G.R. No. 232755 - MERLITA JANEO RAMOS, VS. EMELITA JANEO SOL,*.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated March 24, 2010, and March 31, 2011, of the Office of the President, in O.P. Case No. 08-E-190, as well as the Order dated December 10, 1997, and Resolution dated April 14, 2008, of the Department of Agrarian Reform in Adm. Case No. 02-17-88-88-134 [sic], are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No emancipation patent shall be issued in the name of Merlita Janeo Ramos. TCT No. EP-5840 in the name of Emelita Janeo Sol remains valid. [44] The CA ruled that the DAR Secretary has no authority to order the issuance of a new EP in favor of petitioner Merlita over the same property covered by EP No. A-119356 and TCT No. EP-5840 issued in favor of respondent Emelita. [45] It held that the registration of an EP and the issuance of the corresponding TCT by the Registry of Deeds in respondent Emelita's favor divested the DAR Secretary of administrative authority to summarily cancel that EP. [46] According to the CA, it is only when an EP or a CLT is not yet registered with the Land Registration Authority (LRA), or now the Register of Deeds, that the DAR Secretary retains authority to cancel them in the exercise of his administrative functions. [47] The CA held that it is the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) that has exclusive original jurisdiction in cases involving the issuance, correction, and cancellation of EPs that are registered with the LRA. It noted that the cancellation of EPs requires the exercise by the DAR of its quasi-judicial power through its adjudicating arm, the DARAB. [48] The CA also held that the assailed Resolutions of the DAR Secretary ordering the issuance of an EP in favor of petitioner Merlita, which will thereby result in the cancellation of EP No. A-119356 and TCT No. EP-5840 in the name of respondent Emelita, is void for want of jurisdiction. It added that the assailed rulings cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation and can never become final, and that any writ of execution based on it is void. [49] The CA further held that respondent Emelita's title cannot be the subject of a collateral attack. It noted that the outright effect of issuing a patent in petitioner Merlita's favor was the cancellation of respondent Emelita's EP, which is an indirect attack on her registered TCT. [50] Petitioner Merlita filed her Motion for Reconsideration, [51] but the CA denied it in a Resolution [52] dated June 23, 2017. Present Petition Petitioner Merlita is now before the Court alleging that the CA committed a grave and reversible error: x x x IN HOLDING THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. x x x IN HOLDING THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE IN RESOLVING THE ISSUE INVOLVING THE VALIDITY OF THE WAIVER. x x x IN HOLDING THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM HAS NO JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE CONTINUING JURISDICTION IN THE CA