11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.

CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.134742.September22,2004]

MELCHOR HILADO, CESAR ARAL, ADELA ARAL, ARTURO VILLARENA,

TARCELO MIRANO, ROBERTO PEDUHAN, ANTONIO SOLITO, MANUEL
CANIENDO, FELIX ORTEGA,ANTONIO BALLENTOS, SALVADOR MIRANO,
VICENTE ONLAYAO, FEDERICO ORLANO, ROGELIO SEMILLANO,
SALVADOR DE GUZMAN, PACIFICO TALIBUTAB, NESTOR BELLIRAN,
SALUSTIANO BELLIRAN, EDGARDO CABRA, and YOLANDA LESTINO,
petitioners, vs. HON. ROLANDO CHAVEZ, PERPETUAL HELP
DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY CORP., represented by the Chairman of the
BoardJULIETAC.SALGADO,respondents.

DECISION
CALLEJO,SR.,J.:

BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,
[1] [2]
asamended,oftheDecision andtheResolution oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofKabankalan
City,Branch61,inCivilCaseNo.830.

TheAntecedents

Celso Nene Zayco was the owner of a large parcel of agricultural land with an area of 540,248
square meters, located in Kabankalan Poblacion, Negros Occidental, now Kabankalan City. The
property was identified as Lot No. 343 and was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
133298,andportionsthereofwereoccupiedandcultivatedbytenants.Zaycomortgagedtheproperty
tothePacificBankingCorporationassecurityforaloanhowever,thebankforeclosedthemortgage
uponZaycosfailuretopayhisaccount.Whenthepropertywassoldatpublicauctionbythesheriff,
the bank was adjudged as the highest bidder. Zayco failed to redeem the property, and the bank
[3]
consolidateditstitlethereonTCTNo.115264wasissuedinitsfavoronMarch20,1980.
On December 21, 1984, the bank sold the property to Julieta C. Salgado, the Chairman of the
Board of the respondent, Perpetual Help Development and Realty Corporation (PHDRC). TCT No.
133298was,thereafter,issuedinfavorofPHDRConJanuary18,1985.Noliensorencumbrances
whatsoever or any notice that the property had been placed under the agrarian reform laws were
[4]
annotatedatthedorsalportionthereof.
Subsequently, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) granted Emancipation Patents to the
twenty (20) tenants on the property from April 28, 1988 to July 1, 1988 on the basis of which titles
[5]
wereissuedintheirfavorduringtheperiodofSeptember16,1988toAugust24,1990.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Sangguniang Bayan ng Kabankalan approved, on February
14,1996,ResolutionNo.9639,reclassifyingthepropertypartlyaspropertyforlightindustry,andthe
[6]
restasresidential.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 1/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

OnAugust26,1997,therespondentfiledacomplaintforunlawfuldetaineragainstthetwenty(20)
petitioners, who were all occupantsfarmers on the property, with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC)ofKabankalanCity,docketedasCivilCaseNo.03497.
The respondent alleged, interalia, in its complaint that on May 27, 1997, it obtained a certified
xerox copy of TCT No. 133298 from the Register of Deeds and discovered that of the twenty (20)
petitioners,seven(7)hadbeenissuedEmancipationPatentsonJuly1,1988whichwereinscribedat
the dorsal portion of said title. Nevertheless, according to the respondent, the petitioners were not
agriculturaltenantsundertheagrarianreformlawsbecause(a)theyenteredthepropertywithoutits
consentanddidnotpayanyconsiderationfortheuseofthelandtheyoccupiedand(b)theproperty
was, as resolved by the Sangguniang Bayan under Resolution No. 9639 in 1996, partly for light
industryandpartlyresidential.
Therespondentprayedthat,afterdueproceedings,judgmentberenderedinitsfavor,thus:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,itisrespectfullyprayedoftheHonorableCourtthat,afterduenoticeand
hearing,judgmentberenderedinfavorofplaintiffandagainstdefendantsasfollows:

1.Ordering defendants to vacate the areas they respectively occupy in Lot No. 343 and to return the
sametoplaintiff
2. Ordering defendants to pay to plaintiff P10,000.00 as litigation expenses P50,000.00 as attorneys
fees,plusP1,000.00foreverycourtappearanceandP20,000.00asexemplarydamages.
[7]
Plaintiffpraysforsuchotherreliefsandremediesjustandequitableinthepremises.

AppendedtothecomplaintwasaphotocopyofTCTNo.133298.
In their answer with motion to dismiss the complaint, the petitioners, who were represented by
DARlawyerAtty.QuiricoInfante,allegedthatthelandholdinghadlongbeenplacedunderOperation
Land Transfer, and that they became the owners thereof under Presidential Decree No. 27. They
interposedthefollowingspecialandaffirmativedefenses:

12.Thatthelandholding,subjectmatterofthecasemoreparticularlydescribedasLotNo.343,hasbeenplaced
withintheambitoftheOperationLandTransferprogramperP.D.27asamended

13.Thatdefendantshereinareactualoccupantsandtenanttillersofthelandwaybackin[the]1970s,having
beeninstalledthereatbyLorenzoZayco,theoriginallandownerwiththedefendantssharing[with]the
landownertheproduceofthelandupto1981asevidencedbyreceiptswhichwillbepresentedinduetime

14.Thatbeingbonafidetenanttillersthereat,theywereidentifiedbytheDepartmentofAgrarianReformas
qualifiedfarmersbeneficiariesandconsequentlywereissuedEmancipationPatents

15.Thatin198283,thesubjectlandholdingwasconveyedbywayofsalebytheformerlandownertoJ.
Salgado

16.Thatdespitethesalethereoftotheplaintiffherein,defendantscontinuedtocultivatethelandandextend
paymentofleaserentalstothenewlandownerthereof

17.Thatin19881989,beingbeneficiariesoftheprogram,causedtodirectlypaytheiramortizationtotheLand
BankofthePhilippines(LBP)

18.Thatdefendants,havingbeenissuedEPs,arethereforeconsideredownersofthelandandnowdeemedfull
ownersofthelandtheytillasprovidedforunderP.D.27andE.O.328respectively,thus,cannotbe
ejected/oustedtherefromwithoutcircumventingtheirrightto[s]ecurityoftenureasamplifiedinthecaseofDe
Jesusvs.IAC,SCRA559(sic)andDolorfinovs.CA,191SCRA880,Dec.3,1990,wheretheHighestTribunal
ruledthat:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 2/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

Oncealeaseholdrelationhasbeenestablished,theagriculturallesseeisentitledtosecurityoftenure.Hehasa
righttocontinueworkingonthelandandhemaynotbeejectedtherefromexceptforcauseasprovidedbylaw.

Theagriculturalrelationshipisnotextinguishedbythesale,alienationortransferofthelegalpossessionofthe
landholding.Thepurchaserortransfereeissimplysubjugatedtotherightsandsubstitutedtotheobligationsof
theagriculturallessor.(Sec.10,R.A.3844)(Dolorfinovs.CourtofAppeals,supra).

19.Thatgrantingthatthepropertyinquestionhasalreadybeenclassifiedasresidential,commercialand
industrialzoneperRes.No.9639,datedFebruary14,1996,however,thelandownerhasfailedtopresenta
ConversionOrdertobeissuedbytheDARSecretary,thus,inabsencethereof,thesubjectlandholdingremains
agricultural,inthelightofA.O.12,Seriesof1994thesameprovidesandwequote:

II.LEGALMANDATE

A.TheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR)ismandatedtoapproved(sic)ordisapproved(sic)applications
forconversion,restructuringorreadjustmentofagriculturallandsintononagriculturaluses,pursuanttoSection
4(j)ofExecutiveOrderNo.129A,Seriesof1987.

B.Section5(1)ofE.O.No.129A,Seriesof1987,vestsintheDAR,exclusiveauthoritytoapproveor
disapproveapplicationsforconversionofagriculturallandsforresidential,commercial,industrialandotherland
[8]
uses.

The petitioners prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matteroftheaction.
The court a quo applied the Rules of Summary Procedure. Instead of ruling on the motion to
dismiss,itorderedthepartiestofiletheirpositionpapers.Thepetitionersappendedtotheirposition
paper, as Annexes 1 to 36, photocopies of sample receipts purportedly signed by Celso Zayco and
[9]
JulietaSalgado,acknowledgingreceiptoftheirrespectivesharesintheproduceofthelandholding.
OnDecember18,1997,afterdueproceedings,thecourtaquorenderedjudgmentinfavorofthe
respondent.Thedecretalportionofthedecisionreads:

WHEREFOREandupontheforegoingdisquisitions,theCourtherebyrendersjudgmentinfavoroftheplaintiff
andagainstthedefendants,towit:

1. Ordering the named defendants to vacate the portions they had been occupying of Lot No. 343,
situated in Sitio Lapui, Barangay Hilamanan, Kabankalan City, and to turnover the possession
thereoftotheplaintiffand
2. Ordering the DISMISSAL of plaintiffs claims for litigation expenses, attorneys fees and exemplary
damages.
[10]
SOORDERED.

Thecourtaquoruledthatthepetitionersfailedtoprovethattheywerefarmersbeneficiarieson
the landholdingand that based on Resolution No. 9639 of the MunicipalCouncil,thesaidproperty
hadalreadybeenreclassifiedaspartresidentialandpartindustrial/commercialareas.Thecourtaquo
alsoruledthatthirteen(13)ofthepetitionersoccupiedportionsofthelandholdingonlybytoleranceof
the respondent and its predecessors, and failed to pay any amount as consideration for their
occupancy of the petitioners property. It rejected the petitioners contention that the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) had exclusive original jurisdiction over the subject
matteroftheaction,rulingthattheactionwasoneforunlawfuldetaineroverwhichithadexclusive
originaljurisdiction.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 3/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal dated January 19, 1998 on the ground that
graveerrorswerecommittedbythecourtaquoin its findings of facts and conclusions of law in its
[11]
decision.
On February 6, 1998, a motion to disapprove the notice of appeal and for execution of final
judgmentwasfiledbytherespondentonitsclaimthattherequiredappellatedocketandotherlawful
feeshadnotbeenpaidtotheclerkofcourtwithinthereglementaryperiodtherefor.Thecourtaquo
issued an Order on March 31, 1998, granting the motion of the respondent and disapproved the
[12]
notice of appeal filed by the petitioners. It also ordered the issuance of a writ of execution on its
finding that its decision had become final and executory, following the failure of the petitioners to
perfecttheirappealtotheRTC.OnApril2,1998andApril21,1998,writsofexecutionwereissuedby
theMTCC.
The petitioners did not assail the order of the MTCC. Instead, the petitioners filed on April 23,
1998apetitionwiththeRegionalTrialCourtagainsttherespondentfortheannulmentofthedecision
oftheMTCinCivilCaseNo.03497.
Thepetitionersalleged,interalia,thattheywereagriculturaltenantsofthelateCesarZaycoas
evidenced by the receipts signed by him, where he acknowledged receipt of their rentals over the
portionsofthelandholdingtenantedbythem,respectively,andtheaffidavitofLorenzoZayco,theson
ofCesarZayco,appendedtothepetitionasAnnexJthereof.Theyalsoalleged,thus:

2.Thatsubjectlandholdinghasthefollowingfarmersbeneficiaries,whoserespectivefarmholdingswere
identifiedunder[the]OperationLandTransfer(OLT)programofthegovernmentpursuanttoPD27asfollows:

1.MelchorHilado11.FedericoOrlano

2.CesarAral12.FelixOrtega

3.AdelaAral13.RogelioSemillano

4.ArturoVillarena14.AntonioBallentos

5.SalvadorMirano15.PacificoTalibutab

6.TarceloMirano16.NestorBelliran

7.RobertoPedulan17.SalustianoBelliran

8.AntonioSolito18.SalvadordeGuzman

9.VicenteOnlayao19.EdgardoCabra

10.ManuelCaniendo20.YolandaLestino

3.ThatwhenmyfatherCelsoNeneZayco,duringhislifetime,administeredsubjectlandholding,hereceived
yearlyrentalconsiderationintheamountfixedbyhumber(sic)ofcavansofpalay,fromtheabovenamed
farmerbeneficiaries.Infact,whenmyfatherwasalreadysicklyIwasassignedtocollectyearlyrentalsfrom
saidfarmersbeneficiaries

4.Thatin1981,unfortunately,thePacificBankingCorporationforeclosedsaidfarmholdingofmylatefather
andbeforetheZaycofamilyknewit,itwasalreadypurchasedbyJulietaC.Salgado,thelatterlikewise,asfaras
[13]
myknowledgeisconcerned,alsocollectedyearlyrentalconsiderationfromtheabovenamedparties.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 4/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

The petitioners also averred that, after she purchased the property in 1981, Julieta Salgado
[14]
receivedrentalsoverthelandholdingfromthem,asevidencedbythereceipts signedbyher.They
[15]
averredthatin1988,EmancipationPatents overtheirrespectivelandholdingswereissuedintheir
favor. The petitioners also claimed that they had made partial payments to the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) for the price of the lots covered by their respective patents, as evidenced by the
certification attached as Annex BBB of the petition. They also appended a Certification by the
Register of Deeds that thirteen (13) of them were issued Transfer Certificates of Title based on the
EmancipationPatentsexecutedintheirfavor,viz:
EPTITLENO.LOTNO.NAMEOFFARMERSAREA/SQ.M.
EP17163439PacificoB.Talibutab8,735
EP171734315FelixS.Ortega8,106
EP171834322RobertoD.Peduhan7,779
EP171934325ArturoT.Villarena8,346
EP172034319VicenteC.Onlayao7,709
EP172234311AntonioE.Ballentos9,066
EP172334329CesarC.Aral8,485
EP172434318ManuelP.Caniendo10,110
EP172534324SalvadorG.Mirano8,215
EP17403438SalustianoP.Billeran23,391
EP175134316FedericoL.Orlano10,453
EP175434314RogelioU.Semillano7,668
[16]
EP181334323TarceloS.Mirano7,920

ThepetitionersassertedthattheMTChadnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatteroftheactionof
the respondent in Civil Case No. 03497, it being an agrarian dispute between the petitioners, as
patentees,andtherespondenthence,thecourtaquosdecisionwasnullandvoid.Theycontended
that the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (PARAD) had exclusive jurisdiction over the
actioninCivilCaseNo.03497.
TheRTCfoundthepetitionsufficientinformandsubstanceanddirectedtherespondenttofileits
[17]
commentonoranswertothepetition.
Initsverifiedanswertothepetition,therespondentaverredthatthereceiptspurportedlysigned
by Julieta C. Salgado were spurious. It also asserted that the petitioners failed to submit the said
receiptstothecourtaquoand,assuch,theywerebarredfromsubmittingthesamebeforetheRTC.
TherespondentalsocounteredthatthepetitionersparticipatedintheproceedingsintheMTCCand
were,thus,estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the courtaquo.It posited that the petitioners
werenotentitledtoinjunctivereliefbecausethedecisionoftheMTChadbecomefinalandexecutory.
OnApril29,1998,theRTCissuedanOrderdeclaringthatthecaseinvolvedonlyquestionsoflaw
[18]
andnotoffacts,andorderedthepartiestofiletheirrespectivememoranda. OnMay26,1998,the
RTC rendered judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that the MTCC had exclusive
jurisdiction over the action of the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 03497 and over the persons of the
[19]
defendants therein. The RTC also held that the petitioners failed to file a motion to dismiss the
complaintintheMTCCandevenparticipatedintheproceedingsthereinhence,theywereestopped
from assailing the jurisdiction of the MTCC.The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision,butonJune26,1998,theRTCissuedanorderdenyingthesame.

ThePresentPetition

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 5/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

InsteadofappealingthedecisiontotheCourtofAppealsbywritoferror,thepetitionersfiledtheir
petitionwiththisCourt,underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,asamended,assailingthedecisionofthe
RTConquestionsoflaw.Theyappendedtotheirpetition,asAnnexesQtoJJthereof,certifiedtrue
copies of the transfer certificates of title issued to each of them during the period of September 16,
1988toAugust24,1990bytheRegisterofDeedsbasedonEmancipationPatentsexecutedbythe
PresidentofthePhilippines,throughtheSecretaryofAgrarianReform,toprovethatlongbeforethe
respondentfileditscomplaintwiththeMTCC,theRegisterofDeedshadissuedsuchtitlestoeachof
them,thus:
EMANCIPATION DATEOF TCTNUMBER DATEOFISSUE
OWNER
PATENT APPROVAL
EP1751 April28,1988 A192817
FedericoL.Orlano September20,1988

EP5656 July1,1988 A192802

Ma.YolandaS.Lestino August24,1990

EP1717 April28,1988 A192816

FelixS.Ortega September16,1988

EP5139 July1,1988 A192831

MelchorT.Hilado March21,1990

EP5414 July1,1988 A192821

AntonioD.Solito July12,1990

EP1719 April28,1988 A192826

ArturoT.Vellarena September16,1988

EP1722 April28,1988 A192812

AntonioE.Ballentos September16,1988

EP5415 July1,1988 A192808

SalvadorJ.DeGuzman July12,1990

EP1754 April28,1988 A192815

RogelioU.Semellano September20,1988

EP1740 April28,1988 A192809

SalustianoP.Billeran September20,1988

EP1720 April28,1988 A192820

VicenteOnlayao September16,1988

EP1725 April28,1988 A192825

SalvadorG.Mirano September16,1988

EP5416 July1,1988 A192804

NestorP.Billeran July12,1990

EP1813 April28,1988 A192824

TarceloS.Mirano September22,1988

EP1716 April28,1988 A192810

PacificoP.Talibutab September16,1988

EP5417 July1,1988 A192807

EdgardoD.Cabra July12,1990

EP1724 April28,1988 A192819

ManuelP.Caniendo September16,1988

EP5657 July1,1988 A192827

AdelaO.Aral August24,1990

EP1718 April28,1988 A192823

RobertoD.Peduhan September16,1988

EP1723 April28,1988 A192830

CesarC.Aral September16,1988

Theissuesforresolutionarethefollowing:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 6/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

1.WhetheritisproperforthepetitionerstofileapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesof
CourtwiththisCourtfromthedecisionoftheRTC
2.WhethertheMTCChadexclusivejurisdictionovertheactionoftherespondentand,
3.WhetherthedecisionoftheMTCCisnullandvoid
Onthefirstissue,thepetitionersassertthat,insteadofappealingthedecisionoftheRTCtothe
Court of Appeals, they filed their petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because the issues
raisedbythemareonlylegalissues.TheyaverthattheRTCerredwhenitdeclaredthatinsteadof
filing their answer to the respondents complaint in the MTCC, participating in the proceedings and
praying for reliefs therein, the petitioners as defendants in said case, should have filed a motion to
dismissthecomplaint.The petitioners posit that they could not have filed such motion because the
proceedingsinejectmentcasesaresummaryinnatureandsuchmotiontodismissthecomplaintisa
prohibitedpleading.Thepetitionerspointoutthattheyincorporatedintheiranswertothecomplainta
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action which
shouldbeconsideredasamotionforahearingontheiraffirmativedefenses.Theyalsoaverthatthe
action filed before the MTCC is an agrarian case involving agricultural land placed under Operation
LandTransfer,forwhichtheywereissuedEmancipationPatentsbytheSecretaryofAgrarianReform
evenbeforesuchcomplaintforejectmentwasfiledagainstthem.They note that the issue involved
thevalidityoftheEmancipationPatentsissuedtothem,andwasdecisiveoftheissueofjurisdictionin
the MTCC hence, the MTCC had no original jurisdiction over the action of the respondent,
conformably to Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and the DARAB Rules of Procedure. The
petitioners assert that by virtue of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 and the Emancipation Patents
issuedtothem,theybecameownersofthepropertyandwereentitledtothepossessionthereof.
For its part, the respondent asserts that, if at all, the RTC decision is appealable, the proper
remedyofthepetitionersfromthesaiddecisionwastoappeal,bywritoferror,totheCourtofAppeals
underRule41oftheRulesofCourt,asamended,andnotviaapetitionforreviewoncertioraritothis
CourtunderRule45ofthesaidRules.Itcontendsthat,asgleanedfromthepetition,thepetitioners
raisedfactualissues.ItnotesthatthepetitionersassailedthefactualfindingsmadebytheMTCCthat
they(thepetitioners)arenotagriculturaltenantsofthelateCesarZaycoandJulietaC.Salgado,and
thatthesubjectlandholdingisresidentialandnotagricultural.
In reply, the petitioners contend that this appeal via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is proper,
consideringthattheyraisedpurelylegalissuesintheirpetition.TheynotethattheRTCitself,perits
OrderonApril29,1998,succinctlystatesthattheissueraisedbythepartiesisoneoflaw,namely,
whether the MTCC had jurisdiction over the action of the respondent against the petitioners. They
point out that the RTC required the parties to merely file their respective memoranda, instead of
adducingevidenceintheirfavor.
WeagreewiththerespondentthattheremedyofapartyaggrievedbythedecisionoftheRTC,in
theexerciseofitsoriginaljurisdiction,istoappealbywritoferrortotheCourtofAppealsunderRule
[20]
41 of the Rules of Court, in which questions of facts and/or of law may be raised by the parties.
[21]
However,underSection2(c), Rule41oftheRulesofCourt,whereonlyquestionsoflawareraised
or are involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under
Rule45oftheRules.However,evenifonlyquestionsorissuesareraisedbythepartyinhisappeal,it
shouldbemadetotheCourtofAppealsandnottotheSupremeCourt,unlesstherearecompelling
reasonstoallowsuchappeal.
[22]
InReyesv.CourtofAppeals, weheldthatforaquestiontobeoneoflaw,itmustinvolveno
examinationoftheprobativevalueoftheevidencepresentedbythelitigantsoranyoneofthem.Inan
avuncularcase,weheldthatthereisaquestionoflawinagivencasewhenthedoubtordifference
arisesastowhatthelawispertainingtoacertainsetoffacts,andthereisaquestionoffactwhenthe
[23]
doubtarisesastothetruthorthefalsityofallegedfacts.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 7/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

We agree with the petitioners and the RTC that the issues before it were legal:(1) whether the
MTCC had properly exercised jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action of the respondent
basedonthematerialallegationsofsaidcomplaint,aswellastherelevantpleadingsofthepartiesin
saidcaseand(2)whetherthepetitionerswereestoppedfromassailingthedecisionoftheMTCCon
thegroundoflackofjurisdiction.
Weresolvedtogiveduecoursetothepetition.Indeed,unlesstheissues,whicharecogentand
substantial, are resolved, in all likelihood, suits may again be filed by the aggrieved parties in suits
involving landholdings where the validity of the decision of the MTCC is assailed for lack of
jurisdiction.
Ontheissueofjurisdiction,Section33,paragraph2ofBatasPambansaBlg.129,asamendedby
Section3ofRep.ActNo.7691providesthatMunicipalTrialCourt,MunicipalCircuitTrialCourtand
Metropolitan Trial Court, have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases for unlawful detainer. The
proceedings in ejectment cases are covered by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and the Rules on
SummaryProcedure.However,suchcourtshavenooriginaljurisdictiontodetermineandadjudicate
agrariandisputesunderRep.ActNo.6657,asamended,andtheRulesofProcedureissuedbythe
DARAB implementing said laws, which are within the exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction of
theDARAB,thus:

SECTION1.PrimaryAndExclusiveOriginalandAppellateJurisdiction.TheBoardshallhaveprimary
andexclusivejurisdiction,bothoriginalandappellate,todetermineandadjudicateallagrariandisputes
involvingtheimplementationoftheComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgram(CARP)underRepublicActNo.
6657,ExecutiveOrderNos.228,and129A,RepublicActNo.3844asamendedbyRepublicActNo.6389,
PresidentialDecreeNo.27andotheragrarianlawsandtheirimplementingrulesandregulations.Specifically,
suchjurisdictionshallincludebutnotbelimitedtocasesinvolvingthefollowing:

a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management,
cultivationanduseofallagriculturallandscoveredbytheCARPandotheragrarianlaws
f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award
(CLOAs)andEmancipationPatents(EPs)whichareregisteredwiththeLandRegistrationAuthority
g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of
Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, except subparagraph (Q)
thereofandPresidentialDecreeNo.1815.

Itisunderstoodthattheaforementionedcases,complaintsorpetitionswerefiledwiththeDARABafterAugust
29,1987.

MattersinvolvingstrictlytheadministrativeimplementationofRepublicActNo.6657,otherwiseknownasthe
ComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw(sic)(CARP)of1988andotheragrarianlawsasenunciatedbypertinent
rulesshallbetheexclusiveprerogativeofandcognizablebytheSecretaryoftheDAR.

h)Andsuchotheragrariancases,disputes,mattersorconcernsreferredtoitbytheSecretaryofthe
DAR.
TheDARisvestedwithprimaryjurisdictiontodetermineandadjudicateagrarianreformmatters
andshallhaveexclusivejurisdictionoverallmattersinvolvingtheimplementationofagrarianreform
programs.TheruleisthattheDARABhasjurisdictiontotryanddecideanyagrariandisputeorany
[24]
incidentinvolvingtheimplementationoftheComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgram. InTironav.
[25]
Alejo, we held that the MTCC has no jurisdiction over an ejectment case where the issue of
possessionisinextricablyinterwovenwithanagrariandispute.
The wellentrenched principle is that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the
actionisdeterminedbythematerialallegationsofthecomplaintandthelaw,irrespectiveofwhether
[26]
ornottheplaintiffisentitledtorecoverallorsomeoftheclaimsorreliefssoughttherein. InMovers
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 8/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision
[27]
BasecoIntegratedPortServices,Inc.v.CyborgLeasingCorporation, weruledthatthejurisdiction
ofthecourtoverthenatureoftheactionandthesubjectmatterthereofcannotbemadetodepend
upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise, the question of
[28]
jurisdictionwoulddependalmostentirelyonthedefendant. Oncejurisdictionisvested,thesameis
[29]
retained up to the end of the litigation. We also held in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals that in
American jurisprudence, the nullity of a decision arising from lack of jurisdiction may be determined
fromtherecordofthecase,notnecessarilyfromthefaceofthejudgmentonly.
TheMTCCdoesnotloseitsjurisdictionoveranejectmentcasebythesimpleexpedientofaparty
[30]
raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties.
[31]
But it is the duty of the court to receive evidence to determine the allegations of tenancy. If after
hearing,tenancyhadinfactbeenshowntobetherealissue,thecourtshoulddismissthecasefor
[32]
lackofjurisdiction.
[33]
EarlierinBayogv.Natino, weheldthatifadefendantinanactionforejectmentinterposedthe
defense of being the agricultural tenant in the property subject of the complaint, the MTCC should
hearandreceivetheevidenceforthepurposeofdeterminingwhetherornotitpossessedjurisdiction
overthecase,andif,uponsuchhearing,tenancyisshowntobetheissue,theMTCCshoulddismiss
thecaseforlackofjurisdiction.OurrulinginsaidcaseisareiterationofourrulingsinIgnaciov.CFI,
[34] [35]
andinConcepcionv.PresidingJudgeofCFI,Bulacan,Br.V.
Inthiscase,evenonthebasisofthematerialallegationsofthecomplaint,moresoiftheanswer
withmotiontodismissthepetitionandpositionpapersofthepartiesareconsidered,theDARAB,and
not the MTCC, had primary and original jurisdiction over the action of the respondent. The latter
alleged, in its complaint, that seven (7) of the petitioners were issued Emancipation Patents which
were annotated at the dorsal portion of TCT No. 133298, a copy of which is appended to the
complaint.Indeed,thetitlecontainsthefollowingannotations:
ENTRYNO.EP LOTNO AREA/SQ.M
NAMEOFFARMER
EP1539 34330 8,597 MelchorT.Hilado
ThepropertydescribedinthisTitlehasbeenpartiallycancelledEmancipationPatentIssuedBy
DepartmentofAgrarianReform,containinganAreaasstatedtoabove.

DateofInstrumentJuly1,1988.
DateofInscriptionMarch21,1990.
(Sgd.)Illegible
RegisterofDeeds
ENTRYNO.EP LOTNO. AREA/SQ.M.
NAMEOFFARMERS
EP5414 34320 7,232 AntonioD.Solito
EP5415 3437 7,518 SalvadorJ.deGuzman
EP5416 3433 6,531 NestorP.Billeran
EP5417 3436 14,529 EdgardoD.Cabra
ThepropertydescribedinthisTransferCertificateofTitlehasbeenPARTIALLYCANCELLEDby
EmancipationPatentissuedbyDepartmentofAgrarianReformcontaininganareaof35,810SQ/M.as
statedabove.
DateofInstrumentJuly1,1988.DateofInscriptionJuly12,1990.

(Sgd.)Illegible
RegisterofDeeds

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 9/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

ENTRYNO.EP LOTNO. AREA/SQ.M

NAMEOFFARMERS
EP5656 3431 14,916 MariaYolandaS.Lestino
EP5657 34326 9,558 AdelaO.Aral
ThepropertydescribedinthisTransferCertificateofTitlehasbeenPARTIALLYCANCELLEDby
EmancipationPatentissuedbytheDepartmentofAgrarianReformcontaininganareaofTWENTY
FOURTHOUSANDFOURHUNDREDSEVENTYFOUR(24,474)SQ.METERSasstatedtoabove.
DateofInstrumentJuly1,1988.
DateofInscriptionAugust24,1990.
(Sgd.)Illegible
[36]
RegisterofDeeds

The foregoing annotation confirmed the claim of the petitioners in their answer with motion to
dismiss that the entirety of the landholding had been placed under the Operation Land Transfer
program under P.D. No. 27 and that the petitioners to whom the said patents were granted by the
governmentbecametheownersofthepropertycoveredbythesaidpatents.Infact,TCTNo.133298
had been partially cancelled by the said patents. Consequently, the petitioners who were the
beneficiaries under the Emancipation Patents are entitled to possess the property covered by said
[37]
patents.
ItbearsstressingthatbeforeEmancipationPatentsareissuedtofarmersbeneficiaries,theDAR
is mandated to comply with the requirements of P.D. No. 266 and the procedural requirements set
forthbyRep.ActNo.6657,otherwiseknownastheComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw(CARL)of
[38] [39]
1988. ConformablytoourrulinginBayogv.Natino, theMTCCshouldnothaveappliedtheRules
onSummaryProcedureitshouldhavedismissedthecomplaintforlackofjurisdictionor,atthevery
least,shouldhaveproceededtohearthepartiesonthepetitionersmotiontodismissandreceivetheir
respective evidence on the issue of whether or not it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action. Had the MTCC followed our ruling in Bayog, it would have confirmed that, before the
respondentfileditscomplaint,thepropertyhadlongbeenbroughtunderOperationLandTransferand
thattheRegisterofDeedshadissuedtoallthepetitionerstheirrespectivetransfercertificatesoftitle
based on the Emancipation Patents issued by the President of the Philippines, through the DAR.
However, the MTCC rendered judgment against the petitioners and ordered their eviction on the
followingfindings:

Firstly,theyasseveratethattheyhadbeengivingtheoriginallandownerLorenzoZayco(buttheownerwas
CelsoZayco)hissharesoftheproducefrom191970(sic)to1981andthatin198283,theyhadbeenpayingthe
leaserentalstothenewlandownerJulietaC.Salgado.Obviously,defendantspredicatetheirtenurialrightson
theirperceivedlandownerLorenzoZayco(sic)andthattherefore,thenewlandownerJulietaC.Salgadohas
assumedherliabilitiestothemasherallegedtenants.Onthispoint,thereisnotashredofevidenceprovingthat
eitherLorenzoZaycoorJulietaC.Salgadohadeverreceivedtheirrespectivesharesoftheharvests.

Secondly,howwasCelsoZayco(notLorenzoZayco,aserroneouslyclaimedbydefendants)abletomortgage
LotNo.343withthePacificBankingCorporation(PBC),despitethisallegedtenancyrelationshipbetweenhim
andthedefendants?EquallybafflingtotheCourtisthisundisputedfact:althoughtheEmancipationPatents
(EPs)inthenamesoftheseven(7)defendantswereissuedonJuly1,1988yet,thosewere,respectively,
registeredonplaintiffstitleonlyonMarch21,1990,July12,1990andAugust24,1990.

Thirdly,oftheotherthirteen(13)defendants,plaintiffsExhibitAclearlyshowsthattheyhadnotbeen
cultivatingpersonallytheportionsoccupiedbythemorwiththehelpoftheimmediatemembersoftheir
[40]
familiesbutthattheyhadbeenleasingsuchportionstoseveralpersons.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 10/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

TheMTCCevenignoredthereceiptsappendedbythepetitionerstotheirpositionpapershowing
thatthelandownerand/orJulietaC.Salgadoreceivedtheirshareoftheproduceofthelandholdingas
rentalofthepetitioners.
ThevalidityandefficacyoftheEmancipationPatentswerenotnegatedbytheRegisterofDeeds
delayintheannotationthereofatthedorsalportionofTCTNo.133298.AscertifiedbytheRegisterof
Deeds,thefailuretomaketheannotationsinthefollowingpatentsearlierwereinadvertent:
EPTITLENO LOTNO. NAMEOFFARMERS AREA/SQ.M.
EP1716 3439 PacificoP.Talibutab 8,735
EP1717 34315 FelixS.Ortega 8,106
EP1718 34322 RobertoD.Peduhan 7,779
EP1719 34325 ArturoT.Villarena 8,346
EP1720 34319 VicenteC.Onlayao 7,709
EP1722 34311 AntonioE.Ballentos 9,066
EP1723 34329 CesarC.Aral 8,485
EP1724 34318 ManuelP.Caniendo 10,110
EP1725 34324 SalvadorG.Mirano 8,215
EP1740 3438 SalustianoP.Billeran 23,391
EP1751 34316 FedericoL.Orlano 10,453
EP1754 34314 RogelioU.Semellano 7,668
EP1813 34323 TarceloS.Mirano 7,920
[41]

ItmustbeunderscoredthatthesaidpatentswerealreadyannotatedatthedorsalportionofTCT
No.133298longbeforetherespondentfileditscomplaintwiththeMTCCagainstthepetitioners.
TheMTCCalsotookintoaccountandgaveemphasistoResolutionNo.9639approvedbythe
SangguniangBayanonFebruary14,1996,thus:

Atthispoint,itbearsstressingthatinitsComprehensiveLandUsePlan(CLUP),perResolutionNo.9639
datedFebruary14,1996,thethenSangguniangBayanofKabankalan,NegrosOccidental,nowacomponentcity
underR.A.No.8297,hadreclassifiedLotNo.343intolightindustrial,commercialandresidentialareas.Tothe
mindoftheCourt,thisreclassificationfallssquarelywithintheambitofTitleVI,B.2.bofAdministrativeOrder
No.07,Seriesof1997datedOctober29,1997onthesubject:OmnibusRulesandProceduresGoverning
ConversionofAgriculturalLandstoNonAgriculturalUses.Thisprovisionisasfollows:

B.GeneralGuidelines
1.xxxxxxxxx.
2.xxxxxxxxx.
a)xxxxxxxx.
b)Conversionmaybeallowedifatthetimeoftheapplication,thelandsarereclassifiedas
commercial,industrial,residentialorothernonagriculturalintheneworrevisedtown
planspromulgatedbytheLocalGovernmentUnit(LGU)andapprovedbytheHousing
andLandUseRegulatoryBoard(HLURB)orbytheSangguniangPanglalawigan(SP)
afterJune15,1988inaccordancewithSection20ofR.A.No.7160,asimplementedby
M.C.No.54,andExecutiveOrderNo.72,Seriesof1993oftheOfficeofthePresident.
[42]

TherulingoftheMTCCiserroneous.UnderSection65ofRep.ActNo.6657whichtookeffecton
June15,1988,agriculturallandsmaybereclassifiedonlybytheDARafterthelapseoffive(5)years
fromitsawardtothefarmersbeneficiaries:

Section65.ConversionofLands.Afterthelapseoffive(5)yearsfromitsaward,whenthelandceasestobe
economicallyfeasibleandsoundforagriculturalpurposes,orthelocalityhasbecomeurbanizedandtheland
willhavegreatereconomicvalueforresidential,commercialorindustrialpurposes,theDAR,uponapplication

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 11/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

ofthebeneficiaryorthelandowner,withduenoticetotheaffectedparties,andsubjecttoexistinglaws,may
authorizethereclassificationofconversionofthelandanditsdisposition:Provided,Thatthebeneficiaryshall
havefullypaidhisobligation.

Inthiscase,thereisnoshowingthattheDAReverapprovedthereclassificationoftheproperty.It
appearsthatthereclassificationofthelandholdingwasunilaterallymadebytheSangguniangBayan
despitetheissuancetothepetitionersofEmancipationPatentsandtransfercertificatesoftitleintheir
namesovertheportionsofthelandholdingsrespectivelyoccupiedbythem.
The petitioners appended to their petition in the RTC a Certification of the Register of Deeds
indicating that thirteen (13) of the petitioners were issued transfer certificates of title based on the
EmancipationPatentsfiledwithsaidoffice,madeofrecordinthePrimaryEntryBookonSeptember
16, 20, and 22, 1998 and an LBP certificate stating that eighteen (18) of the petitioners had made
advancepaymentsfortheportionsofthelandholdingoccupiedbythem.Andyet,theRTCdismissed
thepetitionandaffirmedtherulingoftheMTCCthatithadjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthe
complaint.
Itisevidentfromthefaceofthecomplaintandthepleadingsofthepartiesandtheappendages
thereofthattheissueofpossessionofthesubjectpropertywasinextricablyinterwovenwiththeissue
ofwhethertheEmancipationPatentsissuedbytheDARtothepetitionerswerevalid.UndertheDAR
Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has primary and exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving
the issuance and cancellation of Emancipation Patents. Moreover, the respondent claimed
possessionoverthepropertybasedonTCTNo.133298,whichhadalreadybeenpartiallycancelled
bytheEmancipationPatentsandTorrenstitlesissuedtothepetitioners.
Onthethirdissue,werejectthecontentionoftherespondentthatthedecisionoftheMTCChad
becomefinalandexecutorybecauseofthepetitionersfailuretoperfecttheappealtherefromhence,
immutable. Neither do we agree with the respondents contention that by participating in the
proceedings before the MTCC, the petitioners were estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the
[43]
MTCC.AsweheldinArevalov.Benedicto:

[F]urthermore,thewantofjurisdictionbyacourtoverthesubjectmatterrendersitsjudgmentvoidandamere
nullity,andconsideringthatavoidjudgmentisinlegaleffectnojudgment,bywhichnorightsaredivested,
fromwhichnorightscanbeobtained,whichneitherbindsnorbarsanyone,andunderwhichallactsperformed
andallclaimsflowingoutofarevoid,andconsideringfurther,thatthedecision,forwantofjurisdictionofthe
court,isnotadecisionincontemplationoflaw,and,hence,canneverbecomeexecutory,itfollowsthatsucha
voidjudgmentcannotconstituteabartoanothercasebyreasonofresjudicata.
[44]
OurrulinginAbbainv.Chua isalsoinstructive:

Invaryinglanguage,thisCourthasexpresseditsreprobationforjudgmentsrenderedbyacourtwithout
jurisdiction.Suchajudgmentisheldtobeadeadlimbonthejudicialtree,whichshouldbeloppedofforwholly
disregardedasthecircumstancesrequire.InthelanguageofMr.JusticeStreet:Whereajudgmentorjudicial
orderisvoidinthissenseitmaybesaidtobealawlessthing,whichcanbetreatedasanoutlawandslainat
sight,orignoredwhereverandwheneveritexhibitsitshead.AndinGomezvs.Concepcion,thisCourtquoted
withapprovalthefollowingfromFreemanonJudgments:Avoidjudgmentisinlegaleffectnojudgment.Byit
norightsaredivested.Fromitnorightscanbeobtained.Beingworthlessinitself,allproceedingsfounduponit
areequallyworthless.Itneitherbindsnorbarsanyone.Allactsperformedunderitandallclaimsflowingoutof
itarevoid.Thepartiesattemptingtoenforceitmayberesponsibleastrespassers.Thepurchaseratasaleby
virtueofitsauthorityfindshimselfwithouttitleandwithoutredress.

Sincethejudgmenthereonitsfaceisvoidabinitio,thelimitedperiodsforrelieffromjudgmentinRule38are
inapplicable.Thatjudgmentisvulnerabletoattackinanywayandatanytime,evenwhennoappealhasbeen
taken.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 12/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

Itissettledthatjurisdictionoverthejudgmentcannotbechangedbyagreementofthepartiesor
bytheactoromissionofeachofthemthatwillcontravenethelegislativewill.Apartyshouldnotbe
allowed to divest a competent court of its jurisdiction, whether erroneously or even deliberately in
[45]
derogationofthelaw.
In this case, the counsel of the petitioners opted to assail in a direct action the decision of the
MTCC, instead of perfecting their appeal or assailing the decision of the MTCC disallowing their
appeal. The petitioners believed that the decision of the MTCC was null and void for want of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action filed therein hence, they are not proscribed from
assailing such decision in a direct action. The remedy resorted to by their counsel should not
prejudiceandbarthemfromassailingtheMTCCdecisionbeforetheRTConapetitiontoannulthe
same for lack of jurisdiction.Neither are they estopped from assailing the decision, simply because
theyfiledtheiranswerandmotiontodismissthecomplaintonthegroundoflackofjurisdictionover
the subjectmatter of the action.After all, the only relief prayed for by them in their answer was the
[46]
dismissalofthecomplaint.AproposisourrulinginCalimlimv.Ramirez:

Itisneitherfairnorlegaltobindapartybytheresultofasuitorproceedingwhichwastakencognizanceofina
courtwhichlacksjurisdictionoverthesameirrespectiveoftheattendantcircumstances.Theequitabledefense
ofestoppelrequiresknowledgeorconsciousnessofthefactsuponwhichitisbased.Thesamethingistruewith
estoppelbyconductwhichmaybeassertedonlywhenitisshown,amongothers,thattherepresentationmust
havebeenmadewithknowledgeofthefactsandthatthepartytowhomitwasmadeisignorantofthetruthof
thematter.(DeCastrovs.Gineta,27SCRA623.)Thefilingofanactionorsuitinacourtthatdoesnotpossess
jurisdictiontoentertainthesamemaynotbepresumedtobedeliberateandintendedtosecurearulingwhich
couldlaterbeannulledifnotfavorabletothepartywhofiledsuchsuitorproceeding.Institutingsuchanaction
isnotaonesidedaffair.Itcanjustaswellbeprejudicialtotheonewhofiledtheactionorsuitintheeventthat
heobtainsafavorablejudgmentthereinwhichcouldalsobeattackedforhavingbeenrenderedwithout
jurisdiction.Thedeterminationofthecorrectjurisdictionofacourtisnotasimplematter.Itcanraisehighly
debatableissuesofsuchimportancethatthehighesttribunalofthelandisgiventheexclusiveappellate
jurisdictiontoentertainthesame.Thepointsimplyisthatwhenapartycommitserrorinfilinghissuitor
proceedinginacourtthatlacksjurisdictiontotakecognizanceofthesame,suchactmaynotatoncebedeemed
sufficientbasisofestoppel.Itcouldhavebeentheresultofanhonestmistake,orofdivergentinterpretationsof
doubtfullegalprovisions.Ifanyfaultistobeimputedtoapartytakingsuchcourseofaction,partoftheblame
shouldbeplacedonthecourtwhichshallentertainthesuit,therebylullingthepartiesintobelievingthatthey
pursuedtheirremediesinthecorrectforum.Undertherules,itisthedutyofthecourttodismissanaction
wheneveritappearsthatthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.(Sec.2,Rule9,RulesofCourt.)
Shouldthecourtrenderajudgmentwithoutjurisdiction,suchjudgmentmaybeimpeachedorannulledforlack
ofjurisdiction(Sec.30,Rule132,Ibid.),withinten(10)yearsfromthefinalityofthesame.(Art.1144,par.3,
CivilCode.)

It bears stressing that the petitioners are now the registered owners of the portions of the
landholdingandentitledtothepossessionthereof.Forustodenythepetitionandaffirmthedecision
oftheRTCwouldbetosanctiontheevictionofthepetitionerswhoaretheregisteredownersofthe
landholding and, as such, are entitled to the possession thereof and allow the respondent to take
[47]
possessionthereofinderogationoflaw.NottoolongagoinCalimlimv.Ramirez weheldthat:

TheinequityofbarringthepetitionersfromvindicatingtheirrightovertheirpropertyinCivilCaseNo.SCC
180isrenderedmoreacuteinthefaceoftheundisputedfactthatthepropertyinquestionadmittedlybelongedto
thepetitioners,andthatthetitleinthenameoftheprivaterespondentwastheresultofanerrorcommittedby
theProvincialSheriffinissuingthedeedofsaleintheexecutionproceeding.Thejustnessofthereliefsoughtby
hereinpetitionersmaynotbeignoredorrenderedfutilebyreasonofadoctrinewhichisofhighlydoubtful
applicabilityherein.

INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thepetitionisGRANTED.ThedecisionsoftheMunicipal
TrialCourtinCitiesandtheRegionalTrialCourtareSETASIDEanddeclaredNULLandVOID.The
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 13/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision

writofexecutionissuedbytheMTCCisalsosetaside.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
AustriaMartinez,andTinga,JJ.,concur.
Puno,(Chairman),J.,nopart.
ChicoNazario,J.,onleave.

[1]
PennedbyActingPresidingJudgeJoseY.Aguirre,Jr.AnnexA,Rollo,pp.3138.
[2]
AnnexB,Id.at39.
[3]
Records,p.161.
[4]
Id.at162.
[5]
AnnexesQtoJJ,Rollo,pp.135173.
[6]
Records,p.158.
[7]
Id.at153154.
[8]
Rollo,pp.5455.
[9]
Records,p.4045.
[10]
Id.at1819.
[11]
Rollo,pp.7172.
[12]
Records,pp.6265.
[13]
Records,p.29.
[14]
AnnexesKtoHH,Id.at3158.
[15]
AnnexesAAA1,Id.at59.
[16]
Id.at59.
[17]
Id.at66.
[18]
Id.at96.
[19]
Rollo,pp.3139.
[20]
SECTION2.Modesofappeal.TheappealtotheCourtofAppealsincasesdecidedbytheRegionalTrialCourtinthe
exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the
judgmentorfinalorderappealedfromandservingacopythereofupontheadverseparty.Norecordonappealshall
berequiredexceptinspecialappealswherethelawortheseRulessorequire.Insuchcases,therecordonappeal
shallbefiledandservedinlikemanner.
[21]
(c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the
SupremeCourtbypetitionforreviewoncertiorariinaccordancewithRule45.
[22]
258SCRA651(1996).
[23]
Id.at658.
[24]
Centenov.Centeno,343SCRA153(2000).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 14/15
11/8/2016 HiladovsChavez:134742:September22,2004:J.CallejoSr:SecondDivision:Decision
[25]
367SCRA17(2001).
[26]
Cruzvs.Torres,316SCRA193(1999).
[27]
317SCRA327(1999).
[28]
Boleyleyv.Villanueva,314SCRA364(1999).
[29]
280SCRA20(1997).
[30]
Onquitv.BinamiraParcia,297SCRA354(1998).
[31]
Ibid.
[32]
Cervantesv.CourtofAppeals,supracitingIsidrov.CourtofAppeals,228SCRA503(1993).
[33]
258SCRA378(1998).
[34]
42SCRA89(1971).
[35]
119SCRA222(1982).
[36]
Records,p.164.
[37]
Daezv.CourtofAppeals,325SCRA856(2000).
[38]
Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106 (1999) DAR Memo dated September 5, 1976 provides the
Operating Procedures for the issuance of an Emancipation Patent Administrative Order No. 3 revised by
Administrative Order No. 9 governs voluntary offer to sell transactions Administrative Order No. 12 governs the
CompulsoryAcquisitionofAgriculturalLands.
[39]
Supraatnote33.
[40]
Records,pp.1718.
[41]
Id.at59.
[42]
Id.at18.
[43]
58SCRA186(1974).
[44]
22SCRA748(1968).
[45]
Zamorav.CourtofAppeals,183SCRA279(1990).
[46]
118SCRA399(1982).
[47]
Ibid.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/134742.htm 15/15