JULIAN FERNANDEZ

V.
RUFINO FULGUERAS
G.R. 178575
June 29, 2010
de la Pena, Hilary June E.

FACTS

petition for review oncertiorariof the

Decisionof the CA

FACTS

Petitioner Fernandez filed with the DARAB a

complaint for:
nullification of Emancipation Patent (EP) and
reconveyance against respondent
Fulguerasoveraparcelofland (1.7
HA)situated in Mabitac,Laguna.

FACTS

(P)Fernandez and (R)Fulgueras are cousins

Fernandez claims that:
he owns a Cert. of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA)
he allowed his cousin Fulgueras to till the land
and share the harvest with him
Sometime in 1996, Fulgueras stopped delivering
the share of harvest
In 1999, (P) learned that his property was
registered in the name of (R)

FACTS

PARAD: Respondents title was valid;

dismissed case
(P)

filed an MR; denied

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief,

thereafter, a Notice of Appeal
Both

were dismissed

FACTS

Petitioner filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

with the DARAB
DARABs

decision:

PARAD gravely abused his discretion when he dismissed

the complaint based on conclusions not supported by
record
Ordered the cancellation of EP in favor of (R) and a
new issuance in favor of (P)

Respondent: MR (denied) CA (Petition for

Review, Rule 43 ROC)
CA

ruled in favor of Respondent; reversed and set

aside DARABs decision for certiorari

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA was correct in setting
aside DARABs decision in granting the Petition
for Certiorari for having been issued without
jurisdiction

RULING:

Yes.
The

CA correctly set aside the DARAB decision,

granting the petition forcertiorari,which is void
for having been issued without jurisdiction.

RULING:

Jurisdiction over a subject matter is

conferred by the Constitution or the law,
and rules of procedure yield to substantive
law.
Otherwise stated,jurisdiction must exist
as a matter of law.Only a statute can confer
jurisdictionon courts and administrative
agencies; rules of procedure cannot.

BUT WHY DID THE DARAB ASSUMED

JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI?

RULING:

The DARAB assumed jurisdiction over the petition

forcertiorariby virtue ofSection 3,Rule VIII of theDARAB
New Rules of Procedure, which allows the filing of such
petition to assail an interlocutory order of the Provincial
Adjudicator.

BUT!!!
A

month after the DARAB rendered its decision, the Court,

inDARAB v. Lubrica,declared that such apparent grant of

authorityto issue a writ ofcertiorariis not founded on

any law.
It

declared that neither the DARABs quasi-judicial

authority nor its rule-making power justifies the selfconferment of authority.

THUS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE

DARAB HAS NOCERTIORARIJURISDICTION:
In

general, the quantum of judicial or quasijudicial powers which an administrative agency may
exercise is defined in the enabling act of such
agency.

In

other words, the extent to which an

administrative entity may exercise such powers
depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of
the statute creating or empowering such agency.

The

grant of original jurisdiction on a quasi-judicial

agency is not implied.

In conferring adjudicatory powers and

functions on the DAR, the legislature could not
have intended to create a regular court of
justice out of the DARAB, equipped with all the
vast powers inherent in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.

The DARABis only a quasi-judicial body,

whose limited jurisdiction does not include
authority over petitions forcertiorari, in the
absence of an express grant in R.A. No.
6657, E.O. No. 229 and E.O. No. 129-A.