G.R. No. 164934 ; August 14, 2007
HEIRS OF FLORENCIO ADOLFO, Petitioners, vs. VICTORIA P. CABRAL, GREGORIA ADOLFO and GREGORIO LAZARO, Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of Florencio Adolfo, Sr., are holders of Emancipation Patents (EPs) and corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) for two parcels of land in Meycauayan, Bulacan, acquired under the Operation Land Transfer program of P.D. No. 27. Respondent Victoria P. Cabral claims to be the lawful owner of the same lands, evidenced by an earlier Original Certificate of Title (OCT). She filed a petition before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) for the cancellation of the petitioners’ EPs and TCTs and the revival of her OCT, alleging the lands are non-agricultural, the EPs were issued without due process, and no Certificates of Land Transfer were previously issued.
The petitioners moved to dismiss the DARAB petition, primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, arguing that an action for cancellation of a Torrens title falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) denied the motion to dismiss, upholding the DARAB’s jurisdiction. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it. The appellate court ruled that the proper remedy from the PARAD’s interlocutory order was not a Rule 65 petition but to await a final judgment and appeal under Rule 43 to the DARAB.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the PARAD’s order denying a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction; and (2) Whether the DARAB has jurisdiction to hear and decide a case for the cancellation of emancipation patents and certificates of title.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory. The general rule is that such an order cannot be immediately challenged via certiorari under Rule 65, as this extraordinary writ corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The proper course is to proceed to trial, await a final decision, and then appeal. The petitioners failed to show any grave abuse of discretion or exceptional circumstance warranting a departure from this rule.
On the substantive issue of jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the DARAB has primary and exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction, and cancellation of EPs and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) issued under the agrarian reform program. This authority is derived from Executive Order No. 129-A, Section 13, and is explicitly provided in the DARAB Rules of Procedure. The respondent’s action for cancellation, which directly challenges the validity of the EPs based on their alleged improper issuance, is intrinsically an agrarian reform matter. It falls squarely within the DARAB’s specialized competence, notwithstanding that the challenge involves Torrens titles, as the root cause of action pertains to the agrarian reform process itself.