FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 139561. June 10, 2003.]

SPOUSES FEDERICO ATUEL and SARAH ATUEL and SPOUSES

GEORGE GALDIANO and ELIADA GALDIANO , petitioners, vs . SPOUSES
BERNABE VALDEZ and CONCHITA VALDEZ , respondents.

Nelbert T. Poculan for petitioners.

SYNOPSIS

Respondents led a complaint for recovery of possession with damages with the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Malaybalay, Bukidnon.
They assailed the decision of the Municipal Agrarian Reform O ce (MARO) which ordered
the segregation of the subject lot from the land of respondents and awarding the same to
petitioners. The Court of Appeals a rmed the decision of the DARAB which reversed the
decision of the MARO. After a review of the issues raised, the question is whether the
DARAB has jurisdiction to resolve the controversy.
The Supreme Court ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the respondents' complaint for recovery of possession of the subject lot. Though the
parties did not challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB, the Court may motu proprio
consider the issue of jurisdiction. The court has discretion to determine whether the
DARAB validly acquired jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred only by law. It may not be conferred on the court by consent or waiver of the
parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action. In the case at bar, the respondents did not allege the existence of tenancy relations,
if any, between them and the petitioners. The allegations in the complaint indicate that the
nature and subject matter of the instant case is for recovery of possession or accion
publiciana. For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a tenancy
relations between the parties. Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of
general jurisdiction.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; JURISDICTION; MAY NOT BE CONFERRED ON THE

COURT BY CONSENT OR WAIVER OF PARTIES WHERE THE COURT OTHERWISE WOULD
HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION. — The DARAB has
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Spouses Valdez's complaint for recovery of
possession of the Subject Lot. Though the parties do not challenge the jurisdiction of the
DARAB, the Court may motu proprio consider the issue of jurisdiction. The Court has
discretion to determine whether the DARAB validly acquired jurisdiction over the case.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law. It may not be conferred on
the court by consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
2. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS DETERMINED UPON
THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE COMPLAINT; CASE AT BAR. — In their complaint for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 recovery of possession, the Spouses Valdez alleged, among others, that they are farmers
and bene ciaries of an emancipation patent. The Spouses Valdez also alleged that the
Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano stealthily and fraudulently occupied the 2,000-
square meter Subject Lot. The Spouses Valdez claimed that despite repeated demands,
the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano refused to vacate and restore possession of
the Subject Lot to the Spouses Valdez. The Spouses Valdez prayed that the Spouses Atuel
and the Spouses Galdiano be ordered to vacate and restore possession of the Subject Lot
to the Spouses Valdez. The Spouses Valdez did not allege the existence of tenancy
relations, if any, between them and the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano . In Morta,
Sr. v. Occidental , this Court ruled: "It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an
action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint
and the character of the relief sought. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
upon the allegations made in the complaint." In the instant case, the allegations in the
complaint, which are contained in the decision of the MARO, indicate that the nature and
subject matter of the instant case is for recovery of possession or action publiciana. The
issue to be resolved is who between the Spouses Valdez on one hand, and the Spouses
Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano on the other, have a better right to possession of the
2,000-square meter Subject Lot forming part of the PD 27 Land. The Spouses Atuel and
the Spouses Galdiano likewise raise the issue of ownership by insisting that Cab is the real
and lawful owner of the Subject Lot.
3. ID.; ID.; RECOVERY OF POSSESSION; NATURE. — In Cruz v. Torres , this Court
had occasion to discuss the nature of an action to recover possession or accion
publiciana, thus: ". . . This is an action for recovery of the right to possess and is a plenary
action in an ordinary civil proceeding in a regional trial court to determine the better right
of possession of realty independently of the title. Accion publiciana or plenaria de
possession is also used to refer to an ejectment suit led after the expiration of one year
from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of
the realty. In such case, the regional trial court has jurisdiction . . ."
4. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRARIAN LAWS; TENANCY RELATIONS;
ELEMENTS. — For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a
tenancy relations between the parties. This Court held in Morta, that in order for a tenancy
agreement to take hold over a dispute, it is essential to establish all its indispensable
elements, to wit: ". . . 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is
consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is
to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of
the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner
and the tenant or agricultural lessee."
5. ID.; ID.; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD;
JURISDICTION. — Emphasizing the DARAB's jurisdiction, this Court held in Hon. Antonio M.
Nuesa, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al ., that: ". . . the DAR is vested with the primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the
exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform
program." The DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction "to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving
the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R.A. 6657, E.O.
Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. 3844 as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AGRARIAN DISPUTE, DEFINED. — Under Section 3(d) of
Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the CARP Law, an agrarian dispute is de ned
as follows: "(d) . . . any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes
concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, xing,
maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners
to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform bene ciaries, whether the disputants
stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and bene ciary, landowner and tenant, or
lessor and lessee."
7. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; ACCION PUBLICIANA; JURISDICTION IS VESTED
IN A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION. — Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is
vested in a court of general jurisdiction. Speci cally, the regional trial court exercises
exclusive original jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve . . . possession of real
property." However, if the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed
P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the municipal trial
court exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of real property. Moreover,
the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over all cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer.
8. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION; CANNOT BE MADE TO DEPEND ON THE DEFENSES
MADE BY DEFENDANT IN HIS ANSWER OR MOTION TO DISMISS. — [T]he jurisdiction of
the court (or agency in this case) cannot be made to depend on the defenses made by the
defendant in his answeror motion to dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.
9. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER CANNOT BE ACQUIRED
THROUGH, OR WAIVED BY, ANY ACT OR OMISSION OF THE PARTIES; CASE AT BAR. —
Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or
omission of the parties. The active participation of the parties in the proceedings before
the DARAB does not vest jurisdiction on the DARAB, as jurisdiction is conferred only by
law. The courts or the parties cannot disregard the rule of non-waiver of jurisdiction.
Likewise, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a
cause of action. The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB does
not prevent this Court from addressing the issue, as the DARAB's lack of jurisdiction is
apparent on the face of the complaint. Issues of jurisdiction are not subject to the whims
of the parties.
10. ID.; ID.; A DECISION RENDERED BY A TRIBUNAL WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS
A TOTAL NULLITY. — [A]n order or decision rendered by a tribunal or agency without
jurisdiction is a total nullity. TCDHaE

DECISION

CARPIO , J : p

The Case

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 seeking to reverse the Decision 2 of
the Court of Appeals dated 20 May 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48682 as well as the
Resolution dated 14 July 1999 denying the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of
Appeals in its assailed decision a rmed the Decision of the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board 3 ("DARAB") which reversed the Decision 4 of the Municipal
Agrarian Reform O ce ("MARO") in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. The MARO of Bukidnon ordered
the Department of Agrarian Reform ("DAR"), Agusan del Sur, to segregate 2,000 square
meters from the land of the Spouses Bernabe and Conchita Valdez. The MARO of
Bukidnon also awarded the same segregated land to the Spouses Federico and Sarah
Atuel and the Spouses George and Eliada Galdiano.
The Facts
The present controversy springs from a battle of possession over a portion of a
property in Poblacion (formerly Sibagat Nuevo), Sibagat, Agusan del Sur.
Atty. Manuel D. Cab ("Cab") is the registered owner of two parcels of land in
Poblacion, Sibagat, Agusan del Sur with an area of 125,804 square meters ("Cab
Property"). The Cab Property is covered by OCT No. P-5638 issued pursuant to Free Patent
No. 1318. The Cab Property is traversed by the Butuan to Davao Road and adjacent to the
municipal building of Sibagat. From the Cab Property, Cab donated the lot occupied by the
municipal building. 5
In 1964, Cab appointed Federico Atuel ("Atuel") as administrator of the Cab
Property.
Sometime in 1977, Bernabe Valdez ("Valdez") arrived in Sibagat from Baogo Bontoc,
Southern Leyte. Valdez is the nephew of Atuel, who recommended to Cab to lease a
portion of the Cab Property to Valdez. 6 On 9 October 1978, Cab and Valdez entered into a
"Lease of Improved Agricultural Land" under which Valdez leased a 1.25-hectare portion of
the Cab Property for P300.00 per year for two years.
In 1982, Cab allowed the Spouses Federico and Sarah Atuel ("Spouses Atuel") and
the Spouses George and Eliada Galdiano ("Spouses Galdiano") to occupy a 2,000-square
meter portion of the Cab Property. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano
constructed their respective houses on this 2,000-square meter lot ("Subject Lot").
On 27 September 1985, the Sangguniang Bayan of Sibagat, Agusan del Sur,
approved the town plan of the Municipality of Sibagat which classi ed the Cab Property as
residential, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission.
On 25 June 1988, Cab informed Valdez that their lease contract had already expired,
and demanded that Valdez stop cultivating the 1.25-hectare portion of the Cab Property
and vacate the same.
On 2 October 1988, responding to Cab's letter, the MARO of Sibagat, Agusan del Sur
informed Cab that Valdez was properly identi ed as a tenant, and thus deemed to be the
owner of the land he cultivated. The MARO added that on 14 September 1988, pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 27, Emancipation Patent No. A-159969 was issued to Valdez for a
2.3231-hectare portion ("PD 27 Land") of the Cab Property. The PD 27 Land included the
2,000-square meter Subject Lot occupied by the houses of the Spouses Atuel and the
Spouses Galdiano.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 On 11 May 1989, Cab led with the DAR in Manila a petition for cancellation of
Valdez's emancipation patent. Cab claimed that his property is not planted to rice and corn
and that Valdez is a civil law lessee, not a tenant. 7 Consequently, the DAR ordered the
Regional Director of Cagayan de Oro City to conduct an investigation regarding the
petition. 8
On 17 September 1989, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board ("HLURB")
approved the Town Plan and Zoning Ordinance of fty-eight municipalities, including that
of Sibagat. The HLURB classi ed the Cab Property as 90 percent residential, and the
remaining portion as institutional and park or open space.
On 27 September 1991, the Spouses Bernabe and Conchita Valdez ("Spouses
Valdez") led a complaint 9 for "Recovery of Possession with Damages" with the DARAB in
Malaybalay, Bukidnon against the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano. In their
complaint, the Spouses Valdez alleged that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano
"stealthily and through fraud entered and occupied a portion of the above-described
property with an area of 2,000 sq. m. more or less." The Spouses Valdez claimed that the
Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano, despite repeated demands, refused "to restore
possession of the said portion of land" to the Spouses Valdez. The Spouses Valdez prayed
that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano be ordered to vacate and restore to the
Spouses Valdez possession of the Subject Lot. The Spouses Valdez also prayed for
payment of litigation expenses, as well as unearned income from the Subject Lot and
moral damages.
In their answer, the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano asserted that the
Spouses Valdez had no cause of action against them because Cab is the owner of the
Subject Lot while Atuel is the administrator of the Cab Property. The Spouses Atuel and
the Spouses Galdiano claimed that upon Cab's instruction and consent, they had been
occupying the Cab Property since 1964, long before the Spouses Valdez leased a portion
of the Cab Property in 1978. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano also pointed
out that the Spouses Valdez never set foot on the Subject Lot nor cultivated the same,
thus, there is no dispossession to speak of.
Moreover, the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano alleged that the
emancipation patent issued to Valdez is null and void. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses
Galdiano maintained that the entire Cab Property, which is covered by the Free Patent
issued to Cab, has already been classi ed as residential, hence, no longer covered by PD
No. 27. 1 0
On 4 March 1993, the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator, after hearing the case, issued a
decision which disposed of as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises above considered, the DAR Agusan del Sur is
hereby ordered to segregate the TWO THOUSAND (2,000) SQ. METERS, more or
less, from the land of the complainants, Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 1261
covered by Emancipation Patent No. A-159969, and award the same to the
respondents; and hereby ordered this case dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 1 1

Dissatis ed with the decision, the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano
appealed to the DARAB Central O ce. The DARAB Central O ce reversed the decision of
the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator, thus:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby
REVERSED. Judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(1) Enjoining the respondents-appellants from committing acts of intrusion
and maintain the possessory rights of the complainants over the EP
(Emancipation Patent) covered land; and
(2) Ordering the MARO (Municipal Agrarian Reform O cer) or PARO
(Provincial Agrarian Reform O cer) concerned to assist the parties in
determining the amount to be reimbursed in favor of the respondents for
whatever improvements made on the 2,000 square meter portion to be paid
by the complainants.
SO ORDERED. 1 2

Aggrieved by the decision, the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano led a
petition for review 1 3 with the Court of Appeals. On 20 May 1999, the Court of Appeals
a rmed the decision of the DARAB Central O ce and dismissed the petition for lack of
merit. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano led a Motion for Reconsideration
which the Court of Appeals denied. On 14 January 1998, while the case was pending in the
Court of Appeals, the Spouses Valdez sold 5,000 square meters out of the PD 27 Land to
the Municipality of Sibagat. 1 4
Hence, the instant petition. aETDIc

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In a rming the decision of the DARAB, the Court of Appeals ruled that the DARAB
has primary and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and
cancellation of emancipation patents. The Court of Appeals held that the DARAB's decision
should be respected because it enjoys the presumption of regularity.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that the DARAB correctly relied on Pagtalunan v.
Tamayo 1 5 where this Court held that upon issuance of an emancipation patent, a holder
acquires a vested right of absolute ownership in the land.
The Court of Appeals further held that the doctrine laid down in Teodoro v .
Macaraeg 1 6 is applicable. In Teodoro, this Court ruled that a landowner has full liberty to
enter into a civil lease contract covering his property. However, "once a landowner enters
into a contract of lease whereby his land is to be devoted to agricultural production and
said landholding is susceptible of personal cultivation by the lessee, solely or with the help
of labor coming from his immediate farm household, then such contract is of the very
essence of a leasehold agreement." Otherwise, the Court added, "it would be easy to
subvert, under the guise of the liberty to contract, the intendment of the law of protecting
the underprivileged and ordinarily credulous farmer from the unscrupulous schemes and
pernicious practices of the landed gentry." 1 7
The Issue
After a review of the issues raised, 1 8 the question boils down to whether the
Spouses Valdez are entitled to seek redress from the DARAB in recovering possession of
the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot from the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano.
The Court's Ruling
We grant the petition based not on the arguments of the Spouses Atuel and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Spouses Galdiano but on an entirely different ground. We reverse the decision of the Court
of Appeals because of the DARAB's lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present
controversy. cEITCA

The DARAB has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Spouses Valdez's

complaint for recovery of possession of the Subject Lot. Though the parties do not
challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB, the Court may motu proprio consider the issue of
jurisdiction. 1 9 The Court has discretion to determine whether the DARAB validly acquired
jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law. It
may not be conferred on the court by consent or waiver of the parties where the court
otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. 2 0
In their complaint for recovery of possession, the Spouses Valdez alleged, among
others, that they are farmers and bene ciaries of an emancipation patent. The Spouses
Valdez also alleged that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano stealthily and
fraudulently occupied the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot. The Spouses Valdez claimed
that despite repeated demands, 2 1 the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano refused to
vacate and restore possession of the Subject Lot to the Spouses Valdez. 2 2 The Spouses
Valdez prayed that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano be ordered to vacate and
restore possession of the Subject Lot to the Spouses Valdez.
The Spouses Valdez did not allege the existence of tenancy relations, if any, between
them and the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano. In Morta, Sr. v. Occidental, 2 3 this
Court ruled:
It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action as well as
which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
upon the allegations made in the complaint.

In the instant case, the allegations in the complaint, which are contained in the
decision of the MARO, 2 4 indicate that the nature and subject matter of the instant case is
for recovery of possession or accion publiciana. The issue to be resolved is who between
the Spouses Valdez on one hand, and the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano on the
other, have a better right to possession of the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot forming
part of the PD 27 Land. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano likewise raise the
issue of ownership by insisting that Cab is the real and lawful owner of the Subject Lot. In
Cruz v. Torres, 2 5 this Court had occasion to discuss the nature of an action to recover
possession or accion publiciana, thus:
. . . This is an action for recovery of the right to posses and is a plenary
action in an ordinary civil proceeding in a regional trial court to determine the
better right of possession of realty independently of the title. Accion publiciana or
plenaria de posesion is also used to refer to an ejectment suit led after the
expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the
unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. In such case, the regional trial
court has jurisdiction. . . . 2 6

For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a tenancy
relations between the parties. 2 7 This Court held in Morta, 2 8 that in order for a tenancy
agreement to take hold over a dispute, it is essential to establish all its indispensable
elements, to wit:
. . . 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that
there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal
cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest
is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.

. . . 2 9 (Italics supplied)

Emphasizing the DARAB's jurisdiction, this Court held in Hon. Antonio M. Nuesa, et
al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., 3 0 that:
. . . the DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over
all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program." The
DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction "to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
under R.A. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. 3844 as amended by R.A.
6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations. (Italics supplied)

Under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the CARP Law, an
agrarian dispute is defined as follows:
(d) . . . any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture,
including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of
persons in negotiating, xing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms
or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.

It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired

under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from
landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform bene ciaries,
whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and
beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.

In the instant case, the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano are not and do not
claim to be the owners of the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot where their houses are
constructed. They also do not claim ownership to any other portion of the PD 27 Land.
They and the Spouses Valdez have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations
whatsoever that will bring this controversy within Section 3(d) of RA No. 6657. 3 1 The
instant case is similar to Chico v. CA, 3 2 where this Court ruled that the DARAB had no
jurisdiction over a case which did not involve any tenurial or agrarian relations between the
parties. Since the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the present controversy, it should not
have taken cognizance of the Spouses Valdez's complaint for recovery of possession.
Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction. 3 3
Speci cally, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction "in all civil
actions which involve . . . possession of real property." 3 4 However, if the assessed value of
the real property involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, and P20,000.00
outside of Metro Manila, the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over actions to
recover possession of real property. 3 5 Moreover, the municipal trial court exercises
jurisdiction over all cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
The Court of Appeals correctly stated that the DARAB has exclusive original
jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of registered
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 emancipation patents. However, the Spouses Valdez's complaint for recovery of
possession does not involve or seek the cancellation of any emancipation patent. It was
the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano who attacked the validity of the
emancipation patent as part of their a rmative defenses in their answer to the complaint.
The rule is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court (or agency in this case) cannot be
made to depend on the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion to
dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on
the defendant. 3 6
Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any
act or omission of the parties. 3 7 The active participation of the parties in the proceedings
before the DARAB does not vest jurisdiction on the DARAB, as jurisdiction is conferred only
by law. The courts or the parties cannot disregard the rule of non-waiver of jurisdiction.
Likewise, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a
cause of action. 3 8 The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB
does not prevent this Court from addressing the issue, as the DARAB's lack of jurisdiction
is apparent on the face of the complaint. Issues of jurisdiction are not subject to the
whims of the parties. 3 9
In a long line of decisions, this Court has consistently held that an order or decision
rendered by a tribunal or agency without jurisdiction is a total nullity. 4 0 Accordingly, we
rule that the decision of the DARAB in the instant case is null and void. Consequently, the
decision of the Court of Appeals a rming the decision of the DARAB is likewise invalid.
This Court nds no compelling reason to rule on the other issues raised by the Spouses
Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
20 May 1999 and the Resolution dated 14 July 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48682 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The MARO's Decision dated 4 March 1993, and the DARAB's
Decision dated 17 June 1998, are declared NULL and VOID for lack of jurisdiction. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Ynares-Santiago and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. with Associate Justices Angelina
Sandoval-Gutierrez and Romeo A. Brawner, concurring.
3. Composed of Ernesto D. Garilao, Lorenzo R. Reyes, Artemio A. Adasa, Jr., Victor Gerardo
J. Bulatao, Augusto P. Quijano, Sergio B. Serrano and Clifford C. Burkley.
4. Penned by Provincial Adjudicator Fidel H. Borres, Jr.
5. Rollo, pp. 13, 16.
6. Rollo, p. 145.
7. CA Rollo, pp. 60–61.
8. Ibid., p. 62.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 9. Docketed as DARAB Case No. X-407 (Agusan del Sur).
10. CA Rollo, p. 49.
11. Ibid., p. 52–B.
12. Ibid., p. 46.
13. Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
14. Annex "K," Rollo, p. 66.
15. G.R. No. 54281, 19 March 1990, 183 SCRA 252.
16. 136 Phil. 265 (1969).
17. T eodoro v. Macaraeg, ibid.

18. Petitioners' Memorandum, Rollo, pp. 148–150.

19. Lagman v. CA and Hon. Romero, etc., et al., 150 Phil. 1032 (1972); Government v.
American Surety Co., 11 Phil. 203 (1908).
20. Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City, G.R. No. 133240, 15
November 2000, 344 SCRA 680.
21. The date of last demand is unclear but the Spouses Valdez made a demand sometime
in 1990 as alleged in the petition (page 8) of the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses
Galdiano.
22. CA Rollo, p. 48.

23. 367 Phil. 438 (1999).

24. CA Rollo, pp. 48-52-B.
25. G.R. No. 121939, 4 October 1999, 316 SCRA 193.
26. Cruz v. Torres, ibid.
27. Benavidez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125848, 6 September 1999, 313 SCRA 714;
Isidro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105586, 15 December 1993, 228 SCRA 503.
28. Supra, see note 23.
29. Supra, see note 23.
30. G.R. No. 132048, 6 March 2002 citing Centeno v. Centeno, G.R. No. 140825, 13 October
2000, 343 SCRA 153.
31. Almuete v. Andres, G.R. No. 122276, 20 November 2001, 369 SCRA 619; Heirs of the
Late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109992, 7 March 2000, 327 SCRA
293.
32. 348 Phil. 37 (1998).

33. Laguna Estates Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119357, 5 July
2000, 335 SCRA 29.

34. Section 19 (2) of BP Blg. 129, otherwise known as The Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 (25 March 1994).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 35. Ibid.
36. Multinational Village Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
98023, 17 October 1991, 203 SCRA 104 citing Magay v. Estiandan, 69 SCRA 456.

37. Lagman v. CA and Hon. Romero, etc., et al., supra, see note 19.
38. Paguio v. NLRC, 323 Phil. 203 (1996).
39. Ibid.
40. AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 102199, 28 January 1997, 267
SCRA 47.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com