G.R. NO. 164934 - HEIRS OF FLORENCIO ADOLFO, VS. VICTORIA P. CABRAL, GREGORIA ADOLFO AND GREGORIO LAZARO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , this petition for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, must be as it [is] hereby DENIED DUE COURSE , and consequently DISMISSED. SO ORDERED . [11] Meanwhile, the PARAD rendered a Decision [12] on June 18, 2004, canceling petitioners' emancipation patents and ordering the Registry of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, to revive respondent Cabral's OCT No. 0-1670 [now OCT No. 0-220(M)]. That decision is on appeal with the DARAB. In the instant petition, petitioners raise the following issues: I. [WHETHER] THE COURT [ A QUO ] COMMITTED A SERIOUS MISTAKE OR ERROR IN [RULING] THAT IN CASE OF DENIAL OF A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON "LACK OF JURISDICTION", THE PROPER REMEDY IS RULE 43 AND NOT RULE 65 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE[.] II. [WHETHER] THE COURT A QUO FAILED TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE [ON] THE "LACK OF JURISDICTION" OF [THE] DARAB, TO HEAR, TRY AND DECIDE CASES INVOLVING CANCELLATION OF TORRENS TITLE DULY ISSUED BY THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOLLOWING P.D. 1529 [SINCE] THE SAME IS WITHIN [THE] EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS. [13] Simply stated, the issues are: (1) Is Rule 65 the proper remedy in this case where the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is denied? and (2) Does the DARAB have jurisdiction to hear and decide cases for the cancellation of emancipation patents and certificates of titles? Petitioners contend that where a party assails the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal, the proper remedy is Rule 65 and not Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. They also argue that an action for cancellation of a certificate of title falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. [14] They also contend that the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited to agrarian disputes and agrarian reform under Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657. [15] They cite the case of Llonillo v. Cruz, [16] where the Court of Appeals ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to cancel a certificate of title duly issued in accordance with P.D. No. 1529. [17] Respondent Cabral counters that an order denying a motion to dismiss cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The proper remedy is to file an answer to the petition, proceed to trial, and await judgment before making an appeal to the DARAB which has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review the orders of the adjudicators. She also contends that the cancellation of emancipation patents is an agrarian matter over which the DARAB has jurisdiction. After a thorough consideration of the contentions of the parties, we hold that the petition lacks merit. An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case, as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. [18] Thus, the general rule is that the denial of a m