Case Digest (G.R. No. 140903)
Facts:
Henry Sy v. Commission on Settlement of Land Problems and Fenina Mina, G.R. No. 140903, September 12, 2001, the Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On July 1, 1999, private respondent Fenina Mina wrote to the public respondent Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) complaining that five parcels in Quezon City which she had purchased from the late Camilo Osias and Avelina Lorenzana were being occupied by persons who claimed title to them. She attached deeds of sale and the owner’s duplicate certificates of title and requested COSLAP to investigate and declare her owner’s duplicates authentic and the competing titles spurious.
Although Henry Sy (petitioner) was not named in Mina’s letter, COSLAP issued a subpoena dated July 5, 1999 (received by petitioner on July 7, 1999) requiring his attendance as manager of the Fairview Shoemart branch at an initial mediation conference set for July 15, 1999. Petitioner’s counsel entered a special appearance at that conference and later filed a Manifestation (filed September 30, 1999) stating that petitioner did not claim ownership of the lots and that the subject properties were the subject of Civil Case No. Q-92-13545 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 101, where a verification and relocation survey found no overlap between Mina’s lots and those occupied by SM Fairview.
On July 30, 1999, COSLAP issued an order creating a committee to conduct a relocation survey to determine possible overlapping, and the order declared the committee’s findings final. Petitioner filed a written “Special Appearance” on August 24, 1999 seeking dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 3, 1999, COSLAP denied the Special Appearance, finding the motion inconsistent with COSLAP’s purpose and setting the case for hearing on December 6, 1999.
Without filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed an original petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of COSLAP’s November 3, 1999 Order. Petitioner argued, inter alia, that COSLAP lacked jurisdiction to entertain a complaint involving alleged annulment of Torrens titles over private lands (invoking the limited jurisdictional scope of Executive Order No. 561 and the Revised Administrative Code), that COSLAP never acquired personal jurisdiction over him because service was defective, that he was not a real party in interest, and that the subject matt...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Supreme Court the proper initial forum to entertain petitioner Henry Sy’s Rule 65 petition against COSLAP, or should the matter have been taken first to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43?
- Did COSLAP act without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the November 3, 1999 Order denying petitioner’s Special Appearance (i.e., did COSLAP have jurisdiction over the subject matter and person)?
- Was petitioner Henry Sy a real party in interest in COSLAP Case No. 99-352 s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)