SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 63456. October 26, 2001.]
HELEN N. ISIP, petitioner, vs. MARIA NICDAO VDA. DE ISIP, Represented by her Atty-in-fact LEONORA N. ISIP, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, B., J p:
Brought before Us via this Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the decision on appeal of the Department of Agrarian Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Case No. 6476 (Reg. Case No. 0301-0028-96), entitled "Maria Nicdao Vda. De Isip, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Leonora N. Isip vs. Helen N. Isip," dated 22 November 2000, affirming in toto the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) of Bataan in Case No. R-0301-0028-96, dated 26 March 1997 (Rollo, p. 26).
The decision of the PARAD, in turn, reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, ordering the cancellation of TCT No. T-142922 issued in the name of defendant Helen N. Isip and ordering the issuance and award thereof solely in the name of plaintiff Maria N. Vda. De Isip."
(Ibid, p. 36)
The case before the PARAD was for the cancellation of TCT No. T-142922 of the Registry of Deeds of Bataan on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation in securing the same, filed by herein respondent Maria Nicdao Vda. De Isip against her daughter, herein petitioner Helen N. Isip. She prayed that TCT T-142922 issued in the name of Helen be cancelled and the same be issued solely in the name of Maria.
The factual synthesis:
Mariano N. Isip was the husband of respondent Maria Isip and awardee of Lot 5, Block 16 of the Dinalupihan Landed Estate with an area of 320 square meters, more or less. The Order of Award by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was issued in his favor on 6 October 1969. Since then, he had been paying the amortizations to the DAR and the real estate taxes therefore. On his retirement, he constructed a house thereon using his retirement benefits. Upon his demise, Maria Isip continued to pay the amortizations and taxes. The latest receipt was dated 10 November 1993 (O.R. No. 9227984) as full payment for the lot.
On 2 February 1984, Maria Isip and her eight (8) children executed an "Extra-Judicial Partition" wherein they agreed to adjudicate and waive the entire lot in favor of Maria Isip (Exh. "E"). On 8 December 1985, a Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. "G") was executed by Maria Isip selling the house and subject lot in favor of Helen Isip. Consequently, TCT No. 142922 was issued in the name of the latter on 21 May 1991 by the Register of Deeds of Bataan (Exhs. "H" to "H-1").
On 17 July 1998, respondent Maria Isip, through attorney-in-fact Leonora N. Isip, filed the instant complaint before the PARAD of Bataan. She alleged that sometime in 1984, Helen Isip approached Maria Isip, who was then suffering from kidney ailment and nervous breakdown, and enticed the latter to sign some documents on the pretext that she would be processing the titling of the house and lot in Maria's name. Unaware of Helen's motive, and because she was her daughter, she signed the document which turned out to be the deed of absolute sale selling the house and subject lot in Helen's favor. Maria N. Isip sought the help of former Mayor Lucila P. Payumo who, in turn, referred the matter in a letter dated 4 April 1995 to PARO Vicente Jimenez (Exh. "M"). The latter then indorsed it to MARO Rodolfo M. De Guzman for investigation. The Investigation Report dated 5 April 1995 (Exh. "N") was indorsed to the Legal Division of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Mediation proceedings were conducted which, however, proved futile. The Legal Division of the DAR (Exh. "P) then recommended the filing of a petition for cancellation of TCT-142922 before the DARAB. Maria Isip then executed a special power of attorney dated 4 February 1997 in favor of her daughter Leonora N. Isip authorizing the latter to represent her and to testify in her behalf. Despite the present litigation, Maria is still residing in the contested house and lot with Helen.
Helen Isip, on the other hand, claimed absolute ownership of the house and lot by virtue of the sale executed by Maria in her favor (Exh. "7"). She likewise presented a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition (Exh. "2") of the house and lot executed by the legal heirs of Mariano Isip waiving their rights thereto in her favor and not in favor of Maria N. Vda. De Isip as stated in the amended petition. A joint affidavit (Exh. "3") was executed by Valentino, Roberto, Marcelino, Charlie and Walter, all children of Maria N. Isip showing that she sold the house and lot to Helen Isip. Even Maria N. Isip executed a deed, "Pagsasalin/Pagsusuko ng Karapatan (Exh. "4") before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) Captain Montemayor of Dinalupihan, Bataan, to facilitate the transfer of the lot in favor of Helen Isip. Thus, a Deed of Sale (Exh. "6") was executed by the DAR in favor of Helen Isip.
Moreover, Helen Isip challenged the jurisdiction of the DARAB over the case for cancellation of TCT No. T-142922 as jurisdiction pertained to the regular courts under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. Besides, the cause of action had already prescribed as TCT No. T-142922 was issued by the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bataan on 21 May 1991 and the case was only filed on 17 July 1998, or after the lapse of five years. It was violative of Sec. 38, R.A. 3844, which prescribed the filing of an action within a period of three (3) years from the accrual of the cause of action.
In resolving the issue of whether there was a legal ground for the cancellation of TCT No. T-142922 in the name of Helen Isip, suffice it to say that the PARAD declared the existence of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of Helen Isip in securing the title, thus:
". . . the plaintiff has sufficiently established that indeed the subject lot was adjudicated in her favor as against the defendant who relied solely on the Deed of Absolute Sale executed her and her mother plaintiff. Assuming arguendo that the subject lot was adjudicated to defendant in her favor sometime February of 1984, then, why is there a need for the plaintiff to execute a Deed of Sale on December 8, 1985 when as defendant alleged she was already the owner of the lot as adjudicated and waived in her favor as of February 1984. This certainly runs contrary to normal happenings in the regular course of business which suggest there was fraud in the securing of the title. Furthermore, if we are to be more particular, the document was entitled a "Deed of Absolute Sale" when in fact, the evidence submitted by defendant would clearly point out that it was not really an absolute sale since her co-heirs and even plaintiff were paid by installments, as evidenced by Joint Affidavit executed by Valentino, Roberto, Marcelino, Charlie and Walter, all children of plaintiff Maria N. Isip (Exhibit "3") and Affidavit of witness to the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit "S"). This is another flaw or defect in the exception of the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale.
Granting further that the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale was successfully executed, however, the facts of the case reveal otherwise. At the time the same was executed on December 8, 1985, plaintiff was then bedridden and was suffering from heart palpitations which lead to nervous breakdown as certified by a Medical Certificate by a physician (Exhibit "F"). In that state, it could not be possible for the plaintiff to comprehend her actions, much more the consequences of what she's entering into. This Forum may not have had the opportunity to be in that exact place and time but the ordinary sentiments between an ailing mother to her daughter is to assent and to give in to the request and dictates of the latter in the honest belief that with such trust and confidence, no harm would be done to her (plaintiff). However, as it turned out later, the title was issued in the name of defendant and not plaintiff which mean that irregularities and fraud were committed in the execution Deed of Absolute Sale.
As provided for under Art. 1338 of the Civil Case:
"There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter a contract which without them, he would not have entered into."
From the facts of the case, it is evident that defendant herein employed insidious words or machinations by making plaintiff believe that the execution of the deed of absolute sale was necessary for the eventual issuance and award of title in her mother's (plaintiff) name and not under her name. This is plain and simple fraud which should not be countenanced.
Insofar as the Department is concerned, this Forum believed that misrepresentation was committed by the defendant when she alleged on the basis of the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale between her and plaintiff that the subject lot was sold to her which later became the basis of the Department in executing a Deed of Sale in her favor and the consequent release of title.
With that, this Forum finds merit in the contention of the plaintiff that it is unbelievable that defendant became the title-holder when as records would reveal, the plaintiff was still the one paying for the amortizations on the subject lot to the DAR as evidenced by a latest Official Receipt No. 9227984 dated November 10, 1993, and not defendant. In fact, the subject title was issued in 1991 while plaintiff was still in the process of paying the amortizations."
(Rollo, pp. 34-36)
As regards the issue of jurisdiction, the PARAD asserted that it has jurisdiction over the case considering that the subject lot is part of the Dinalupihan Landed Estate which is under the administration and disposition of the DAR and conveyance of the same should bear its prior consent (Ibid., p. 36).
Moreover, the PARAD ruled that prescription had not set in, as it was only in 1995 when Maria Isip discovered the Deed of Absolute Sale and the issuance of TCT No. T-142922. Pursuant to Art. 1391, par. 4 of the Civil Code, prescription should be reckoned from the discovery of the fraud in 1995 and not from the issuance of the title by the Register of Deeds (Id.).
As earlier discussed, said decision was affirmed in toto by the DARAB reiterating that the contract of absolute sale was tainted with infirmity due to fraud and that jurisdiction lies with it pursuant to Rule II, Section 1 of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure.
Prescinding therefrom, Helen Isip challenged the decision of both the DARAB and PARAD arguing that they erred in concluding that:
"1. That there was fraud or machination in the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale by plaintiff (respondent) in favor of defendant (petitioner);
2. That there was misrepresentation on the part of petitioner Helen in using the said Deed of Absolute Sale as basis in securing the deed of sale by the Department of Agrarian Reform in her favor and having the title issued to her;
3. That there was sufficient basis for the cancellation of the title (TCT No. T-142922) issued in the name of petitioner Helen and ordering the issuance and award thereof solely in the name of respondent Maria.
4. That the PARAD has jurisdiction to order the cancellation of the title registered in the name of the petitioner in the Registry of Deeds."
(Id., pp. 9-10)
The pivotal issue is whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction to order the cancellation of TCT No. T-142922 issued in the name of petitioner Helen Isip.
The jurisdiction of the DARAB is specifically set forth under Rule II, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of the DARAB, thus:
"SECTION 1. Primary And Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. — The Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.
Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to cases involving the following:
xxx xxx xxx
c) The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR or LBP;
xxx xxx xxx
e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws;
f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Landownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (Eps) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;
xxx xxx xxx
Such jurisdiction has been delegated to the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) and the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) under Section 2 thereof, thus:
"SECTION 2. Delegated Jurisdiction. — The Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) and the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) are empowered and authorized to receive, hear, determine and adjudicate all agrarian cases and disputes, and incidents in connection therewith, arising within their respective territorial jurisdiction."
The DARAB, in its decision, apparently justified the cancellation of TCT No. T-142922 as within the ambit of its jurisdiction pursuant to paragraphs c, e, and f, Section 1, Rule II, of the Revised Rules of the DARAB for the sole reason that the subject lot is part of the Dinalupihan Landed Estate, the administration and disposition of which is vested with the DAR (Id., pp. 25-26).
We disagree.
Basic as a hornbook doctrine is that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought (Caniza vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 640). Likewise, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon a claim asserted therein, a matter resolved only after and as a result of the trial. Neither can the jurisdiction of the court be made to depend on the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant (Multinational Village Homeowners Association vs. Court of Appeals, 203 SCRA 104).
Conspicuously, the complaint of Maria N. Isip was for the cancellation of TCT No. T-142922 on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. Helen Isip apparently questioned the jurisdiction of the PARAD in their answer.
In the case of Morta, Sr. vs. Occidental (308 SCRA 167, 173), which reiterated the ruling in the case of Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals (191 SCRA 885), the Supreme Court had the occasion to elucidate the jurisdiction of the DARAB as limited to the following:
"a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;
b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and
c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses."
The complaint for cancellation was definitely an issue of rightful ownership, viz., who between the parties is the rightful owner of the subject lot. Whether the subject lot was part of the Dinalupihan Landed Estate did not altogether characterize the action as one within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. The issue of ownership could not be settled by the DARAB since it is definitely outside its jurisdiction (Morta, Sr. vs. Occidental, supra). It does not fall on any of the aforecited enumerations of Section 1, Rule II of the Revised Rules of the DARAB, and as categorized in the case of Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals (supra). Simply because, there were no AGRARIAN DISPUTES between the petitioner and respondent involving the implementation of the CARP under Republic Act 6657 and the other agrarian laws. The issue here is one of ownership over a piece of registered land, a civil dispute between a mother and a daughter.
For lack of jurisdiction, the challenged decisions of the PARAD dated 26 March 1997 and DARAB promulgated on 22 November 2000 are NULL AND VOID.
There is no more reason to discuss the other assigned errors.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the PARAD dated 26 March 1997 in R-0301-0028-96 and that of the DARAB promulgated on 22 November 2000 in Case No. 6476 are hereby SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
* Barrios and **Delos Santos, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* In lieu of J. Garcia who is on leave.
** Acting Third Member.