Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
-oOoD & D AGRICULTURAL CORP.,
As represented by NORA T. DEOCAMPO,
Petitioner,
-versus.NO..________________

C.A. GR C.V
FOR: Review of the Order of RTC
Br.40, Silay City under Rule
41

ZOILO ESTANISLAO,
ESTRELLA ESTANISLAO,
EGMIDIO ESTANISLAO, and
JULIO ESTANISLAO,
Respondents,
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

VERIFIED PETITION FOR REVIEW

COMES NOW PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Court of Appeals, most respectfully avers:
Statement of the case with statement of Material Dates
This is a Verified Petition for Review of the Order of Branch 40,
Regional Trial Court of Silay City Negros Occidental in the exercise of its
Appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court.
This is a very unique case of forcible entry originally filed by Petitioners in
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Silay, Negros Occidental, and was
docketed as Civil Case No. 1005-c. On June 27, 2001, the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities of Silay rendered a decision ejecting Respondents.
Consequently, Respondents appealed the decision of Municipal Trial
Court in Cities of Silay before Branch 40, Regional Trial Court of Silay,
Negros Occidental. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the appeal on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction in an through a consolidated order dated
February 20, 2002. Copy of said order is hereto attached as ANNEX A.
Herein Petitioner filed a Motion for Consideration dated Mach 21,
2002, copy of which is hereto attached as ANNEX B, but the same was
denied by the Honorable Regional Trial Court on the same ground of lack of
jurisdiction in an order dated September 6, 2002, copy of which is hereto
attached as ANNEX C. This two orders are the present subject of this
present Petition for Review.

The order of the Regional Trial Court dated September 6, 2002,

denying Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was received by herein
Petitioner only on September 24, 2002. Under Rule 42, Section 1 of the
Rules of Court, herein Petitioner is given a period of fifteen (15) days
within which to file a Petition for Review. Since the Order denying
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was received only September 24,
2002, Petitioner has still until October 9, 2002. This Verified Petition is filed
by registered mail on September ___, 2002. It is thus submitted that the
filing of the foregoing Petition for Review is timely having been filed within
the period provided by law.
ISSUES
The sole issue involved in the present Petition is whether or not the
Regional Trial Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, has
jurisdiction over an ejectment case where those sought to be ejected have
not been issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) over a parcel
of land ostensibly placed under the operation of the Agrarian Reform.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
There is only one error committed by the Honorable Regional Trial
Court a quo, to wit:
THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT A QUO, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, ERRED IN RULING THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO
HEAR THE FORCIBLE CASE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS PETITION FOR
REVIEW, BY MERE REASON THAT THE LAND SUBJECT MATTER OF
THE

FORCIBLE

ENTRY

CASE

IS

ALREADY

COVERED

BY

CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD.

DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS
It is the strong contention of herein Petitioner that the Honorable
Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over an appealed case for forcible
entry notwithstanding the fact that a part of the land subject of the case is
already covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award.
Basic is the law on procedure is the doctrine that the jurisdiction of a
court over the subject matter of an action is conferred only by the
constitution or the law. Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the agreement of
the parties; it cannot be acquired t5rough, or waived, enlarged or
diminished by, any act or omission of the parties, neither can it be inferred

by the acquiescence of the court ( De Jesus et al. vs. Garcia, et al., L26816, Feb. 28, 1967)
In connection with the aforementioned doctrine, Rule 70 of the
Revised of Court provides:
Rule 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings--Subject to the
provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived
of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person against whom possession of any land
or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any
contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or
assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person,
may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in
the proper Municipal Trial Court, against the person or
persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such
possession, together with damages and costs.
xxxxxx
SECTION 18, par.2The judgment or final order shall be
appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court
which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record
of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such other
memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties
or required by the Regional Trial Court.
The aforequoted provisions of the Rules of Court is very clear, the
Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over an appealed forcible entry case
notwithstanding the fact that part of the land subject of the case is already
covered by a CLOA.
The reliance of the Honorable Regional Trial Court q quo upon the
case of Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of
Appeals 266 SCRA 404 and Executive Order 229 in dismissing the forcible
entry case subject of this Petition is, with all due respect, erroneous.
A perusal of the full text of the case of Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudicatory Board vs. Court of Appeals 266 SCRA 404 and
Executive Order No. 229, Series of 1987 reveals that the Honorable
Regional Trial Court relied upon the declaration therein providing for the
quasi judicial powers of the Department of Agrarian Reform, to wit:
SECTION 50-Quasi judicial powers of the DAR--The DAR is hereby
vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of ararian reform, except those

falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture

(DA) and the Department of Envoironment and Natural Resources (DENR).
HOWEVER, on November 21, 2002, the Honorable Supreme Court
has clarified this provision of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and
set the parameters and boundaries of the jurisdiction of the DARAB in the
case of RODRIGO ALMUETE AND ANA ALMUETE VS. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R.NO. 122276, NOVEMBER 2001 in the following manner:
The impresion is impressed with merit.
The action filed by petitioners before the trial court was recovery of
possession and reconveyance of title. The issue to be reolved was who
between petitioner Rodrigo Almuete and respondent Marcelo Andrea has a
better right to the subject property considering that both of them are
awarded of the same property. It was thus a controversy relating to the
ownership of the farm land, which is beyond the ambit of the phrase
agrarian dispute. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged
between Petitioners and respondent, let alone that which would so
characterize the relationship as an agrarian dispute. In fact, petitioner and
respondent were contending parties for the ownership of the same parcel
of land.
Rule II, Section 1 of the Revised rules of Procedure of the DARAB
provides:
Section 1. Primary, Original, and Appellate jurisdiction The Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original
and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases,
controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act 6657,
Executive Order Nos.229, 228 and 129-A, republic Act 3844 as amended
by Republic Act 6389, PD 27 and other agrarian alws and their
implementing rules and regulations.
Agrarian Disputes is defined under section 3(d) of Republic Act No.6657,
as:
(d)

Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenural

arrangments, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over

lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers
associations ot representation of person in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
arrangements.