G.R. No. 204420 - Heirs of Bastida vs. Heirs of Ferdez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204420)

Factual Background

In 1955, Teofilo Bastida applied for a homestead patent covering land that included an agricultural lot of 9.8307 hectares identified as Lot No. 990. The Bureau of Lands certified and recommended approval. Teofilo later died, and his heirs continued cultivating the land.

In 1959, Angel Fernandez filed a homestead patent application for Lot No. 990, alleging that Teofilo had sold the lot to him. The heirs of Teofilo protested Angel’s application before the Regional Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). During the pendency of the DENR protest, Angel died. In 1989, the DENR Regional Office granted Angel’s homestead application and awarded Lot No. 990 to his heirs.

The heirs of Teofilo appealed to the DENR Central Office. By 1998, they learned that Lot No. 990 had been placed under CARP, and that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) had issued CLOA No. 00006890 to the heirs of Angel, recorded as OCT No. 0-4633. The heirs of Teofilo then sought cancellation of the CLOA before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), asserting that the CLOA had been prematurely issued while their homestead protest before the DENR Central Office remained pending.

The heirs of Angel argued that the PARAD had no jurisdiction because the controversy did not involve an agrarian dispute.

PARAD Proceedings

On June 1, 1999, the PARAD cancelled CLOA No. 00006890 and recalled OCT No. 0-4633. It relied on DAR Memorandum Circular No. 07 dated May 26, 1993, reasoning that the issuance of CLOAs would not cover lands with adverse claims until those claims were resolved administratively or judicially, and that an “adjudicate” could have the option to be a CARP beneficiary once the adverse claims were resolved. The PARAD held that the heirs of Angel could not be regarded as adjudicates entitled to CARP benefits due to the pending protest.

The PARAD’s dispositive portion ordered the recall and cancellation of the title and dismissed other claims and counterclaims for lack of evidence.

DARAB Proceedings

The heirs of Angel moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. They then appealed to the DARAB. On July 7, 2005, the DARAB dismissed the appeal and sustained the PARAD’s findings, while stating that the decision was made without prejudice to the outcome of the protest and/or appeal before the Office of the Secretary of the DENR.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The heirs of Angel filed a Rule 43 petition with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 02220-MIN. They contended that the PARAD and DARAB lacked jurisdiction and that the heirs of Teofilo committed forum shopping by filing before the PARAD despite the pending DENR protest over the homestead patent.

On July 13, 2012, the CA granted the petition. It held that the PARAD and DARAB had no authority to take cognizance of the controversy absent an agrarian dispute between the parties. The CA also found the heirs of Teofilo guilty of forum shopping and set aside the DARAB rulings, dismissing the amended complaint before the PARAD.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

In the Petition, the heirs of Teofilo insisted that the DARAB had jurisdiction because the CLOA had already been registered with the Registry of Deeds. They further argued that the DAR Secretary could only assume jurisdiction over complaints involving unregistered CLOAs. They also maintained that they did not violate the rule against forum shopping, because the proceedings before the DENR and the DARAB involved separate and distinct issues.

The heirs of Angel maintained that the DARAB had no jurisdiction absent an agrarian dispute. They also argued that forum shopping existed because the issues presented before the DENR and the DARAB were intertwined.

Legal Framework on Jurisdiction and Agrarian Disputes

The Court underscored the controlling principles on jurisdiction: jurisdiction is the power and authority to hear and decide a case on its merits, and subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law in force at the time the action is filed. The nature of the action, the Court explained, is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the reliefs sought. Where the tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it has only the authority to dismiss the case.

The Court noted that the heirs of Teofilo filed the complaint before the PARAD in 1998, and the case was thus governed by the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure. Under Rule II, Section 1 of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure, the DARAB had primary and exclusive jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of CARP, including the issuance, correction, and cancellation of CLOAs registered with the Land Registration Authority (LRA). The Court acknowledged that, at first glance, the cancellation of a registered CLOA might appear to fall within DARAB’s authority.

However, the Court reiterated the jurisprudential limitation that DARAB’s jurisdiction in such CLOA cases still required that the controversy relate to an agrarian dispute between the relevant landowner and tenant to whom the CLOA had been issued. An agrarian dispute, as defined under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657, refers to controversies relating to tenurial arrangements over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning compensation and terms of transfer of ownership from landowners to agrarian reform beneficiaries.

The Court held that tenancy relationship must include indispensable elements: (one) that the parties are landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee; (two) that the subject matter is agricultural land; (three) consent to the relationship; (four) that the purpose is agricultural production; (five) personal cultivation by the tenant or lessee; and (six) sharing of harvests between the landowner and tenant or lessee. The Court stressed that occupancy and cultivation alone do not ipso facto establish tenancy. Concrete and substantial evidence of the required legal elements, including sharing of harvests and consent, is necessary, and tenancy cannot be presumed by conjecture.

Application to the Pleadings

Applying these standards, the Court examined the allegations of the heirs of Teofilo’s complaint. The Court found that the complaint did not allege any tenancy, leasehold, or other agrarian relation between the heirs of Teofilo and the heirs of Angel, aside from the assertion that Lot No. 990 was agricultural and that the heirs of Teofilo cultivated the land.

The Court observed that the complaint focused on the asserted erroneous issuance of the CLOA, particularly that the lot had been prematurely placed under CARP, that the heirs of Angel misrepresented material information, and that there had been no ocular investigation. These matters, the Court held, did not relate to tenancy relationship and therefore had no bearing on the existence of an agrarian dispute as contemplated by DARAB jurisdiction. Since the parties were essentially contesting ownership of the same parcel of land, the controversy fell outside DARAB’s adjudicative authority in the absence of a tenurial arrangement between landowner and tenant.

The Court relied on Heirs of Julian dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz, where the Court had explained that while DARAB has jurisdiction under the rules over issuance, correction, and cancellation of CLOAs registered with the LRA, DARAB jurisdiction still requires an agrarian dispute between landowners and agricultural tenants/lessees to whom CLOAs were issued. Where the parties are not agricultural tenants or lessees and the dispute concerns implementation matters outside tenancy relations, the proper recourse is the DAR Secretary, not DARAB.

DAR Secretary’s Administrative Authority and Statutory Changes

The Court also emphasized that the DAR Secretary issued CLOA No. 00006890 administratively, and the Secretary also possessed authority to withdraw it upon a finding that it was contrary to law and DAR orders, circulars, and memoranda. The Court reasoned that resolution of the issue would entail application and implementation of agrarian reform laws.

The Court further referenced Republic Act No. 9700, which clarified that cases involving cancellation of CLOAs and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program were within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. It also cited the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure providing for dismissal without prejudice and referral to the Office of the Secretary where the case necessitates determination of a prejudicial issue involving agrarian law implementation.

Consistent with these principles, the Court found that the CA properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as no tenancy tie existed between the parties and the controversy was a contest over ownership rather than an agrarian dispute.

Forum Shopping Analysis

Although the Court agreed with the CA on jurisdiction, it disagreed with the CA’s conclusion that the heirs of Teofilo committed forum shopping. The Court reiterated t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 204420)

Nature of the controversy

The case involved a conflict of jurisdiction between the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary concerning the cancellation of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA).
The petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailed the Court of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro City (CA) decision that held DARAB and PARAD had no authority absent an agrarian dispute.
The principal factual backdrop involved overlapping claims over the same agricultural land following competing homestead applications.

Parties and procedural posture

The petitioners were the Heirs of Teofilo Bastida, represented by Criselda Bernardo.
The respondents were the Heirs of Angel Fernandez, namely, Fernando A. Fernandez married to Gemma Napalcruz, Ermelita F. Casimiro, Ma. Luisa Fernandez married to Cesar Enriquez, Sr., Zenaida F. Pelayo married to Ghandie Pelayo, and Lucia F. Pajarito married to Edito Pajarito.
The heirs of Teofilo filed a complaint before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to cancel CLOA No. 00006890 and the corresponding title entry.
The PARAD ruled for the heirs of Teofilo and directed recall and cancellation.
The DARAB dismissed the heirs of Angel’s appeal and sustained the PARAD’s findings.
The heirs of Angel elevated the matter to the CA via a Rule 43 petition for review.
The CA set aside the DARAB rulings, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and held that no agrarian dispute existed.
The heirs of Teofilo then filed the present Rule 45 petition, seeking reinstatement with modification of the CA’s approach.

Material facts and land history

In 1955, Teofilo Bastida applied for a homestead patent over an agricultural lot, identified as Lot No. 990, located at Tagpangi, Vitali, Zamboanga City, with an area of 9.8307 hectares.
The Bureau of Lands certified and recommended approval of Teofilo’s application.
Teofilo died, and his children continued cultivating the landholding.
In 1959, Angel Fernandez also applied for a homestead patent over Lot No. 990, alleging that Teofilo had sold the land to him.
The heirs of Teofilo protested Angel’s homestead application before the Regional Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Angel died during the pendency of the DENR case.
In 1989, the DENR Regional Office granted Angel’s homestead application and awarded Lot No. 990 to Angel’s heirs.
The heirs of Teofilo appealed to the DENR Central Office.
In 1998, the heirs of Teofilo learned that Lot No. 990 had been placed under CARP and that the Department of Agrarian Reform issued CLOA No. 00006890, recorded as OCT No. 0-4633.
The heirs of Teofilo sought cancellation of the CLOA before the PARAD, alleging the award was prematurely issued because the homestead dispute was still pending before the DENR Central Office.
The heirs of Angel contested the PARAD’s jurisdiction on the ground that the controversy did not constitute an agrarian dispute.

Proceedings before DARAB and CA

On June 1, 1999, the PARAD cancelled CLOA No. 00006890 and directed recall of OCT No. 0-4633.
The PARAD relied on DAR Memorandum Circular No. 07 (dated May 26, 1993), emphasizing that parcels with adverse claims are not covered until the adverse claims are resolved administratively or judicially.
The PARAD reasoned that the heirs of Angel could not be considered adjudicate-type CARP beneficiaries because of the pending protest.
On July 7, 2005, the DARAB dismissed the heirs of Angel’s appeal for lack of merit and sustained the PARAD’s disposition without prejudice to the DENR protest’s outcome.
The heirs of Angel filed a Rule 43 petition before the CA, asserting lack of jurisdiction and alleging forum shopping by the heirs of Teofilo.
On July 13, 2012, the CA granted the petition, set aside the DARAB rulings, and dismissed the complaint.
The CA held that PARAD and DARAB had no authority because the controversy lacked an agrarian dispute between the parties.
The CA also found forum shopping, viewing the heirs’ strategy as raising intertwined issues in separate forums.

Issues framed for resolution

The case required the Court to determine whether the DARAB had jurisdiction to cancel a registered CLOA when the controversy centered on homestead-grant issues and ownership rather than a proven tenancy relationship.
The case also required determination of whether the heirs of Teofilo committed forum shopping by pursuing parallel proceedings before the DENR and the DARAB.
The petitioners further argued that the DARAB must retain jurisdiction because the CLOA was already recorded with the Registry of Deeds.
The heirs of Teofilo additionally argued that the DAR Secretary could only assume jurisdiction in cases involving unregistered CLOAs.
The respondents asserted that the DARAB lacked authority in the absence of an agrarian dispute, and they argued the pleaded issues were intertwined across the DENR and DAR proceedings.

Jurisdiction under DARAB rules

The Court reiterated that jurisdiction is the power and authority to hear, try, and decide a case, and that subject-matter jurisdiction is conferred by law in force at the time the action is filed.
The Court also emphasized that the nature of an action depends on the allegations in the complaint and the chara