FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 140825. October 13, 2000.]

CIPRIANO CENTENO, LEONILA C. CALONZO, and RAMONA
ADRIANO, petitioners, vs. IGNACIA CENTENO, respondent.

Proceso M. Nacino for petitioners.

SYNOPSIS
Respondent led a complaint with the DARAB for "Maintenance of Peaceful
Possession" praying for restraining order, ejectment and damages against the
petitioners. Respondent alleged that despite the decision of the DAR recognizing her
ownership over Lot Nos. 111 and 122, and armed by the Oce of the President,
petitioners have been molesting respondent's possession over the landholdings
adjudicated to her.
As defense, petitioners insisted that they are better entitled to the possession of the
lots and that DARAB has no jurisdiction over the case. DARAB decided the case in
favor of respondent, adverting to the earlier decision of the DAR which was
determinative of the rights of the parties under the principle of res judicata. The
Court of Appeals affirmed DARAB's decision.
Hence, this petition for review, petitioners claiming: that the case is one for
recovery of possession which falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts; that
the complaint states no cause of action; that res judicata does not apply because the
two actions have two distinct causes of action.
DTSaIc

In denying the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled: that DARAB continues to have
jurisdiction over the instant case which is an o-shoot of the previous agrarian case
for cancellation of CLTs; that petitioners are estopped from questioning the
jurisdiction of the DARAB because they participated in all stages of the instant case;
that the complaint states a cause of action; and that res judicata applies in the
instant case because the issue of possession is a settled matter in the earlier case for
cancellation of CLTs.
SYLLABUS
1.
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM
LAW OF 1988; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND ADJUDICATION BOARD
(DARAB); JURISDICTION; CASE AT BAR. The Court of Appeals correctly observed
that the present case for maintenance of peaceful possession with prayer for

restraining order/preliminary injunction is a mere o-shoot of the suit for

cancellation of Certicates of Land Transfer (CLTs) led by herein respondent
against herein petitioners before the DARAB. That previous case culminated in a
decision upholding respondent's entitlement to an award of the subject landholdings
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The case at bar is for the
maintenance of her peaceful possession of the premises and to prevent the
petitioners from further harassing her and disturbing her possession and enjoyment
thereof. Hence, the appellate court was correct in holding that the present case is an
incident owing from the earlier decision of the administrative agency involving the
same parties and relating to the same lands. (T)he instant case is related to and is a
mere o-shoot of the said previous case for cancellation of CLTs which was decided
in favor of herein respondent, we believe and so hold that the DAR continues to
have jurisdiction over the same. As aptly stated by the Court of Appeals, under
Section 50 of R.A. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), the
DAR is vested with 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 rule is that the DARAB has
jurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian dispute or any incident involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program .
2.
ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ESTOPPEL; PARTICIPATION BY PARTIES IN DARAB
PROCEEDINGS, A CASE OF. Petitioners are barred by estoppel from raising the
issue of jurisdiction of the DARAB. A perusal of the records will show that petitioners
participated in all stages of the instant case, setting up a counterclaim and asking
for armative relief in their answer. This Court has ruled that participation by
certain parties in the administrative proceedings without raising any objection
thereto, bars them from any jurisdictional inrmity after an adverse decision is
rendered against them.
3.
REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; CAUSE OF ACTION; ELEMENTS
THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in
violation of the legal right or rights of another. The elements of a cause of action
are: (1) a right in favor of the plainti by whatever means and under whatever law
it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to
respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such
defendant in violation of the right of the plainti or constituting a breach of the
obligations of the defendant to the plainti for which the latter may maintain an
action for recovery of damages. In the instant case, . . . the allegations regarding
petitioners' actions with regard to the subject land, if true, violate respondent's
rights as adjudicated by the DARAB; hence, these constitute causes of action which
entitle the respondent to the relief sought.
4.
ID.; ID.; RES JUDICATA ; ISSUE OF POSSESSION IS A SETTLED MATTER IN
CASE AT BAR. Finally, petitioners contend that the principle of res judicata does
not apply to the instant case because the rst action led by respondent was for
cancellation of the Certicates of Land Transfer issued to petitioners, while the
second action, the instant case, is for maintenance of peaceful possession. . . . The
Court of Appeals however ruled that the issue of possession is a settled matter. We

are inclined to agree with the findings of the appellate court on the issue.
RESOLUTION
KAPUNAN, J :
p

The instant petition for review seeks the reversal of the Decision, dated September
23, 1998; and, Resolution, dated November 17, 1999 of the Court of Appeals which
armed the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) ordering herein petitioners to vacate the property awarded to respondent
Ignacia Centeno.
CSIDTc

The antecedent facts, as found by the appellate court, are quoted hereunder as
follows:
Respondent is the owner of two (2) parcels of riceland denominated as Lot
No. 111, Psd-248725, with an area of 1,200 square meters, and Lot No.
122, Psd-248725, containing an area of 2,862 square meters, situated at
Cofradia Sta Isabel, Malolos, Bulacan.
The said parcels of land were the subject of an earlier case led by
respondent against petitioners before the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), for cancellation of certicates of land transfer (CLT). In said case, it
was established that petitioners, through fraud and misrepresentation,
obtained CLTs in their names, i.e., CLT No. 10186 for Lot No. 122 and CLT
No. 10185 for one-half portion of Lot No. 111 for Cipriano Centeno, and CLT
No. 10184 for the other half of Lot No. 111 for Leonida Calonzo (sic).
On November 15, 1986, the then Minister, now Secretary, of Agrarian
Reform issued an order directing the recall and cancellation of petitioners'
CLTs, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, order is hereby issued:
1.
Recalling and cancelling CLT No. 10186 covering Farmlot No.
122 containing an area of 2,862 square meters and CLT No. 10185
covering half portion of Home Lot No. 111 issued to Respondent
Cipriano Centeno, and CLT No. 10148 (sic) covering the remaining half
portion of Home Lot No. 111 issued to Respondent Leonila Calonzo, all
under Psd-248725, situated at RCC Malolos Estate, Malolos, Bulacan;
and forfeiting in favor of the government whatever payments they
have made on account thereof.
2.
Directing the generation and issuance of new Certicates of
Land Transfer in favor of herein protestant Ignacia Centeno, covering
the landholdings at issue.
The aforesaid order was armed by the Oce of the President in its

decision dated July 8, 1987, which had become final and executory.
The instant case has its roots in a complaint led by herein respondent
Ignacia Centeno with the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication
Board (DARAB), Region III, Malolos, Bulacan, for "Maintenance of Peaceful
Possession with Prayer for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction,
Ejectment and Damages." Respondent alleged that, despite the decision of
the DAR recognizing her ownership over Lot Nos. 111 and 122, as armed
by the Oce of the President, herein petitioners Cipriano Centeno, Leonila
Calonzo and Ramona Adriano have interfered with and prevented
respondent from exercising acts of possession over the landholdings earlier
adjudicated to her (Lot Nos. 111 and 122) and kept on harassing, molesting
and disturbing her peaceful possession as well as the enjoyment of the fruits
thereof, to her great damage and prejudice. She prayed that petitioners be
restrained from committing acts tending to deprive respondent of her
possession, and that they be ordered to vacate the premises.
In their answer, petitioner insisted that they are better entitled to the
possession of the lots in dispute, having been allegedly in long possession
thereof, with their houses thereon. On the other hand, the award of said
lots to respondent is unauthorized, not only because she has no possession
thereof but also because she has other landholdings in the locality. They
averred that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action
and for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the DARAB over the case.
aSTECA

On April 14, 1993, the Provincial Adjudicator rendered a decision, after

hearing, favorably to respondent, adverting to the decision of the DAR,
dated November 15,1986, which was held to be determinative of the rights
of the parties under the principle of res judicata. This decision was armed
on appeal by the DARAB on September 10, 1997, with the directive "to
immediately reinstate petitioner-appellee (respondent herein) to the subject
landholdings and for the defendants-appellants (petitioners herein) to
respect (her) security of tenure thereon as mandated by law." 1

Not satised with the decision of the DARAB, herein petitioner led a petition for
review with the Court of Appeals. On September 23, 1998, the appellate court
rendered the assailed decision arming the decision of the DARAB. Hence, the
instant petition wherein petitioners raise the following issues:
1.

WHETHER OR NOT THE DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD HAS

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE;

2.

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS ARE ESTOPPED FROM

RAISING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION;

3.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF

ACTION; and

4.

WHETHER OR NOT RES JUDICATA APPLIES IN THE INSTANT

CASE. 2
Petitioners allege that the DARAB does not have jurisdiction over the complaint for
maintenance of possession since the dispute is not agrarian in character. They aver
that there is no allegation in the complaint of the existence of a tenancy
relationship nor the presence of an agrarian dispute that would place the case under
the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Rather, petitioners allege that the instant case is
clearly one for recovery of possession which falls under the jurisdiction of the
regular courts.
Petitioners further asseverate that the appellate court gravely erred in declaring
that they are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the board because from
the start of the proceedings, they had already raised said issue of jurisdiction.
Petitioners likewise allege that the complaint states no cause of action. They
contend that respondent cannot claim maintenance of peaceful possession when
she does not in fact have actual possession of the subject property. They claim that
it is they who are in actual possession of said land; Furthermore, they claim that
respondent did not even make a demand for them to vacate the land; nor did she
present evidence to show that their acts of possession resulted in loss or damage to
her.
AScTaD

Finally, petitioners contend that the principle of res judicata does not apply to the
instant case because the rst action led by respondent was for cancellation of the
Certicates of Land Transfer issued to petitioners, while the second action, the
instant case, is for maintenance of peaceful possession. According to petitioners, the
two actions refer to different subject matters and distinct causes of action.
Petitioners' arguments are bereft of merit.
The Court of Appeals correctly observed that the present case for maintenance of
peaceful possession with prayer for restraining order/preliminary injunction is a
mere off-shoot of the suit for cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) filed
by herein respondent against herein petitioners before the DARAB. That previous
case culminated in a decision upholding respondent's entitlement to an award of
the subject landholdings under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The case
at bar is for the maintenance of her peaceful possession of the premises and to
prevent the petitioners from further harassing her and disturbing her possession
and enjoyment thereof. Hence, the appellate court was correct in holding that the
present case is an incident owing from the earlier decision of the administrative
agency involving the same parties and relating to the same lands. 3
We quote with approval the Court of Appeals' findings on the matter, thus:
In other words, the complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession is a
logical follow-through of the intended operational terms of the DAR order
dated November 15 1986, as armed by the Oce of the President, which
directed the recall and cancellation of the CLTs of petitioners which were
found to have been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, and the

"generation and issuance" of new CLTs to respondent Ignacia Centeno,

"covering the landholdings at issue." Such earlier determination must be
deemed to include the right of respondent, and her privies, to the
possession peaceful possession of Lot Nos. 111 and 122, Psd-248725.
A judgment, needless to state, is not conned to what appears on the face
thereof but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
(Perez v. Evite, 1 SCRA 949 [1961]; Gonzales v. Court of Appeals , 212 SCRA
595 [1992]). 4 (Italics supplied)

Having found therefore, that the instant case is related to and is a mere o-shoot of
the said previous case for cancellation of CLTs which was decided in favor of herein
respondent, we believe and so hold that the DAR continues to have jurisdiction over
the same. As aptly stated by the Court of Appeals, under Section 50 of R.A 6657
(the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), the DAR is vested with 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 rule is that the DARAB has jurisdiction to try and decide any
agrarian
dispute
or any incident involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. 5 (Italics supplied)
DcTaEH

Section 1, Rule II of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DARAB provides:

Section 1.
Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and
appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases,
controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657,
Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as
amended by Republic Act No 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.
Specically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to the
following:
xxx xxx xxx
f)
Cases involving the issuance of Certicate of Land Transfer
(CLT), Certicate of Landownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation
Patent (EP) and the administrative correction thereof; (Italics
supplied.)

Furthermore, petitioners are barred by estoppel from raising the issue of jurisdiction
of the DARAB. A perusal of the records will show that petitioners participated in all
stages of the instant case, setting up a counterclaim and asking for armative relief
in their answer. This Court has ruled that participation by certain parties in the
administrative proceedings without raising any objection thereto, bars them from
any jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision is rendered against them. 6
Anent petitioners' contention that the complaint states no cause of action, we nd
this to be, likewise, without merit. A cause of action is an act or omission of one

party in violation of the legal right or rights of another. 7 The elements of a cause of
action are: (1) a right in favor of the plainti by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the
part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plainti or constituting a
breach of the obligations of the defendant to the plainti for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages. 8
In the instant case, the complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession contains
the following allegations, to wit
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8.
Defendants are persistently interfering in and preventing plainti's
possession and cultivation of farmlot no. 122, and continue to commit acts
tending to eject, oust and remove the plainti therefrom, to her great
damage and injury;
9.
Similarly, defendants are harassing, molesting and disturbing plainti's
peaceful possession of Home Lot No. 111;
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
10.
Without the knowledge and consent of herein plaintis, defendants
constructed two (2) houses on two portions of Home Lot No. 111, one
house belonging to defendant Cipriano Centeno, and the other to defendant
Leonila Centeno Calonzo, but occupied by defendant Ramona Adriano;
11.
The construction of said houses is patently illegal and deprives
plainti of the possession and enjoyment thereof, to her great damage and
injury. 9

Clearly, the above allegations regarding petitioners' actions with regard to the
subject land, if true, violate respondent's rights as adjudicated by the DARAB; hence,
these constitute causes of action which entitle the respondent to the relief sought.
Finally, on the issue of the applicability of res judicata to the instant case.
Petitioners would have us believe that they are the ones who are in actual
possession of the subject land. They argue that the order of DAR recalling and
cancelling their CLTs "is void from the beginning." The Court of Appeals however
ruled that the issue of possession is a settled matter. We are inclined to agree with
the findings of the appellate court on the issue, thus:
It is futile for petitioners to argue, by their strained reasoning, that res
judicata is not applicable. Petitioners' position is that they are in possession
of the subject landholdings and have houses thereon. They thus argue that
the order of the DAR recalling and cancelling their CLTs "is void from the
beginning." (Answer, 2) This is begging the issue. Precisely, one of the main
defenses of petitioners in the earlier case for cancellation of CLTs is their
alleged possession, but this was ruled against them by the DAR since for
one, Cipriano Centeno, a nephew of respondent, was just a helper of

respondent tending to the landholdings. For another, it was also ruled that
respondent has the preferential right over the land in dispute but that she
was deprived of her rights as CLT beneciary on account of petitioners'
acquisition of CLTs through fraud and misrepresentation. Obviously, the
issue of possession is a settled matter. 10
CE IHcT

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Davide Jr., C.J ., Puno, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1.

CA Decision, dated September 23, 1998, Rollo, pp. 28-30.

2.

Rollo, p. 15.

3.

Id., at 32.

4.

Ibid.

5.

Central Mindanao University v. Department of Agrarian Reform , 215 SCRA 86

(1992).

6.

Fortich v. Corona, 298 SCRA 678 (1998).

7.

Leberman Realty Corporation v. Typingco, 293 SCRA 316 (1998).

8.

Ibid.

9.

Complaint, Rollo, pp. 47-48.

10.

Rollo, p. 34.