G.R. No. 62082. February 26, 1992
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. TEODORO N. FLORENDO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 12TH REGIONAL DISTRICT, BRANCH IV, DUMAGUETE CITY; VIVIENNE B. …
BIDIN, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction seeking to annul and set aside the: (a) order of the respondent judge dated May 31, 1982 admitting private
respondents’ “First Amended Complaint” in CAR Case No. 532 entitled
“Vivienne B. Viloria, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al” for
declaration of nullity of the foreclosure proceedings in violation of P.D.
Nos. 27 and 946; (b) order dated June 3, 1982 denying PNB’s opposition to the
first amended complaint; and (c) order dated June 28, 1982 denying PNB’s motion
for reconsideration.
The undisputed facts are as follows:
Plaintiffs are tenants of four (4) parcels of land located in the
Municipality of Mabinay, Negros Oriental, whose previous owner Ricardo
Valeroso, mortgaged the same to the Philippine National Bank (PNB, for
short). In 1971, said parcels of land
were bought by spouses Agripino and Soledad Viloria who assumed the mortgage
with PNB (Rollo, Comment, p. 90).
In 1974, defendant PNB requested defendant Provincial Sheriff of
Negros Oriental to foreclose the mortgage on the aforesaid parcels of land
after the failure of the owners thereof to pay certain amortization and the
same was sold at public auction to the defendant bank as the highest bidder
(Rollo, Brief for Private Respondents, p. 147; Annex “2”, p.
3). Notwithstanding the fact that said
lands were already brought under the Land Reform Program of the government, the
PNB caused the titles to said parcels of land transferred in its name to the
prejudice of plaintiffs (Rollo, Ibid.).
On September 8, 1981, plaintiffs Vivienne B. Viloria, et al.
filed a complaint for “Declaration of Nullity of the Foreclosure
Proceedings in Violation of P.D. Nos. 27 and 946” against the defendants
PNB, et al. in the Court of Agrarian Relations, 12th Judicial District, Branch
IV, Dumaguete City.
On October 7, 1981, defendant PNB answered the complaint with
counterclaim for damages. Plaintiffs,
in turn, filed their reply to the counterclaim dated October 10, 1981. Defendant PNB then moved for leave of court
to file third party complaint dated October 20, 1981 against the registered
owners-mortgagors of the subject parcels of land.
Plaintiffs Vivienne Viloria, et al. moved for the amendment of
their complaint to implead the heirs of the deceased plaintiff- Agripino
Viloria which respondent Judge admitted in an order dated February 26, 1982.
On May 28, 1982, private respondents Vivienne Viloria, et al.
moved to further amend their amended complaint. Notable amendment introduced in the First Amended Complaint is
the inclusion of another parcel of land as subject matter thereof, described as
follows:
“E – Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42836, a parcel of land
(Lot 787-B-2-A of the subdivision plan, Psd-54375, being a portion of Lot
7887-B-2 described on plan Psd-956, L.R.C. Record No. 9465), with all improvements
thereon situated at Cebu City. Bounded on NE., along line 1-2 by lot 785, Cebu Cadastre; on the SE.,
along line 2-3, by lot 787-A, Cebu Cadastre; on the SW., along line 3-4, by Lot
787-B-2-B of the subdivision plan; and on the NW., along line 4-1 by lots
788-A-1 and 788-A-2 of plan Psd-17436. Containing an area of TWO HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR square meters (294) more
or less.”
Said property belongs to the spouses Agripino and Soledad Viloria
and mortgaged also with PNB. It is
further alleged that:
“While letter “E” is the property located in Cebu
City and mortgaged with defendant Bank should be considered as one and
indivisible with the mortgage executed upon the four (4) parcels of land
situated at Mabinay (Negros Oriental) and were put under Land Reform by virtue
of the real estate mortgage executed and signed by the spouses land owner
Agripino and Soledad Viloria which portion of the Real Estate Mortgage
document specifically paragraph No. 2 which states “That for and in
consideration of certain loans, overdrafts and other credit accommodations
obtained from the mortgage, which is hereby fixed at P115,449.61 Philippine
Currency, and to secure the payment of the same and those others that the
mortgage may extend to the mortgagor including interest and expenses and other
obligations owing by the mortgagor to the mortgagee whether direct or indirect
or secondary…” (Rollo, Petition, p. 5).
PNB opposed the admission of the aforesaid private respondents’
First Amended Complaint on the grounds that there was no proper notice of
hearing as required by the Uniform CAR rules of procedure, the impropriety of
including TCT No. 42836 – a residential land situated in Cebu City as subject
matter of the complaint and the failure of private respondents to attach a copy
of the real estate mortgage contract upon which the action was based (Rollo,
Annex “I”, pp. 37-38).
In an order dated May 31, 1982, respondent Judge Florendo granted
private respondents’ Viloria, et al. motion and thus, admitted the First
Amended Complaint. Said order states
among others:
“Acting on the ‘Motion to Amend Amended Complaint’ dated May 28,
1982, filed by Ma. Corazon C. Locsin, counsel for plaintiffs, wherein the First
Amended Complaint (pp. 285 to 290 inclusive) of the records was attached
thereto, and it appearing that Atty. Norberto Denura, counsel for the defendant PNB, has received a copy of
aforestated motion and also a copy of the First Amended Complaint thereto
attached, the ‘Motion to Amend Amended Complaint’ is hereby GRANTED and the
First Amended Complaint is likewise hereby ADMITTED.”
Petitioner PNB’s motion for reconsideration of the above order
was denied by respondent Judge Florendo in an order dated June 28, 1981.
Hence, the petition.
As prayed for in the petition, a temporary restraining order was
issued by this Court pursuant to its resolution dated October 25, 1982
enjoining the respondent Judge from proceeding with the hearing of the case.
The First Division of this Court resolved to give due course to
the petition in the resolution of March 16, 1983.
The principal issue in the instant case is whether or not the
respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in admitting the First Amended
Complaint which adds another parcel of land not within the coverage of
Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Upon the abolition of the Court of Agrarian Relations by BP 129
enacted on August 10, 1981 and fully implemented on February 14, 1983,
jurisdiction over agrarian disputes is now vested in the appropriate Regional
Trial Court pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 19(7) of the said law (Locsin v.
Valenzuela, 173 SCRA 454 [1989]; Enrique v. Fortuna Mariculture Corporation,
158 SCRA 651 [1988]).
In view of such supervening event, it is now the appropriate
Branch of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental that has jurisdiction
over the case. Be that as it may, the
same law provides that whenever a Regional Trial Court takes cognizance of
agrarian cases, the special rules of procedures applicable under the present
laws to such cases shall continue to be applied, unless amended by law or by
rules of court promulgated by the Supreme Court (Sec. 24, BP 129).
Coming back to the case at bar, petitioner contends that Lot No.
787-B-2-A (formerly covered by
TCT No. 42836, now TCT No. 75805-PNB) being a residential/commercial and
non-agricultural land situated at Cebu City is not within the coverage of the
Operation Land Transfer, thus not within the jurisdiction of the Court of
Agrarian Relations.
Jurisdiction, in general, is either one over the nature of the
action, over the subject matter, over the person of the defendants or
over the issue framed in the pleadings (Balais v. Balais, 159 SCRA 37
[1988]). Jurisdiction over the subject
matter, on the other hand, is “conferred by law and does not depend on
the consent or objection or the acts or omissions of the parties or any one of
them (Republic v. Sangalang, 159 SCRA 515 [1988]). The law which conferred jurisdiction on the Court of Agrarian
Relations, now transferred to the appropriate Branch of the Regional Trial
Court, concerning agricultural lands, is P.D. 946 which provides, among others:
“Sec. 12. Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter – The Court of Agrarian
Relations shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
a) Cases involving the
rights and obligations of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural
land x x x;
b) Questions
involving rights granted and obligations imposed by laws, presidential
decrees, Orders, Instructions, Rules and Regulations issued and promulgated in
relation to the agrarian reform program;
x x x x x x x x x
e) Cases involving
the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and redemption of tenanted
agricultural land; (underscoring supplied)
x x x x x x x
x x”
Accordingly, the Court of Agrarian Relations (now RTC sitting as
an agrarian court) could only entertain disputes over lands that are the
subject of agrarian cases. Corollarily,
lands that are not the subject of agrarian disputes should not be brought
before it as an agrarian court. It has
been the legislative policy to confine to the CAR exclusive jurisdiction over
agrarian cases as well as their incidents (Depositario v. Hervias, 121 SCRA 756
[1983]).
The following factors indisputably established that the
questioned land is beyond CAR’s jurisdiction:
First, private respondents’ Viloria, et al. admission in their
Comment dated November 19, 1982 (Rollo, pp. 90-97) that Lot No. 787-B-2-A is a
residential lot located at Cebu City.
Second, the certification by the Agrarian Reform Team No. 215 to
the effect that subject lot is not within the coverage of the Operation Land
Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27 (Annex “N”, Rollo, p. 54). Such “official certification can be
considered as correct, if only because of the presumption of regularity that is
stamped on it as an official document” (San Mauricio Mining Co. v. Ancheta,
105 SCRA 371 [1981]).
Indeed, amendment to pleadings are generally favored and should
be liberally construed (PNB v. CA, 159 SCRA 433 [1988]), however, where the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case (Lot 787-B-2-A
being a residential lot not covered by Operation Land Transfer under PD 27), it
is evident that the amendment of the complaint could not be allowed so as to
confer jurisdiction upon the court over said property.
It being apparent that the Court of Agrarian Relations has no
jurisdiction over Lot No. 787-B-2-A aside from the fact that said court has
already been abolished by BP 129, the issue as to its territorial jurisdiction
has become moot and academic.
The propriety of the petition for certiorari is beyond
question.
The order of the respondent Judge admitting the First Amended
Complaint including therein said questioned Lot 787-B-2-A which is a
residential lot not falling within the ambit of PD 27, hence, beyond CAR’s
jurisdiction, was issued in excess of jurisdiction. The term excess of jurisdiction signifies that the court, board
or officer has jurisdiction over a case but oversteps such jurisdiction while
acting thereon (Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Caleda,
et al., 122 Phil. 355 [1965]). Verily,
the writ of certiorari is granted “to keep an inferior court within
the bounds of its jurisdiction x x x.” (Aguilar v. Tan, 31 SCRA 205
[1970]. It is the proper remedy
“where it clearly appears that the trial court is proceeding in excess or
outside of its jurisdiction x x x” (Baloria v. Abalos, 32 SCRA 368 [1970];
Time, Inc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303 [1971]; Ablan, Sr. v. Madarang, 41 SCRA 213
[1971]). Since the “office of the
writ of certiorari has been reduced to the correction of defects of
jurisdiction solely and cannot be legally used for any other purpose”
(Albert v. CFI of Manila, Br. VI, 23 SCRA 948 [1968]), said remedy is available
in the instant case to keep the trial court from proceeding in the case in
excess of its jurisdiction.
The private respondents Viloria, et al.’s contention that the
petition for certiorari is premature since the order of the respondent
judge could have simply been assigned as an error in the appeal by the
petitioner in case of adverse judgment is not persuasive. Even when appeal is available and is the
proper remedy, this court has allowed a writ of certiorari when the
orders of the lower court were issued either in excess of or without
jurisdiction (Aguilar v. Tan, supra).
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED
and the orders dated May 31, June 3, and June 28, 1982 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The trial of CAR Case No. 532 on
the merits is hereby ordered to
be conducted in the appropriate Branch
of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental in view of the abolition of the Court of Agrarian Relations by BP 129 and the temporary restraining
order issued by this Court dated October 25, 1982 enjoining the
hearing of CAR Case No. 532 with respect to Lot No. 787-B-2-A (formerly covered by T.C.T. No. 43836 covering a parcel of land situated in Cebu
City) is made PERMANENT.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Feliciano, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.