BILAG VS.

AY-AY

G.R. No. 189950* April 24, 2017

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Facts:

Romasan Development Corporation separate complaints for nullification of free patent and
original certificates of title, filed against several defendants. One of the defendants is petitioner Aurora
De Pedro.
Respondent Romasan Development Corporation alleged in its complaints that it was the owner and
possessor of a parcel of land in Antipolo City.
Based on respondent’s narrative, its representative, Mr. Ko discovered sometime in November 1996
that De Pedro put up fences on a portion of its Antipolo property. Mr. Ko confronted De Pedro regarding
her acts, but she was able to show title and documents evidencing her ownership.
Mr. Ko informed the respondent about the documents. Upon checking with the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office - Department of Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), it
was discovered that the DENR issued free patents covering portions of respondent’s property to the
Romasan Development Corporation separate complaints for nullification of free patent and
original certificates of title, filed against several defendants. One of the defendants is petitioner Aurora
De Pedro.
Respondent Romasan Development Corporation alleged in its complaints that it was the owner and
possessor of a parcel of land in Antipolo City.
Based on respondent’s narrative, its representative, Mr. Ko discovered sometime in November 1996
that De Pedro put up fences on a portion of its Antipolo property. Mr. Ko confronted De Pedro regarding
her acts, but she was able to show title and documents evidencing her ownership.
Mr. Ko informed the respondent about the documents. Upon checking with the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office - Department of Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), it
was discovered that the DENR issued free patents covering portions of respondent’s property to the
The instant case stemmed from a Complaint dated August 12, 2004 for Quieting of Title with Prayer for Preliminary
Injunction filed by respondents before the RTC. Essentially, respondents alleged that Hoc Bilag petitioners'
predecessor-in-interest sold to them separately various portions of a land designated by the Bureau of Lands
situated at Sitio Benin, Baguio City. According to respondents, Roc Bilag not only acknowledged full payment
and guaranteed that his heirs, successors-in-interest, and executors are to be bound by such sales, but he also
caused the subject lands to be removed from the Ancestral Land Claims. Respondents further alleged that they
have been in continuous possession of the said lands since 1976 when they were delivered to them and that they
have already introduced various improvements thereon. Despite the foregoing petitioners refused to honor the
foregoing sales by asserting their adverse rights on the subject lands. Worse, they continued to harass
respondents, and even threatened to demolish their improvements and dispossess them thereof. The RTC
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The CA reversed the decision and remanded the case for trial.

Romasan Development Corporation separate complaints for nullification of free patent and
original certificates of title, filed against several defendants. One of the defendants is petitioner Aurora
De Pedro.
Respondent Romasan Development Corporation alleged in its complaints that it was the owner and
possessor of a parcel of land in Antipolo City.
Based on respondent’s narrative, its representative, Mr. Ko discovered sometime in November 1996
that De Pedro put up fences on a portion of its Antipolo property. Mr. Ko confronted De Pedro regarding
her acts, but she was able to show title and documents evidencing her ownership.
Mr. Ko informed the respondent about the documents. Upon checking with the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office - Department of Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), it
was discovered that the DENR issued free patents covering portions of respondent’s property to the
Respondent Yao was the owner of a commercial building, a portion of which is leased to herein
petitioner. However, during the renewal of the contract of lease, the two disagreed on the rental rate, and to
resolve the controversy, they submitted their disagreement to arbitration. Two arbitrators (Alamarez and
Sabile) has been appointed by the parties while the appointment of the third arbitrator (Tupang) was held
in abeyance because La Naval Drug instructed its arbitrator to defer the same until its Board of Directors
could convene and approved Tupang’s appointment. This was theorized by the respondent as dilatory
tactics, hence, he prayed that a summary hearing be conducted and direct the 2 arbitrators to proceed with
the arbitration in accordance with Contract of Lease and the applicable provisions of the Arbitration law, by
appointing and confirming the appointment of the Third Arbitrator; and that the Board of Three Arbitrators
be ordered to immediately convene and resolve the controversy before it. The respondent court announced
that the two arbitrators chose Mrs. Eloisa R. Narciso as the third arbitrator and ordered the parties to submit
their position papers on the issue as to whether or not respondent Yao's claim for damages may be litigated
upon in the summary proceeding for enforcement of arbitration agreement. In moving for reconsideration
of the said Order, petitioner argued that in Special Case No. 6024, the respondent court sits as a special
court exercising limited jurisdiction and is not competent to act on respondent Yao's claim for damages,
which poses an issue litigable in an ordinary civil action. However, respondent court was not persuaded
by petitioner's submission, hence, it denied the motion for reconsideration. While the appellate court has
agreed with petitioner that, under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 876, a court, acting within the limits of its
special jurisdiction, may in this case solely determine the issue of whether the litigants should proceed or
not to arbitration, it, however, considered petitioner in estoppel from questioning the competence of the
court to additionally hear and decide in the summary proceedings private respondent's claim for damages,
it (petitioner) having itself filed similarly its own counterclaim with the court a quo.
Respondent Yao was the owner of a commercial building, a portion of which is leased to herein
petitioner. However, during the renewal of the contract of lease, the two disagreed on the rental rate, and to
resolve the controversy, they submitted their disagreement to arbitration. Two arbitrators (Alamarez and
Sabile) has been appointed by the parties while the appointment of the third arbitrator (Tupang) was held
in abeyance because La Naval Drug instructed its arbitrator to defer the same until its Board of Directors
could convene and approved Tupang’s appointment. This was theorized by the respondent as dilatory
tactics, hence, he prayed that a summary hearing be conducted and direct the 2 arbitrators to proceed with
the arbitration in accordance with Contract of Lease and the applicable provisions of the Arbitration law, by
appointing and confirming the appointment of the Third Arbitrator; and that the Board of Three Arbitrators
be ordered to immediately convene and resolve the controversy before it. The respondent court announced
that the two arbitrators chose Mrs. Eloisa R. Narciso as the third arbitrator and ordered the parties to submit
their position papers on the issue as to whether or not respondent Yao's claim for damages may be litigated
upon in the summary proceeding for enforcement of arbitration agreement. In moving for reconsideration
of the said Order, petitioner argued that in Special Case No. 6024, the respondent court sits as a special
court exercising limited jurisdiction and is not competent to act on respondent Yao's claim for damages,
which poses an issue litigable in an ordinary civil action. However, respondent court was not persuaded
by petitioner's submission, hence, it denied the motion for reconsideration. While the appellate court has
agreed with petitioner that, under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 876, a court, acting within the limits of its
special jurisdiction, may in this case solely determine the issue of whether the litigants should proceed or
not to arbitration, it, however, considered petitioner in estoppel from questioning the competence of the
court to additionally hear and decide in the summary proceedings private respondent's claim for damages,
it (petitioner) having itself filed similarly its own counterclaim with the court a quo.
Respondent Yao was the owner of a commercial building, a portion of which is leased to herein
petitioner. However, during the renewal of the contract of lease, the two disagreed on the rental rate, and to
resolve the controversy, they submitted their disagreement to arbitration. Two arbitrators (Alamarez and
Sabile) has been appointed by the parties while the appointment of the third arbitrator (Tupang) was held
in abeyance because La Naval Drug instructed its arbitrator to defer the same until its Board of Directors
could convene and approved Tupang’s appointment. This was theorized by the respondent as dilatory
tactics, hence, he prayed that a summary hearing be conducted and direct the 2 arbitrators to proceed with
the arbitration in accordance with Contract of Lease and the applicable provisions of the Arbitration law, by
appointing and confirming the appointment of the Third Arbitrator; and that the Board of Three Arbitrators
be ordered to immediately convene and resolve the controversy before it. The respondent court announced
that the two arbitrators chose Mrs. Eloisa R. Narciso as the third arbitrator and ordered the parties to submit
their position papers on the issue as to whether or not respondent Yao's claim for damages may be litigated
upon in the summary proceeding for enforcement of arbitration agreement. In moving for reconsideration
of the said Order, petitioner argued that in Special Case No. 6024, the respondent court sits as a special
court exercising limited jurisdiction and is not competent to act on respondent Yao's claim for damages,
which poses an issue litigable in an ordinary civil action. However, respondent court was not persuaded
by petitioner's submission, hence, it denied the motion for reconsideration. While the appellate court has
agreed with petitioner that, under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 876, a court, acting within the limits of its
special jurisdiction, may in this case solely determine the issue of whether the litigants should proceed or
not to arbitration, it, however, considered petitioner in estoppel from questioning the competence of the
court to additionally hear and decide in the summary proceedings private respondent's claim for damages,
it (petitioner) having itself filed similarly its own counterclaim with the court a quo.
Both parties agreed that if the due filing of the protestant’s certificate of candidacy is proven, the trial court would
have no jurisdiction except to dismiss the case. (the facts were not really discussed)Respondent Yao was the owner
of a commercial building, a portion of which is leased to herein
petitioner. However, during the renewal of the contract of lease, the two disagreed on the rental rate, and to
resolve the controversy, they submitted their disagreement to arbitration. Two arbitrators (Alamarez and
Sabile) has been appointed by the parties while the appointment of the third arbitrator (Tupang) was held
in abeyance because La Naval Drug instructed its arbitrator to defer the same until its Board of Directors
could convene and approved Tupang’s appointment. This was theorized by the respondent as dilatory
tactics, hence, he prayed that a summary hearing be conducted and direct the 2 arbitrators to proceed with
the arbitration in accordance with Contract of Lease and the applicable provisions of the Arbitration law, by
appointing and confirming the appointment of the Third Arbitrator; and that the Board of Three Arbitrators
be ordered to immediately convene and resolve the controversy before it. The respondent court announced
that the two arbitrators chose Mrs. Eloisa R. Narciso as the third arbitrator and ordered the parties to submit
their position papers on the issue as to whether or not respondent Yao's claim for damages may be litigated
upon in the summary proceeding for enforcement of arbitration agreement. In moving for reconsideration
of the said Order, petitioner argued that in Special Case No. 6024, the respondent court sits as a special
court exercising limited jurisdiction and is not competent to act on respondent Yao's claim for damages,
which poses an issue litigable in an ordinary civil action. However, respondent court was not persuaded
by petitioner's submission, hence, it denied the motion for reconsideration. While the appellate court has
agreed with petitioner that, under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 876, a court, acting within the limits of its
special jurisdiction, may in this case solely determine the issue of whether the litigants should proceed or
not to arbitration, it, however, considered petitioner in estoppel from questioning the competence of the
court to additionally hear and decide in the summary proceedings private respondent's claim for damages,
it (petitioner) having itself filed similarly its own counterclaim with the court a quo.
Respondent Yao was the owner of a commercial building, a portion of which is leased to herein
petitioner. However, during the renewal of the contract of lease, the two disagreed on the rental rate, and to
resolve the controversy, they submitted their disagreement to arbitration. Two arbitrators (Alamarez and
Sabile) has been appointed by the parties while the appointment of the third arbitrator (Tupang) was held
in abeyance because La Naval Drug instructed its arbitrator to defer the same until its Board of Directors
could convene and approved Tupang’s appointment. This was theorized by the respondent as dilatory
tactics, hence, he prayed that a summary hearing be conducted and direct the 2 arbitrators to proceed with
the arbitration in accordance with Contract of Lease and the applicable provisions of the Arbitration law, by
appointing and confirming the appointment of the Third Arbitrator; and that the Board of Three Arbitrators
be ordered to immediately convene and resolve the controversy before it. The respondent court announced
that the two arbitrators chose Mrs. Eloisa R. Narciso as the third arbitrator and ordered the parties to submit
their position papers on the issue as to whether or not respondent Yao's claim for damages may be litigated
upon in the summary proceeding for enforcement of arbitration agreement. In moving for reconsideration
of the said Order, petitioner argued that in Special Case No. 6024, the respondent court sits as a special
court exercising limited jurisdiction and is not competent to act on respondent Yao's claim for damages,
which poses an issue litigable in an ordinary civil action. However, respondent court was not persuaded
by petitioner's submission, hence, it denied the motion for reconsideration. While the appellate court has
agreed with petitioner that, under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 876, a court, acting within the limits of its
special jurisdiction, may in this case solely determine the issue of whether the litigants should proceed or
not to arbitration, it, however, considered petitioner in estoppel from questioning the competence of the
court to additionally hear and decide in the summary proceedings private respondent's claim for damages,
it (petitioner) having itself filed similarly its own counterclaim with the court a quo.
Issues:

Whether or not the CA is correct in remanding the case.

Ruling:

Jurisprudence has consistently held that “jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try,
and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the
merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the
subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong it
is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the
court that it exists. Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to
dismiss the action. "Now, on the issue of jurisdiction, a review of the records shows that the subject lands form
part of a 159,496-square meter parcel of land designated by the Bureau of Lands as Approved Plan No. 544367,
Psu 189147situated at Sitio Benin, Baguio City. Notably, such parcel of land forms part of the Baguio Townsite
Reservation. While PD 1271 provides for a means to validate ownership over lands forming part of the Baguio
Townsite Reservation, it requires, among others, that a Certificate of Title be issued on such lands on or before
July31,1973- In this case, records reveal that the subject lands are unregistered and untitled. Therefore, since the
subject lands are untitled and unregistered public lands, then petitioners correctly argued that it is the Director of
Lands who has the authority to award their ownership. Thus, the RTC Br.61 correctly recognized its lack of power
or authority to hear and resolve respondents' action for quieting of ti tle.
The petition is granted. The civil case is dismissed.