G.R. NO. 132561 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, LAZARO CRUZ, FRANCISCO T. CRUZ, PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER ERLINDA PEARL V. ARMADA, DAR PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR HON. GREGORIO D. SAPERA AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. Our Resolution dated November 15, 1996 is hereby SET ASIDE, and another one is hereby issued ANNULLING the Order of the Respondent Judge dated February 6, 1996, and DISMISSING Civil Case No. 691-M-95 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 18, for lack of jurisdiction. [13] Foreseeably aggrieved, PVB filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied for lack of merit in a resolution dated 11 December 1997. [14] Hence, this petition for certiorari which this Court has treated as a petition for review under Rule 45 per Resolution [15] dated 14 April 1998 as the principal issue raised involves a question of law. On 20 July 1998, respondents were required to file their Comment. [16] After Respondents filed their Comment, [17] PVB filed its Reply [18] in compliance with the Courts resolution dated 26 October 1998. [19] Thereafter the parties were required in a resolution dated 24 November 2004 [20] to file their respective memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice. The issues raised for resolution by PVB are: A. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE CASE INVOLVES AN AGRARIAN DISPUTE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF DARAB. B. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT CASES FOR ANNULMENT OF CLOA FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DARAB. C. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE DARAB HAS JURISDICTION NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE DARAB ADJUDICATOR IS HIMSELF A PARTY TO THE CASE. D. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT THE DARAB HAS JURISDICTION NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY CEASED TO BE ARICULTURAL. [21] Basic is the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Complaint. [22] At the outset, it is well to state that the Complaint filed by PVB before the RTC is designated as one for annulment of DAR certificate of land ownership award with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order. In its Complaint, PVB impugned the award allegedly for having been illegally and fraudulently issued and consequently prayed for its nullification. In the same Complaint, PVB claimed that the property, though unirrigated, is agricultural. [23] Thus, from the very allegations made by PVB in its Complaint, there is no doubt that the same is mainly for annulment of CLOA. Neither can PVB deny the claim it made in its Complaint that the property is agricultural. Its subsequent claim that the property has ceased to be agricultural is a matter the veracity of which has yet to be verified. Specific and general provision of Rep. Act No. 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) and its implementing rules and procedure cover, to the point, the major issues above prescribed. Not too long ago, in the case of SSS v. DAR, [24] this Court resolving the sam