Ga vs.

Tubungan
G.R. No. 182185
18 September 2009

Facts:

Joaquin Ga filed a complaint for Recovery of Property and Ownership of a parcel of land (Assessors Lot
117). The complaint is directed to Noberto Ga and filed before the Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems (COSLAP).

COSLAP rendered a decision favoring Joaquin Ga and heirs the rightful owner of the contested lot.

With the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the respondents sought a Petition for Certiorari,
Preliminary Injunction, Quieting of Title and Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order with
the RTC.

The RTC dismissed the case enunciating that it has no jurisdiction to negate a decision of a correlative
body. This decision was assailed in a petition before the Court of Appeals which was consequently granted
for reasons;

- The petition was erroneously flied with the trial court. The petition must be filed with the
Court of Appeals (Sy v. COSLAP);
- COSLAP’s jurisdiction is over land disputes clothed with “public land” classification.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its decision to set aside COSLAP’s ruling?

Held:

Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies are
appealable with the Court of Appeals, except for orders issued under the Labor Code. This was the ruling
in the case of Sy v. COSLAP.

The petition was not appropriately filed to appeal the decision of COSLAP.

Executive Order No. 561 which created COSLAP in 1979, specifically made mention of the jurisdiction of
the agency, to resolve land disputes of public domain between occupants/squatters and public land
claimants/government or applicants.

In National Housing Authority v. COSLAP, the court held that “a judgement rendered by a body or tribunal
that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is no judgment at all”. Thus, the decision of
COSLAP is ineffectual as the subject lot was not considered as part of the public domain and had always
been a private land.

Fitzerald C. Patria
Second Year – Law student
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Herrera vs. Bernardo
G.R. No. 17021
1 June 2011

Facts:

The respondent filed before COSLAP complaints for interference, disturbance, unlawful claim, harassment
and trespassing over a portion of land covered by OCT No. M-10991, which certificate was in possession
of Herrera.

The respondent alleged that the certificate of title was procured fraudulently and that the 700 square
meter contested lot was in possession of the predecessor-in-interest, Crisanto Bernardo and was covered
by Tax Declaration No. CD-006-0828 under the respondent’s name.

COSLAP ruled that Bernardo has the rightful claim over the subject property. Accordingly, a motion for
reconsideration was filed by the Herrera but was denied, thus, a petition for certiorari was filed with the
Court of Appeals.

CA denied the petition by pronouncing that COSLAP has exclusive jurisdiction on the instant case, and
even in assumption that it has not, petitioner is estopped from invoking the issue of jurisdiction since he
failed to mention in with COSLAP and has been participating with the proceedings.

Issue:

Whether or not COSLAP has jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership.

Held:

The Supreme Court deemed the petition estimable based on the powers and functions of COSLAP
stipulated in Executive Order No. 561, which does not vest it powers to adjudicate which are not
specifically provided. Clearly, the case has not been qualified to have elements to be under COSLAP’s
jurisdiction.

The CA applied in its ruling the case of Banaga v. COSLAP, which involved conflicting parties with free
patent applications. This does not hold water in applying the merits of the Banaga case since it does not
have the same elements on the instant case.

The attack on the title of the land is not a matter resolvable by COSLAP but under the powers of the trial
court. Being said, such action should be done in a direct proceeding and not to be subjected to collateral
attack or it would deface the integrity of the Torrens system.

Fitzerald C. Patria
Second Year – Law student
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Davao New Town Dev’t Corp. v. COSLAP
G.R. No. 141523
8 June 2005

Facts:

A 131.2849 hectare of land is the subject of the instant case. Originally, the lot belonged to Roman Cuison,
Jr. It was later mortgaged to Philippine National Bank, which after it was foreclosed, PNB came out as the
top bidder and subdivided the lot into two (2) parcels.

In 1989, the lot was acquired by the government to be distributed to CARP beneficiaries was later issued
with CLOAs. After the acquisition proceedings, the certificate of title was issued anew in favor of the
beneficiaries.

PNB attacked the decisions by stating that the land has already been classified as “urban/urbanizing” and
should not be included in the CARO coverage. The respondent questioned the zoning ordinance classifying
the property as such. The Provincial Adjudicator ruled in favor of the Bank and ordered the cancellation
of the CLOAs and the lot was subsequently sold to the herein petitioner. This was appealed by the
respondents with the DARAB.

Pending appeal, they alleged that the DNTC has already introduced developments in the land forcing the
respondents to be ejected.

DARAB’s decision ruling partially in favor of the Provincial Adjudicator by citing DOJ Opinion No. 44, series
of 1990, as expounded in Natalia Reality, et al. v. DAR, that lands already converted to non-agricultural
are not CARPable.

In an agreement, COSLAP issued a status quo order urging the petitioner from muddling the peaceful
possessions of private respondents of the property and also directing the ROD to reinstate the title of the
land subject matter to the Republic and reinstating the CLOAs to the beneficiaries and pay damages.

Issue:

Whether or not COSLAP has jurisdiction on the instant case?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the case between the parties is not patently a jurisdiction that COSLAP could
claim. As a body with limited powers as provided by Executive Order No. 561, it cannot action every case
filed before it. It has two options to first: to refer the matter to the agency having appropriate jurisdiction
for settlement/resolution; or second: assume jurisdiction if the matter is one of those enumerated in the
EO No. 561.

Fitzerald C. Patria
Second Year – Law student
Alternative Dispute Resolution
In the matter at hand, the viable option for COSLAP would have been to refer the matter to DAR and no
concurrent rulings for the same case. And COSLAP has no power to review the decisions of DARAB or the
Provincial Adjudicator or any other quasi-judicial agency as stated in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

Fitzerald C. Patria
Second Year – Law student
Alternative Dispute Resolution