SPS. ATUEL - GALDIANO vs. SPS. VALDEZ

G.R. No. 139561. June 10, 2003

Ponente: CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:

Atty. Manuel Cab is the owner of two parcels of land Agusan del Sur, he appointed Atuel as the admimistrator of his property. Then came Valdez, the nephew of Atuel whom he recommended to Cab to lease a portion of his property, thus Cab and Valdez entered into a contract wherein the latter leased the 1.25 hectare portion of Cabs property for a period of two years.

Then after Cab allowed the Sps. Atuel and Sps. Galdiano to occupy the 2000 sqm portion of his property and the spouses constructed their respective homes on it.

A few years later, the Sangguniang Bayan of Sibagat, Agusan del Sur approved the town plan of the Municipality of Sibagat which classified the Cab Property as residential, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. And issued an emancipation patent to Valdez whom the MARO of Sibagat Agusan del Norte identified as a tenant and deemed to be the owner of the land. But before the said issuance of the emancipation patent, Cab had informed Valdez that the lease contract have already expired and should stop cultivating and leave the said property.

Petitioners on the other hand stated that there was no cause of action against them since the owner of the said lot was Cab and had been occupying the property since 1964, before the respondent Sps. Valdez leased a portion of the Cab property. Also petitioners pointed out that the emancipation patent issued to them is void since the property is covered by a Free Patent issued to Cab, and has already been classified as a residential lot and no longer covered by PD no. 27. However, the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator, ruled infavor of the respondent and ordered the petitioner to vacate the property. The said decision was affirmed by the DARAB central office and by the CA. Hence the issue.

ISSUE:

Whether the property is under the jurisdiction of the DARAB.

RULING:

The court ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Spouses Valdezs complaint for recovery of possession of the Subject Lot. Though the parties do not challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB, the Court may motu proprio consider the issue of jurisdiction. The Court has discretion to determine whether the DARAB validly acquired jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law. It may not be conferred on the court by consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.

In the instant case, the allegations in the complaint, which are contained in the decision of the MARO, indicate that the nature and subject matter of the instant case is for recovery of possession or accion publiciana. The issue to be resolved is who between the Spouses Valdez on one hand, and the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano on the other, have a better right to possession of the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot forming part of the PD 27 Land. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano likewise raise the issue of ownership by insisting that Cab is the real and lawful owner of the Subject Lot.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties.[37] The active participation of the parties in the proceedings before the DARAB does not vest jurisdiction on the DARAB, as jurisdiction is conferred only by law. The courts or the parties cannot disregard the rule of non-waiver of jurisdiction. Likewise, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action.[38] The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB does not prevent this Court from addressing the issue, as the DARABs lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint. Issues of jurisdiction are not subject to the whims of the parties.In a long line of decisions, this Court has consistently held that an order or decision rendered by a tribunal or agency without jurisdiction is a total nullity.[40] Accordingly, we rule that the decision of the DARAB in the instant case is null and void. Consequently, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the DARAB is likewise invalid. This Court finds no compelling reason to rule on the other issues raised by the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano.