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 2,000square 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.