Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 655 views

    Vda. de Herrera Vs Bernardo

    Uploaded by

    Arthur John Garraton
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership over the subject property for the following reasons: 1) COSLAP is an administrative body of limited jurisdiction that can only exercise powers granted to it by law. 2) Under the law, COSLAP has two options when presented with a land dispute - refer the matter to the appropriate agency, or assume jurisdiction if the dispute meets certain enumerated criteria. 3) The present case did not fall under any of the enumerated criteria giving COSLAP jurisdiction, as it involved a claim of ownership which falls under the jurisdiction of regular courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vda. de Herrera Vs Bernardo

    Uploaded by

    Arthur John Garraton
    655 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership over the subject property for the following reasons: 1) COSLAP is an administrative body of limited jurisdiction that can only exercise powers granted to it by law. 2) Under the law, COSLAP has two options when presented with a land dispute - refer the matter to the appropriate agency, or assume jurisdiction if the dispute meets certain enumerated criteria. 3) The present case did not fall under any of the enumerated criteria giving COSLAP jurisdiction, as it involved a claim of ownership which falls under the jurisdiction of regular courts.

    Original Description:

    jurisdiction

    Original Title

    Vda. de Herrera vs Bernardo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership over the subject property for the following reasons: 1) COSLAP is an administrative body of limited jurisdiction that can only exercise powers granted to it by law. 2) Under the law, COSLAP has two options when presented with a land dispute - refer the matter to the appropriate agency, or assume jurisdiction if the dispute meets certain enumerated criteria. 3) The present case did not fall under any of the enumerated criteria giving COSLAP jurisdiction, as it involved a claim of ownership which falls under the jurisdiction of regular courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    655 views2 pages

    Vda. de Herrera Vs Bernardo

    Uploaded by

    Arthur John Garraton
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership over the subject property for the following reasons: 1) COSLAP is an administrative body of limited jurisdiction that can only exercise powers granted to it by law. 2) Under the law, COSLAP has two options when presented with a land dispute - refer the matter to the appropriate agency, or assume jurisdiction if the dispute meets certain enumerated criteria. 3) The present case did not fall under any of the enumerated criteria giving COSLAP jurisdiction, as it involved a claim of ownership which falls under the jurisdiction of regular courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Jurisdiction

    CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA, Petitioner,


    - Versus EMELITA BERNARDO, EVELYN BERNARDO as Guardian of
    Erlyn, Crislyn and Crisanto Bernardo, Respondents.
    G.R. No. 170251, June 1, 2011
    Justice Peralta, Ponente
    Facts: The heirs of Crisanto S. Bernardo, respondents herein, represented
    by Emelita Bernardo, filed a complaint before the Commission on the
    Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against Alfredo Herrera (Alfredo)
    for interference, disturbance, unlawful claim, harassment and trespassing
    over a portion of a parcel of land situated at Barangay Dalig, Cardona,
    Rizal, with an area of 7,993 square meters. The respondents claimed that
    said parcel of land was originally owned by their predecessor-in-interest,
    Crisanto Bernardo, and was later on acquired by Crisanto S. Bernardo.
    On December 6, 1999, the COSLAP ruled that respondents have a
    rightful claim over the subject property. Consequently, a motion for
    reconsideration and/or reopening of the proceedings was filed by Alfredo.
    The COSLAP denied the motion.
    Celia S. Vda. de Herrera, as the surviving spouse of Alfredo, filed a
    petition for certiorari with the CA. Unfortunately, the CA dismissed the
    petition and affirmed the resolution of the COSLAP. The CA ruled that the
    COSLAP has exclusive jurisdiction over the present case and, even
    assuming that the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the land dispute of the
    parties herein, petitioner is already estopped from raising the issue of
    jurisdiction because Alfredo failed to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction
    before the COSLAP and he actively participated in the proceedings before
    the said body.
    Issue: Whether or not COSLAP had jurisdiction to decide the question of
    ownership?
    Ruling: No. The COSLAP was created by virtue of Executive Order (E.O.)
    No. 561, issued on September 21, 1979 by then President Ferdinand E.
    Marcos. It is an administrative body established as a means of providing a
    mechanism for the expeditious settlement of land problems among small
    settlers, landowners and members of the cultural minorities to avoid social
    unrest.
    Administrative agencies, like the COSLAP, are tribunals of limited
    jurisdiction that can only wield powers which are specifically granted to it
    by its enabling statute. Under Section 3 of E.O. No. 561, the COSLAP has
    two options in acting on a land dispute or problem lodged before it, to wit:
    (a) refer the matter to the agency having appropriate jurisdiction for
    settlement/resolution; or (b) assume jurisdiction if the matter is one of
    those enumerated in paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of the law, if such case is critical
    and explosive in nature, taking into account the large number of parties
    involved, the presence or emergence of social unrest, or other similar
    critical situations requiring immediate action. In resolving whether to
    assume jurisdiction over a case or to refer the same to the particular agency
    concerned, the COSLAP has to consider the nature or classification of the
    land involved, the parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised,
    and the need for immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent injuries to
    persons and damage or destruction to property. The law does not vest
    jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem.

    Jurisdiction

    In the instant case, the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the subject
    matter of respondents' complaint. The present case does not fall under any
    of the cases enumerated under Section 3, paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of E.O. No.
    561. Respondents' cause of action before the COSLAP pertains to their
    claim of ownership over the subject property, which is an action involving
    title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, the
    jurisdiction of which is vested with the Regional Trial Courts or the
    Municipal Trial Courts depending on the assessed value of the subject
    property.

    You might also like