Adolfo v. Cabral
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns two parcels of land in Meycauayan, Bulacan. Petitioners, heirs of Florencio Adolfo, Sr., claim these lands were awarded to their father via Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCTs) under Presidential Decree No. 27. Respondent Victoria P. Cabral asserts she is the lawful owner of these lands, evidenced by an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) issued in 1960. Cabral contends the EPs and TCTs issued to petitioners are invalid because the lands are non-agricultural, outside the coverage of P.D. No. 27, and were issued without due notice and hearing, and without prior Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs). Procedural History: Respondent Cabral filed a petition with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) seeking the cancellation of petitioners' EPs and TCTs and the revival of her OCT. Petitioners moved to dismiss the PARAD's petition, citing lack of jurisdiction, legal personality, and prescription. The PARAD denied this motion, asserting DARAB's jurisdiction. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition for failing to exhaust administrative remedies and for using the wrong procedural vehicle (Rule 65 instead of Rule 43). The PARAD subsequently issued a decision canceling the EPs and ordering the revival of Cabral's OCT, which is now on appeal with the DARAB. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their certiorari petition. They argue that the appellate court erred in ruling that Rule 43, not Rule 65, was the proper remedy when challenging a denial of a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, they contend that the DARAB lacks jurisdiction to cancel Torrens titles, asserting this falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, and that DARAB's jurisdiction is limited to agrarian disputes under Republic Act No. 6657.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Rule 43, and not Rule 65, is the proper remedy to assail an order denying a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. Whether the DARAB has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases for the cancellation of emancipation patents and certificates of title.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy (Rule 65 vs. Rule 43): The Court reiterated the general rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order and cannot be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari. Certiorari is designed to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The proper recourse after denial of a motion to dismiss is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and await a final judgment before interposing an appeal. The Court emphasized that for certiorari to be justified, the denial must be tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the denial of the motion to dismiss was merely an interlocutory order, and the petitioners' resort to certiorari was improper. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition. On the jurisdiction of the DARAB: The Court affirmed that the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of emancipation patents. It cited Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) and Executive Order No. 129-A, which confer quasi-judicial powers on the DAR and created the DARAB to adjudicate agrarian reform matters. Specifically, Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedure grants the Adjudicator primary and exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the correction, partition, and cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs). The material averments in respondent Cabral's petition, which sought the cancellation of petitioners' EPs on the grounds that the lands were non-agricultural and outside the coverage of P.D. No. 27, clearly fall within the DARAB's jurisdiction as an agrarian dispute. Therefore, the DARAB correctly asserted its jurisdiction over the case.
Main Doctrine
The denial of a motion to dismiss, being an interlocutory order, is generally not subject to a special civil action for certiorari. The proper remedy is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and await judgment before interposing an appeal. The DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of emancipation patents, even if they are registered with the Land Registration Authority, as these fall under agrarian reform matters.