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 fathers 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. Alfredos surviving spouse Celia, filed a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CAs 12 th division
affirmed COSLAPs 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 COSLAPs 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 COSLAPs 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 propertys 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)