GR 170251; (June, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170251 ; June 1, 2011
CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA, Petitioner, vs. EMELITA BERNARDO, EVELYN BERNARDO as Guardian of Erlyn, Crislyn and Crisanto Bernardo,* Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, heirs of Crisanto S. Bernardo, filed a complaint before the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against Alfredo Herrera for interference, disturbance, and trespassing over a portion of land in Cardona, Rizal. Respondents claimed ownership through their predecessor-in-interest, supported by a tax declaration. Petitioner, the surviving spouse of Alfredo, alleged that the disputed portion was bought by Alfredo’s father from a third party and inherited by Alfredo. The COSLAP ruled in favor of the respondents. Alfredo filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. After Alfredo’s death, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it, affirming the COSLAP’s resolution and ruling that petitioner was estopped from questioning jurisdiction due to Alfredo’s active participation. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the COSLAP had jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership over the subject property.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COSLAP had no jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court held that under Section 3 of Executive Order No. 561, the COSLAP’s adjudicatory functions are limited to specific, critical, and explosive land problems, such as those involving occupants/squatters and government grantees or public land applicants. The present case was a simple dispute over ownership between private parties, not falling under any enumerated category, and was not critical, explosive, or involving social unrest. Jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real property is vested in the Regional Trial Courts or Municipal Trial Courts. Since the COSLAP acted without jurisdiction, all proceedings and its decision were null and void. The defense of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and is not subject to estoppel, contrary to the CA’s ruling. The petition was granted.