Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FELICITAS M. MACHADO
vs.
RICARDO L. GATDULA,
COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS
G.R. No. 156287
February 16, 2010
Facts: On February 2, 1999, Gatdula wrote a letter 4 to the
COSLAP requesting assistance because the Machados allegedly
blocked the right of way to his private property by constructing a
two-door apartment on their property
The Machados contested these reports in their position paper
dated August 26, 1999. They alleged that Gatdula had no right of
action since they did not violate Gatdulas rights.5 They further
assailed the jurisdiction of the COSLAP, stating that the proper
forum for the present case was the Regional Trial Court of San
Pedro, Laguna.
The COSLAP Ruling
On October 25, 1999, the COSLAP issued a resolution directing
the Machados to reopen the right of way in favor of Gatdula. In
so ruling, the COSLAP relied on the verification survey made by
Engr. Arellano, which established that the Machados had
encroached on the existing alley in Gatdulas property.
The COSLAP declared the Machados estopped from questioning
its jurisdiction to decide the case, since they actively participated
in the mediation conferences and the verification surveys without
raising any jurisdictional objection. It ruled that its jurisdiction
does not depend on the convenience of the Machados.
Issue: WON COSLAP has jurisdiction over the case?
Held: NO.
The COSLAPs forerunner, the PACLAP, was created
on July 31, 1970 pursuant to Executive Order No. 251. As
originally conceived, the committee was tasked to expedite and
coordinate the investigation and resolution of land disputes,
streamline and shorten administrative procedures, adopt bold
and decisive measures to solve land problems, and/or
recommend other solutions.
The PACLAP was abolished by EO 561 effective on September
21, 1979, and was replaced by the COSLAP. Unlike the former
laws, EO 561 specifically enumerated the instances when the
COSLAP can exercise its adjudicatory functions:
Section 3. Powers and Functions. The Commission shall have
the following powers and functions:
xxxx
2. Refer and follow up for immediate action by the agency having
appropriate jurisdiction any land problem or dispute referred to
the Commission: Provided, That the Commission may, in the
following cases, assume jurisdiction and resolve land problems
or disputes which are critical and explosive in nature considering,
for instance, the large number of the parties involved, the
presence or emergence of social tension or unrest, or other
similar critical situations requiring immediate action:
(a) Between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement
holders or timber concessionaires;
(b) Between occupants/squatters and government reservation
grantees;
UST v Sanchez
G.R. No. 165569
July 29, 2010
Facts: A Complaint for Damages filed by respondent Danes B.
Sanchez (respondent) against the University of Santo Tomas
(UST) and its Board of Directors, the Dean and the Assistant
Dean of the UST College of Nursing, and the University Registrar
for their alleged unjustified refusal to release the respondents
Transcript of Records (ToR).
Instead of filing an Answer, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss
where they claimed that they refused to release respondents
ToR because he was not a registered student, since he had not
been enrolled in the university for the last three semesters. After
the parties filed their responsive pleadings, petitioners filed a
Supplement to their Motion to Dismiss, alleging that respondent
sought administrative recourse before the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) through a letter-complaint dated January 21,
2003. Thus, petitioners claimed that the CHED had primary
jurisdiction to resolve matters pertaining to school controversies,
and the filing of the instant case was premature.
Issue: WON Rule on Primary Jurisdiction applies in this case
2
Held: NO.
The rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where the
administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory
functions. Thus, an essential requisite for this doctrine to apply is
the actual existence of quasi-judicial power. However, petitioners
have not shown that the CHED possesses any such power to
investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. Indeed,
Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7722 otherwise known as the
Higher Education Act of 1994, certainly does not contain any
express grant to the CHED of judicial or quasi-judicial power.
C.T. TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. ROMEO J. HIBIONADA
G.R. No. 80916 November 9, 1990
Facts: The petitioner as agent of private respondent Pleasantville
Development Corporation sold a subdivision lot on installment to
private respondent Efren Diongon. The installment payments
having been completed, Diongon demanded the delivery of the
certificate of title to the subject land. When neither the petitioner
nor Pleasantville complied, he filed a complaint against them for
specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court of
Negros Occidental.
C.T. Torres Enterprises filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, contending that the competent body to hear and
decide the case was the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board.
Issue: WON HLURB acquires jurisdiction
Held: YES.
P.D. No. 1344, which was promulgated April 2, 1978, and
empowered the National Housing Authority to issue writs of
execution in the enforcement of its decisions under P.D. No. 957,
specified the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the agency as follows:
SECTION 1.
In the exercise of its functions to regulate the
real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National
Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases of the following nature:
A.
B.
Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project
owner developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
C.
Cases
involving
specific
performance
of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of
subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
Under E.O. No. 648 dated February 7, 1981, the regulatory
functions conferred on the National Housing Authority under P.D.
Nos. 957,1344 and other related laws were transferred to the
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, which was
renamed Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board by E.O. No.
90 dated December 17, 1986.
It is clear from Section 1(c) of the above quoted PD No. 1344
that the complaint for specific performance with damages filed by
Diongon with the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental
3
(3) years, FEPI failed to construct and deliver the contracted
condominium unit to the petitioners.
As a result, the petitioners filed a Complaint-Affidavitbefore
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City accusing the
private respondents of violating P.D. No. 957, specifically its
Sections 17 and 20, in relation with Section 39.
The petitioners alleged that the private respondents did not
construct and failed to deliver the contracted condominium unit to
them and did not register the Contract to Sell with the Register of
Deeds.
Of the seven (7) private respondents, only private
respondent Alice Odchique-Bondoc filed a Counter-Affidavit. She
countered that the City Prosecutor has no jurisdiction over the
case since it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
On November 4, 2002, Assistant City Prosecutor Dennis R.
Pastrana and Pasig City Prosecutor Jacinto G. Ang (public
respondents), respectively issued and approved the Resolution
dismissing the complaint for being premature. The Resolution
held that it is the HLURB that has exclusive jurisdiction over
cases involving real estate business and practices.
Issue: WON HLURB has authority to impose criminal penalties
Held: NO
HLURBs jurisdiction over contractual rights and obligations of
parties under subdivision and condominium contracts comes out
very clearly. But hand in hand with this definition and grant of
authority is the provision on criminal penalties for violations of the