SPOUSES FREDESWINDA DRILON YBIOSA AND ALFREDO YBIOSA, PETITIONERS, V. INOCENCIO DRILON, RESPONDENT.

Ybiosa versus Drilon

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the spouses Fredeswinda Drilon Ybiosa and Alfredo Ybiosa against Inocencio Drilon. The dispute began as a complaint in the Regional Trial Court for annulment of a deed of absolute sale, cancellation of a certificate of land ownership award and the original certificate of title issued on its strength, and damages, over a parcel of land known as Lot 3667. Two members of one family each claimed the land: the respondent by virtue of receipts said to evidence an oral sale in his favor, and the petitioner spouses by virtue of a deed of sale said to bear the forged signature of the late Gabriel Drilon. The case matters far beyond the family quarrel, because the Supreme Court uses it to fix where jurisdiction lies when what is really being attacked is a certificate of land ownership award — in the Regional Trial Court, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, or in the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Procedural History

Inocencio Drilon filed his complaint for annulment of deed of absolute sale, original certificate of title and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 40, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 11985. After trial, that court rendered judgment declaring the deeds of absolute sale void for badges of fraud, declaring the oral sale in favor of Inocencio void as contrary to Article 124 of the Family Code, and dismissing the claims for damages. Both sides appealed to the Court of Appeals, which partially granted the appeal. The Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's decision and rendered a new one: it declared the deed of sale in favor of Fredeswinda Ybiosa void, declared the sale in favor of Inocencio valid and subsisting, and directed him to pay the balance of 4,200 pesos with legal interest of six percent per annum commencing in 1991. The claims for damages were again dismissed. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied, and so they came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Lot 3667 was originally unregistered land, and therefore public land owned by the State. Gabriel Drilon and his wife Eustaquia Eumague Drilon bought it from Maximiana Alviola in July 1980, during their marriage, and Eustaquia paid the taxes on the property registered in their names. Inocencio Drilon claimed that he had bought the same lot from Gabriel, and he offered in evidence three receipts purporting to show installment payments made from 1990 to 1991. Only Gabriel signed those receipts.

On the other side, a deed of absolute sale dated 28 February 1992 purported to convey the lot to the spouses Fredeswinda Drilon Ybiosa and Alfredo Ybiosa. Inocencio alleged that Eustaquia connived with the spouses and that the signature of Gabriel on that deed was written by another person. A Senior Document Examiner of the National Bureau of Investigation testified that the signature of Gabriel on the questioned deed was not written by the same person who signed the earlier documents, and the trial court itself observed a marked difference between the signature on the original and on the copy of the deed, even as the rest of the two documents were identical.

On the strength of the questioned deed, a certificate of land ownership award was issued, and from it Original Certificate of Title No. 7266 was issued by the Register of Deeds for Negros Oriental on 30 June 1995. Inocencio sought conciliation before the Lupong Pambarangay, failed, and obtained a certification to file action from the Barangay Captain of Barangay Ajong, Sibulan. He then filed Civil Case No. 11985 on 11 July 1997, praying that the deed of sale be annulled and that the certificate of land ownership award and the original certificate of title be cancelled.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case, such that all proceedings therein were null and void.
• Whether or not the action of the respondent for annulment of the deed of sale had already prescribed.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the deed of sale dated 28 February 1992 in favor of the petitioners void.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that there was a perfected sale between Gabriel Drilon and Inocencio Drilon over a portion of Lot 3667 by reason of ordinary receipts.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule II of the 1994 Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, which was in force at the time, provides:

SECTION 1. Primary And Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.

This is the rule the Court examines to locate jurisdiction over a case that seeks the cancellation of a certificate of land ownership award.

The same Section 1 enumerates the specific cases covered, including:

f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;

This is the clause the petitioners relied upon, and the clause the Court had to reconcile with the requirement of an agrarian dispute.

Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute as:

any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements

This definition is decisive, because without an agrarian dispute the adjudication board has no jurisdiction even over a certificate of land ownership award.

Section 9 of Republic Act No. 9700, the law that extended the agrarian reform program, provides:

All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR.

This confirms that cancellation of these titles belongs to the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, not to the courts.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction, and granted the petition. The Court began with the character of the land: the subject property was originally unregistered, meaning it is public land owned by the State, presumed to belong to the State and not privately owned by Gabriel. Any sale made by Gabriel over that property, whether to the petitioners or to the respondent, is therefore null and void unless the contrary is proved, on the principle that one cannot sell or dispose of what he does not own. This was underscored by the fact that the petitioners were able to obtain a certificate of land ownership award over the property and, later, an original certificate of title in their favor. Since the complaint primarily sought to cancel that award and that title, the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction.

The Court then asked whether the adjudication board had jurisdiction instead, and answered that it did not. It is not enough that the controversy involves the cancellation of a certificate of land ownership award registered with the Land Registration Authority. What is of primordial consideration is the existence of an agrarian dispute between the parties. The Court listed the indispensable elements of a tenancy relationship: that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; that the subject matter is agricultural land; that there is consent between the parties; that the purpose is agricultural production; that there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and that the harvest is shared. The allegations in the complaint negated any agrarian dispute, so the adjudication board was bereft of jurisdiction, and it is the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform who has authority to resolve the dispute. The Court held that the respondent should have filed his case before that office, and not the Regional Trial Court.

Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, all its proceedings and dispositions were rendered null and void. The Court added that the Court of Appeals, having itself said that only the Department of Agrarian Reform can cancel the certificate of land ownership award and title, should not have proceeded to rule on the question of ownership, for the simple reason that all proceedings before the trial court, including the trial and reception of evidence, are deemed null and void, and there is no evidence upon which to base a judgment. That question should be threshed out in the appropriate venue and proceedings.

Having reached that ground, the Court no longer needed to resolve the remaining issues of prescription, the forgery of the deed, and the alleged perfected sale, and it did not do so.

Doctrine

First, jurisdiction over a complaint is determined by the allegations of the complaint and by the relief it primarily seeks. Where the complaint primarily seeks the cancellation of a certificate of land ownership award and the certificate of title issued on its strength, the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction.

Second, the adjudication board does not automatically acquire jurisdiction merely because a certificate of land ownership award is involved. What is of primordial consideration is the existence of an agrarian dispute, which requires a tenurial arrangement over agricultural land and, in the classic case, all the elements of a tenancy relationship. Cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of certificates of land ownership award in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, as against parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees, fall within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform and not of the adjudication board.

Third, a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and so are all the proceedings taken before it, including the reception of evidence. An appellate court that finds the trial court without jurisdiction cannot proceed to resolve the merits of the case, because there is no valid evidence on which to base a ruling.

Fourth, land that is originally unregistered is public land owned by the State, and a sale of it by a private person is null and void unless the contrary is proved, on the principle that one cannot sell what he does not own.

Disposition

The petition was partially granted: the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were annulled and set aside, and Civil Case No. 11985 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with all proceedings taken therein declared null and void and of no effect.

Remember This

Memorize this line: it is not enough that a certificate of land ownership award is involved, for what is of primordial consideration is the existence of an agrarian dispute, and without it the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, not the adjudication board and not the courts, has jurisdiction over cancellation. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over certificates of land ownership awards, the distinction between the adjudication board and the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, and the rule that a void judgment carries no evidence with it to the appellate court.