SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225855. October 5, 2016.]
PABLO PANLILIO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS), REP. BY THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ENGR. ARTURO CRESPO, petitioner, vs. PABLO TUMANG, FRANCISCO EVANGELISTA, DAMASO SALAS, VICENTE ALGUERO, ESTELITA GANIA, RONALD TUMANG, LORENZO GANA, ATELANO DIZON, EUSEBIO TUMANG, RICARDO TUMANG, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEIR NAMES, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA, THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (MARO), THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF PAMPANGA, AND THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAR, REGION III, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 October 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225855 — Pablo Panlilio (substituted by his heirs), rep. by the Attorney-in-fact, Engr. Arturo Crespo vs. Pablo Tumang, Francisco Evangelista, Damaso Salas, Vicente Alguero, Estelita Gania, Ronald Tumang, Lorenzo Gana, Atelano Dizon, Eusebio Tumang, Ricardo Tumang, and all persons claiming rights under their names, The Register of Deeds of Pampanga, The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Pampanga, and the Regional Director, DAR, Region III
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132652 committed any reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Review and declaring void for lack of jurisdiction the January 22, 2009 Decision and January 26, 2010 Order of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) as well as the May 8, 2013 Decision and October 1, 2013 Resolution of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Petitioner argues that the CA erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. He maintains that the PARAD has original and exclusive jurisdiction over his Petitions for Ejectment, Cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Damages, and the DARAB has appellate jurisdiction over the same. He also posits that the EPs issued to private respondents should be cancelled because his landholdings were devoted to sugarcane production and cannot be placed under the coverage of PD 27; he was not notified by the Department of Agrarian Reform of such coverage; and, he was not given just compensation.
Petitioner's arguments are without merit.
As held by the CA, for the PARAD and the DARAB to have jurisdiction over cancellation of registered EPs, it is necessary for the complainant or the petitioner to show that an agrarian dispute or such "controversy relating to tenurial arrangements" 1 exists between the parties. In this case, a perusal of the Petitions for Ejectment, Cancellation of Emancipation Patents, and Damages readily shows the absence of any tenancy relationship and/or agrarian controversy between the parties. In fact, as also observed by the CA, petitioner categorically stated that private respondents were not his tenants. 2 Considering that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the material allegations in the petition or complaint, and considering further that the allegations in the Petitions for Ejectment, Cancellation of Emancipation Patents, and Damages refute the existence of any agrarian dispute between the parties, the PARAD and the DARAB did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. 3
All told, the Court finds that the CA properly dismissed the Petition for Review. cSEDTC
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed December 22, 2015 Decision and June 21, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132652.
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Heirs of Santiago Nisperos vs. Nisperos-Ducusin, 715 Phil. 691, 701 (2013).
2. Rollo, p. 594.
3. Supra note 1 at pp. 701-703.