G.R. No. 156287 ; February 16, 2010
FELICITAS M. MACHADO and MARCELINO P. MACHADO, Petitioners, vs. RICARDO L. GATDULA, COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, and IRINEO S. PAZ, Sheriff IV, Office of the Provincial Sheriff, San Pedro, Laguna, Respondents.

FACTS

The dispute involves two adjoining private parcels of land in San Pedro, Laguna, owned by petitioners Felicitas and Marcelino Machado and respondent Ricardo Gatdula, respectively. On February 2, 1999, Gatdula wrote to the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) alleging that the Machados blocked the right of way to his property by constructing an apartment. COSLAP conducted a mediation conference and ordered a verification survey. The survey report found the Machados’ structure encroached upon an alley within Gatdula’s property. The Machados contested this in a position paper and assailed COSLAP’s jurisdiction, stating the proper forum was the Regional Trial Court. On October 25, 1999, COSLAP issued a resolution directing the Machados to reopen the right of way. The Machados filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a notice of appeal with the Office of the President. While this appeal was pending, COSLAP, upon Gatdula’s motion, issued a writ of execution and later a writ of demolition to enforce its resolution. The Machados filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming COSLAP issued the writs with grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that COSLAP’s resolution had become final and executory because the Machados’ appeal to the Office of the President was not the proper remedy under the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, and that COSLAP had jurisdiction. The Machados’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COSLAP has jurisdiction over Gatdula’s complaint for right of way against the Machados.
2. Whether the COSLAP can validly issue the writs of execution and demolition against the Machados.

RULING

1. No, the COSLAP does not have jurisdiction over the present case. The Supreme Court held that under Executive Order No. 561, which created COSLAP, its adjudicatory powers are limited to specific, enumerated cases involving public lands or lands of the public domain, such as disputes between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement holders, government reservation grantees, or public land claimants/applicants. The dispute in this case involves a right of way between two private landowners over their adjoining private properties. This is a civil law matter concerning servitudes, which falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the proper Regional Trial Court. The Court clarified that COSLAP’s jurisdiction is special and limited, not general, and does not extend to disputes involving solely private lands. Therefore, COSLAP acted without jurisdiction.
2. No, the COSLAP cannot validly issue the writs of execution and demolition. Since COSLAP had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, all proceedings before it, including the October 25, 1999 Resolution, were null and void. A void judgment cannot attain finality and cannot be the source of any right or be the basis of any execution. Consequently, the writs of execution and demolition issued to enforce that void resolution are likewise null and void. The Court further noted that the Machados’ active participation in the COSLAP proceedings did not estop them from questioning its jurisdiction, as jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be acquired through waiver or estoppel. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA decision, and set aside the COSLAP resolutions and writs.