GR 178575; (June, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178575; June 29, 2010
JULIAN FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, vs. RUFINO D. FULGUERAS, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Julian Fernandez filed a complaint with the DARAB for nullification of an Emancipation Patent (EP) and reconveyance against respondent Rufino Fulgueras over a 1.7-hectare land in Laguna. Fernandez claimed he was the holder of a Certificate of Land Transfer but had allowed his cousin, Fulgueras, to till the land since 1982 under a harvest-sharing agreement. He alleged that Fulgueras stopped delivering his share in 1996 and that he later discovered the land had been registered under Fulgueras’s name via an EP. The Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the complaint and denied Fernandez’s motion for reconsideration. Fernandez subsequently filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was also dismissed. He then filed a notice of appeal, which was denied, prompting him to file a petition for certiorari directly with the DARAB.
The DARAB granted Fernandez’s petition, nullified Fulgueras’s EP, and ordered a new one issued to Fernandez. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the DARAB decision, reinstating the Provincial Adjudicator’s dismissal. The CA held that the DARAB had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari. Fernandez elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order of a Provincial Adjudicator.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the DARAB lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for certiorari. Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred solely by the Constitution or by statute, not by rules of procedure. The DARAB, a quasi-judicial body with limited and special jurisdiction, derives its powers from its enabling laws, primarily Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), Executive Order No. 229, and Executive Order No. 129-A.
The DARAB had assumed jurisdiction based on Section 3, Rule VIII of its New Rules of Procedure, which allowed such petitions. However, the Court, citing its precedent in DARAB v. Lubrica, explicitly declared that this rule was an invalid self-conferment of authority, as there is no express statutory grant empowering the DARAB to issue writs of certiorari. The legislative grant of adjudicatory power to the DARAB is limited to agrarian disputes and does not encompass the extraordinary writ of certiorari, which is a power inherent in regular courts. Consequently, Fernandez’s proper remedy was to file his petition for certiorari with the appropriate regular court, not with the DARAB. Since the DARAB acted without jurisdiction, its decision was void.