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1997 dated On the third issue, we reject the contention of the respondent that the decision of October 29, 1997 on the subject: Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing the MTCC had become final and executory because of the petitioners failure to Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses. This provision is as perfect the appeal therefrom; hence, immutable. Neither do we agree with the follows: respondents contention that by participating in the proceedings before the B. General Guidelines MTCC, the petitioners were estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the MTCC. 1. x x x x x x x x x. As we held in Arevalo v. Benedicto:[43] 2. x x x x x x x x x. [F]urthermore, the want of jurisdiction by a court over the subject-matter renders a) x x x x x x x x. its judgment void and a mere nullity, and considering that a void judgment is in b) Conversion may be allowed if at the time of the application, legal effect no judgment, by which no rights are divested, from which no rights the lands are reclassified as commercial, industrial, can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts residential or other non-agricultural in the new or revised performed and all claims flowing out of are void, and considering further, that the town plans promulgated by the Local Government Unit decision, for want of jurisdiction of the court, is not a decision in contemplation of (LGU) and approved by the Housing and Land Use law, and, hence, can never become executory, it follows that such a void Regulatory Board (HLURB) or by the Sangguniang judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case by reason of res judicata. Panglalawigan (SP) after June 15, 1988 in accordance Our ruling in Abbain v. Chua [44] is also instructive: with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, as implemented by M.C. In varying language, this Court has expressed its reprobation for judgments No. 54, and Executive Order No. 72, Series of 1993 of the rendered by a court without jurisdiction. Such a judgment is held to be a dead Office of the President.[42] limb on the judicial tree, which should be lopped off or wholly disregarded as the The ruling of the MTCC is erroneous. Under Section 65 of Rep. Act No. 6657 circumstances require. In the language of Mr. Justice Street: Where a judgment which took effect on June 15, 1988, agricultural lands may be reclassified only by or judicial order is void in this sense it maybe said to be a lawless thing, which the DAR after the lapse of five (5) years from its award to the farmers- can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and beneficiaries: whenever it exhibits its head. And in Gomez vs. Concepcion, this Court quoted Section 65. Conversion of Lands. After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, with approval the following from Freeman on Judgments: A void judgment is in when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural legal effect no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have greater obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings found upon it are equally economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one. All acts performed under it and all claims flowing out of it are void. The parties attempting to enforce it may be It bears stressing that the petitioners are now the registered owners of the responsible as trespassers. The purchaser at a sale by virtue of its authority finds portions of the landholding and entitled to the possession thereof. For us to deny himself without title and without redress. the petition and affirm the decision of the RTC would be to sanction the eviction Since the judgment here on its face is void ab initio, the limited periods for relief of the petitioners who are the registered owners of the landholding and, as such, from judgment in Rule 38 are inapplicable. That judgment is vulnerable to attack are entitled to the possession thereof and allow the respondent to take in any way and at any time, even when no appeal has been taken. possession thereof in derogation of law. Not too long ago in Calimlim v. It is settled that jurisdiction over the judgment cannot be changed by agreement Ramirez[47] we held that: of the parties or by the act or omission of each of them that will contravene the The inequity of barring the petitioners from vindicating their right over their legislative will.A party should not be allowed to divest a competent court of its property in Civil Case No. SCC-180 is rendered more acute in the face of the jurisdiction, whether erroneously or even deliberately in derogation of the law.[45] undisputed fact that the property in question admittedly belonged to the In this case, the counsel of the petitioners opted to assail in a direct action the petitioners, and that the title in the name of the private respondent was the result decision of the MTCC, instead of perfecting their appeal or assailing the decision of an error committed by the Provincial Sheriff in issuing the deed of sale in the of the MTCC disallowing their appeal. The petitioners believed that the decision execution proceeding. The justness of the relief sought by herein petitioners may of the MTCC was null and void for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter of not be ignored or rendered futile by reason of a doctrine which is of highly the action filed therein; hence, they are not proscribed from assailing such doubtful applicability herein. decision in a direct action. The remedy resorted to by their counsel should not IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The decisions prejudice and bar them from assailing the MTCC decision before the RTC on a of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities and the Regional Trial Court are SET ASIDE petition to annul the same for lack of jurisdiction. Neither are they estopped from and declared NULL and VOID. The writ of execution issued by the MTCC is also assailing the decision, simply because they filed their answer and motion to set aside. No costs. dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter SO ORDERED. of the action. After all, the only relief prayed for by them in their answer was the Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur. dismissal of the complaint. A propos is our ruling in Calimlim v. Ramirez:[46] Puno, (Chairman), J., no part. It is neither fair nor legal to bind a party by the result of a suit or proceeding Chico-Nazario, J., on leave. which was taken cognizance of in a court which lacks jurisdiction over the same irrespective of the attendant circumstances. The equitable defense of estoppel requires knowledge or consciousness of the facts upon which it is based. The same thing is true with estoppel by conduct which may be asserted only when it is shown, among others, that the representation must have been made with knowledge of the facts and that the party to whom it was made is ignorant of the truth of the matter. (De Castro vs. Gineta, 27 SCRA 623.) The filing of an action or suit in a court that does not possess jurisdiction to entertain the same may not be presumed to be deliberate and intended to secure a ruling which could later be annulled if not favorable to the party who filed such suit or proceeding. Instituting such an action is not a one-sided affair. It can just as well be prejudicial to the one who filed the action or suit in the event that he obtains a favorable judgment therein which could also be attacked for having been rendered without jurisdiction. The determination of the correct jurisdiction of a court is not a simple matter. It can raise highly debatable issues of such importance that the highest tribunal of the land is given the exclusive appellate jurisdiction to entertain the same. The point simply is that when a party commits error in filing his suit or proceeding in a court that lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same, such act may not at once be deemed sufficient basis of estoppel. It could have been the result of an honest mistake, or of divergent interpretations of doubtful legal provisions. If any fault is to be imputed to a party taking such course of action, part of the blame should be placed on the court which shall entertain the suit, thereby lulling the parties into believing that they pursued their remedies in the correct forum. Under the rules, it is the duty of the court to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. (Sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court.) Should the court render a judgment without jurisdiction, such judgment may be impeached or annulled for lack of jurisdiction (Sec. 30, Rule 132, Ibid.), within ten (10) years from the finality of the same. (Art. 1144, par. 3, Civil Code.)