Oppen vs. Alberto Compas & Phil.

Merchant Marine (Remedial-Jurisdiction)

The case:

In Civil Case No. 098648-CV, TCT Nos. S-100612 and S-100613, previously registered with the
Philippine Merchant Marine School, was levied pursuant to a decision thereto approving the
compromise agreement between Manufacturers Building Inc and PMMSI. In another civil case,
(Civil Case No. 116548), Ernesto Open Inc, by virtue of a writ of execution, annotated its lien on
TCT No. S-100612; the property was later sold at a public auction where EOI emerged as the
highest bidder. After the period of redemption lapsed, EOI caused the transfer of the title in its
name, and a new title, TCT No. 95712 was issued in EOIs name. Meanwhile, in Civil Case No.
098648-CV, an alias writ of execution was issued in favour of MBI, and the two titles were sold
in a public auction where Alberto Compas emerged as the highest bidder. The certificate of sale
was annotated in both titles on November 11, 2002. For failure to redeem the property by
PMMSI, a Final Deed of Sale was issued in favour of Alberto.

On September 28, 2005, Alberto filed a petition for cancellation of TCT Nos. S-100612 and S-
100613 before the RTC of Las Pinas City. When he learned that TCT No. 95712 had been issued
in lieu of TCT No. S-100612, Alberto filed his Motion to Admit Amended Petition. EOI filed
two motions to dismiss the Amended Petition of Alberto, the first grounded on alleged failure to
state a cause of action, which was denied by the RTC on the ground that Alberto can enforce his
lien on the property under EOIs name. The second motion to dismiss argued that under Section
108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the court that issued the original registration had
jurisdiction, hence it should have been filed with that court. The RTC disagreed, holding that
Section 108 of PD 1529 was inapplicable and it can exercise jurisdiction on the case. EOI
elevated the case to the Court of Appeal via petition for certiorari. The CA however sided with
the RTC, that Section 2 of P.D. No. 1529 was the applicable provision in determining whether
the RTC had jurisdiction. It explained that Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 was inapplicable
because the proceedings contemplated therein were summary in nature and relief under the said
provision could be granted only when there was unanimity among the parties.

THE ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.

The Courts Ruling:

It is basic in law that the jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. 5 The jurisdiction of regional
trial courts in land registration cases is conferred by Section 2 of P.D. No. 1529. It expressly
provides:

Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings

for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the
generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original
registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions
filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising
upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land
Registration Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and
decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of
stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM VS. ROBLES (REM-DAR JURISDICTION)

FACTS:

During his lifetime, Eduardo Reyes, married to Nenita P. Reyes,was the registered owner of
certain properties located at Barangay Ambiling, Magdalena, Laguna. Eduardo sold the said
properties to respondents.

The deeds of absolute sale covering the properties were duly registered with the Registry of
Deeds for the Province of Laguna in the names of respondents including Robles.

May 26, 2006, petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Region IV-A Laguna
Provincial Office, represented by Fritzi C.Pantoja in her capacity as Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer II (PA R O), filed Petition for Annulment of Deeds of Absolute Sale and Cancellation of
Transfer Certificates of Title. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
DARAB has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action and the subject matter of the case.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD HAS JURISDICTION

OVER ANNULMENT OF DEEDS OF ABSOLUTE SALE AND THE SUBSEQUENT
CANCELLATION OF TITLES INVOLVING LANDS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION
AND DISPOSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM.

Decision:

All told, the CA erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the DAR's petition for annulment of
deeds of sale and cancellationof titles before the PARAD, and in holding that it is the regular
courts that should determine if indeed there were violations of the agrarian laws which would
justify the grant of such petition. As can be determined from the allegations of the petition, the
DARAB has jurisdiction over such case which involves agrarian reform matters under Section 1
(1.5)and (1.13),Rule II of. The 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure.