HEIRS OF SIXTO LASTRA, AS REPRESENTED BY ORLANDO LASTRA, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) AND CONSORCIA LOPEZ, ROGELIO SILVESTRA, JR., G…

Heirs of Sixto Lastra versus Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Heirs of Sixto Lastra, represented by his son Orlando Lastra, against the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and several private respondents led by Consorcia Lopez. The heirs ask the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling that dismissed their father's complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession over a parcel of agricultural land in the Luisita Estate. The case matters because the Court never reaches the merits of the possession dispute. Instead, it examines a threshold question that every agrarian law practitioner must confront: whether the adjudication board had jurisdiction at all, given that the complaint never alleged an agricultural tenancy relationship between the parties.

Procedural History

Sixto Lastra filed a complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator. In its decision of April 21, 2004, the Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the complaint for lack of legal right, holding that Sixto had failed to fulfill the terms of his land award and had effectively relinquished his right by conveying a portion of the land to Consorcia. Sixto appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. In its decision of June 21, 2011, the Board affirmed the Provincial Adjudicator in full, concluding that Sixto had sold and surrendered possession of half of his landholding and had lost his right to be maintained in possession. Sixto died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by his heirs, who timely sought reconsideration. The Board denied reconsideration in its resolution of August 24, 2012. The heirs then filed the present petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Board's decision before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Sixto Lastra claimed ownership of a two and a half hectare parcel of agricultural land, identified as Lot Number 199, forming part of the Luisita Estate in La Paz, Tarlac. He held it by virtue of an Agreement to Sell executed in his favor by the Director of Lands on behalf of the government, and he was a grantee-beneficiary under the government's land distribution program. On October 10, 1988, Sixto and his wife Catalina executed a deed of sale, the Katunayan, conveying an undivided half portion of the land to Consorcia Lopez for 40,000 pesos.

Nearly eight years later, on January 10, 1996, Consorcia executed a Deed of Assignment of Rights over the property in favor of Rogelio Silvestre, Junior, for 10,000 pesos. In May 1996, the private respondents sought to take possession of the land by installing a forty foot steel pipe on it without Sixto's consent, in preparation for constructing a water pump. On June 7, 1996, Sixto filed his complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession, praying that the respondents be enjoined from disturbing his possession and cultivation.

The respondents countered that Sixto had abandoned the property as early as 1985, as shown by the Katunayan, and that it was Orlando who tried to retake the land by force in December 1995. The heirs, for their part, later insisted that Sixto's consent to the Katunayan was vitiated, that the transaction was a disguised arrangement to pay a loan that had ballooned through heavy interest, and that Sixto, old and uneducated, affixed his thumbprint without understanding that he was surrendering the land.

Issues

• Whether or not the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board had jurisdiction over Sixto's complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession despite the absence of any allegation of an agricultural tenancy relationship between the parties.
• Whether or not the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator and the Board gravely erred in ruling that the Lastras were not entitled to the maintenance of peaceful possession of the disputed landholding.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides:

Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.

This provision authorizes the Court to dismiss the action on its own motion for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is precisely the defect the Court finds in the proceedings below.

Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides:

These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.

This confirms the Court's residual power to dismiss an action on its own motion upon the grounds stated in the rules.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the Board had no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction arises only by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, not by the consent of the parties or by the action or inaction of the court. For the Board to acquire jurisdiction over a complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession, the complaint must allege an agricultural tenancy relationship. The Court listed the indispensable elements of agricultural tenancy: first, the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; second, the subject matter is agricultural land; third, there is consent between the parties; fourth, the purpose is agricultural production; fifth, there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and sixth, there is sharing of harvests.

The records were bereft of any assertion or evidence of such a relationship. Sixto's complaint and position paper spoke only of the respondents' acts of interrupting his possession by installing a forty foot pipe. Without allegations of tenancy, the action was really one for recovery of possession of real property, which falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts, not the Board. Having acted without jurisdiction, the Board rendered a void judgment, which the Court described as a dead limb on the judicial tree, to be lopped off or wholly disregarded. Because the judgment below was void, the Court declined to resolve the merits of the possession dispute, and the second issue no longer detained its attention.

Doctrine

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought, not by the consent of the parties or by the court's own assumption of authority. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void, can never become final, and gives rise to no right or obligation. For the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board to take cognizance of a complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession, the complaint must sufficiently allege all the indispensable elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship. Absent such allegations, the action is one for recovery of possession cognizable by the regular courts. Under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised or noticed by the court on its own motion at any stage, since it is one of the excepted defenses that are never deemed waived.

Disposition

The petition was denied, the Board's decision was declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction, and the agrarian case was ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the re-filing of the appropriate action before the proper court.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no allegation of agricultural tenancy, no jurisdiction in the agrarian adjudication board, and its judgment is a void dead limb on the judicial tree. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over the subject matter, the rule that it is determined by the allegations of the complaint, and the power of a court to dismiss on its own motion for lack of jurisdiction.