Celia Vda. de Herrera vs. Emelita Bernardo (2011)

Administrative Law Celia Vda. de Herrera, petitioner vs. Emelita Bernardo (guardian of Erlyn, Crislyn and Crisanto Bernardo), respondent. G.R. No. 170251, 1 June 2011 Facts Subject: Petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision and its Resolution in CA-GR 73674 Emelita Bernardo, representing the heirs of Crisanto Bernardo, filed a complaint against Alfredo Herrera for unlawful claim, interference, disturbance, harassment and trespassing before the Commission of the Settlement of Land Problem (referred hereafter as COSLAP) over 7,993-square meter portion of land. The land was claimed by the respondents to be owned by their predecessor Crisanto Bernardo and was acquired later by Crisanto S. Bernardo and covered by Tax Declaration CD-006-0828 under their name. Meanwhile, Celia Vda de Herrera alleged that the 700-square meter portion of the disputed land was brought by Diosdado Herrera, father of her (late) husband Alfredo, from a Domingo Villaran. Alfredo inherited the property upon his father’s death. COSLAP ruled in its 6 December 1999 decision in favor of the Bernardos. Alfredo filed a motion of reconsideration about the said decision and to reopen the proceedings, but COSLAP denied his motion in its 21 August 2002 and 6 December 1999 orders. Alfredo’s surviving spouse Celia, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA’s 12 th division affirmed COSLAP’s decision as stated in its 28 April 2005 decision. The CA ruled that COSLAP has exclusive jurisdiction over the land dispute, and even if assumingly, COSLAP does not have jurisdiction over the said case, Celia is estopped to question COSLAP’s jurisdiction on the grounds that first, her husband failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction before that body and second, he actively participated in the proceedings. Celia filed her motion of reconsideration but the CA denied that through its 17 October 2005 resolution. Issues

/ajtmanansala (Archibald Manansala)

1. Whether COSLAP has jurisdiction over the ownership case of the land disputed by the Herreras and Bernardos?

/ajtmanansala (Archibald Manansala)

Legal Provisions Section 3 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 561. The said Executive Order, issued on 21 September 1979 by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, created and established COSLAP as an administrative body whose purpose is to provide a mechanism for the expeditious settlement of land problems among small settlers, landowners and members of the cultural minorities to avoid social unrest. Section 3 of E.O. No. 561 specifically enumerates the instances when the COSLAP can exercise its adjudicatory functions: Section 3. Powers and Functions. - The Commission shall have the following powers and functions: xxxx 2. Refer and follow up for immediate action by the agency having appropriate jurisdiction any land problem or dispute referred to the Commission: Provided, That the Commission may, in the following cases, assume jurisdiction and resolve land problems or disputes which are critical and explosive in nature considering, for instance, the large number of the parties involved, the presence or emergence of social tension or unrest, or other similar critical situations requiring immediate action: (a) Between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement holders or timber concessionaires; (b) Between occupants/squatters and government reservation grantees; (c) Between occupants/squatters and public land claimants or applicants; (d) Petitions for classification, release and/or subdivision of lands of the public domain; and (e) Other similar land problems of grave urgency and magnitude.

/ajtmanansala (Archibald Manansala)

Held The Supreme Court granted the petition of Celia Vda de Herrera and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed COSLAP’s decision. Ruling The Supreme Court ruled that COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the land dispute of the Herreras and Bernardos, as their dispute does not fall under situation mentioned in sec. 3 of E.O. 561. COSLAP, like other administrative agencies can wield powers specifically granted to it by its enabling statute. Thus, the proceedings and decisions made by COSLAP are null and void. The Court said that the dispute between the Herreras and Bernardos fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC or RTC depending on the property’s assessed value, as their case involves possession of real property and any interest involving such. Also, Celia is not also estopped from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction as it may be raised in any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.

/ajtmanansala (Archibald Manansala)