Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COSLAP Case Digests
COSLAP Case Digests
Ponente: Pardo
Facts:
This case involves two parcels of land located in Oriental Mindoro owned by Isabel
Candelaria. October 1974, Candelaria entered into a 3-year lease agreement with Pio
Malabanan wherein Malabanan agreed to clear, clean and cultivate the land, to purchase
calamansi, and other seedlings, to attend and care for whatever plants thereon exist, to
make the necessary harvest of fruits.
Malabanan, later hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and to clear it. On May 1977,
Candelaria gave Malabanan a 6-year usufruct over the land. 1983, Malabanan died.
Candelaria constituted Jaime Dinglasan as her attorney-in-fact, having powers of
administration over the land.
October 1984, Candelaria entered into a new lease contract with Victoria Dinglasan,
Jaime's wife with a 1-year term. On December 1984, Bejasas agreed to pay Victoria rent
in consideration of an "pakyaw na bunga" agreement, with a term of 1 year.
After the 1 year period, Victoria demanded for Bejasas to vacate, but Bejasas continued
to stay and did not give any consideration for its use, be in rent or share. Candelarian
again entered with a 3-year lease agreement with Dinglasans, and made Jaime her
attorney-in-fact again. Jaime then filed a complaint before Commission on the Settlement
of Land Problems (COSLAP) seeking for ejectment of Bejasas. COSLAP dismissed the
complaint.
Jaime then filed it with RTC for recovery of possession; the case was referred to DAR.
DAR certified that ht e case was not proper for trial before the civil courts. Trial court
dismissed the complaint of Jaime including the leasehold claim of Bejasas. Bejasas then
filed a complaint for confirmation of leasehold and recovery of damages against
Candelaria and Jaime.
RTC favored the Bejasas. On appeal, CA reversed the decision saying that (1) there was
no tenant relationship, (2) Bejasas are mere overseers and not as permanent tenants, (3)
the pakyaw contract have expired, (4) sharing of profits was not proven, (5) the element
of personal cultivation was not proven.
Ruling:
There is no tenancy relationship. There was no proof of shared harvests. Between
Candelaria (as owner) and the Bejasas, there is no relationship. Candelaria never gave her
consent. As to the authority of Dinglasans, they had authority to bind the owner in a
tenancy agreement, but there is no proof of such presented.
United Resident of Dominican Hills vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems
THE UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL, INC., vs. COMMISSION ON
THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS
G.R. No. 135945 March 7,
2001
FACTS: Dominican Hills, formerly registered as Diplomat Hills in Baguio City, was
mortgaged to the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). It was eventually foreclosed
and acquired later on by the said bank as the highest bidder. On 11 April 1983, through
its President Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., the subject property was donated to the Republic of
the Philippines. The deed of donation stipulated that Dominican Hills would be utilized
for the "priority programs, projects, activities in human settlements and economic
development and governmental purposes" of the Ministry of Human Settlements.
On December 12, 1986, then President Corazon Aquino issued EO 85 abolishing the
Ministry of Human Settlements. All agencies under the its supervision as well as all its
assets, programs and projects, were transferred to the Presidential Management Staff
(PMS).
On 18 October 1988, United (Dominican Hills) submitted its application before the PMS
to acquire a portion of the Dominican Hills property. In a MOA, PMS and United agreed
that the latter may purchase a portion of the said property from HOME INSURANCE
GUARANTY CORPORATIO, acting as originator, on a selling price of P75.00 per
square meter.
Thus, on June 12, 1991, HIGC sold 2.48 hectares of the property to UNITED. The deed
of conditional sale provided that ten (10) per cent of the purchase price would be paid
upon signing, with the balance to be amortized within one year from its date of execution.
After UNITED made its final payment on January 31, 1992, HIGC executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated July 1, 1992.
Petitioner alleges that sometime in 1993, private respondents entered the Dominican Hills
property allocated to UNITED and constructed houses thereon. Petitioner was able to
secure a demolition order from the city mayor. Unable to stop the razing of their houses,
private respondents, under the name DOMINICAN HILL BAGUIO RESIDENTS
HOMELESS ASSOCIATION (ASSOCIATION, for brevity) filed an action for
injunction before RTC Baguio City. Private respondents were able to obtain a temporary
restraining order but their prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction was later denied.
The ASSOCIATION filed a separate civil case for damages, injunction and annulment of
the said MOA. It was later on dismissed upon motion of United. The said Order of
dismissal is currently on appeal with the Court of Appeals.
The demolition order was subsequently implemented by the Office of the City Mayor and
the City Engineer's Office of Baguio City. However, petitioner avers that private
respondents returned and reconstructed the demolished structures.
ISSUE: W/O COSLAP is empowered to hear and try a petition for annulment of
contracts with prayer for a TRO and to issue a status quo order and conduct a hearing
thereof?
"Quasi-judicial function" is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc. of public
administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."
However, it does not depart from its basic nature as an administrative agency, albeit one
that exercises quasi-judicial functions. Still, administrative agencies are not considered
courts; they are neither part of the judicial system nor are they deemed judicial
tribunals. The doctrine of separation of powers observed in our system of government
reposes the three (3) great powers into its three (3) branches — the legislative, the
executive, and the judiciary — each department being co-equal and coordinate, and
supreme in its own sphere. Accordingly, the executive department may not, by its own
fiat, impose the judgment of one of its own agencies, upon the judiciary. Indeed, under
the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is empowered "to determine whether
or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
Issue
Whether COSLAP has jurisdiction over the ownership case of the land disputed by the
Herreras and Bernardos?
it may be raised in any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.
Bañaga vs Coslap, 181 SCRA 599
The Case:
Crisanto, represented by Emelita filed a complaint before the Commission on Settlement
of Land Problems (COSLAP) against Alfredo Herrera, alleging that the land subject of
the case was originally owned by their predecessor-in-interest, which was later acquired
by Crisanto and subsequently covered by Tax Declaration No. CD-006-0828. On the
other hand, Alfredo alleged that he inherited 700 square meters of the property from his
father, who in turn bought it from Domingo Villaran. After hearing, the COSLAP
decided in favour of Crisanto and ruled that he had a rightful claim over the subject
property. Alfredo’s motion to reopen was also denied, hence Alfredo, now substituted by
Celia, his surviving spouse, filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA however
dismissed the petition, holding that 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. His motion for
reconsideration denied, Alfredo sought recourse with the Supreme Court.
The Issue:
Whether or not the COSLAP had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
The Ruling:
The petition is meritorious.
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.
Section 3 of E.O. No. 561 specifically enumerates 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
1. 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;
(d) Petitions for classification, release and/or subdivision of lands of the public domain;
and