VDA. DE HERRERA. v. BERNARDO GR No. 170251 COSLAP has jurisdiction over the case.

COSLAP has jurisdiction over the case. The respondents argued that petitioner is
June 1, 2011 Peralta, J. estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of COSLAP by reason of laches due to
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Jurisdiction Herrera’s active participation in the proceedings before the COSLAP.
SUMMARY:
Petitioner assailed the jurisdiction of the court when she appealed the case. ISSUE(S):
Petitioner is not estopped from doing so, the Sibonghanoy doctrine is not applicable. WON COSLAP has jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership between the
The said doctrine is only applicable when a “considerable period” has elapsed that parties / NO, the COSLAP acted without jurisdiction in deciding the case.
laches has attached.
WON the petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP /
DOCTRINE: NO, when petitioner appealed the case to the CA, no considerable period elapsed for
Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in laches to attach - the Sibonghanoy doctrine cannot be applied to this case.
cases in which the facts are analogous to that in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. In such
controversies, laches should have been clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction HELD:
must have been raised so belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the party COSLAP has no jurisdiction to decide the case at bar
entitled to asset it had abandoned or declined to assert it. According to EO 561, the enacting law of COSLAP, the agency is an administrative
body established as a means of providing a mechanism for the expeditious
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: settlement of land problems among small settlers, landowners, and members of the
Respondents filed complaint before the COSLAP – ruling was in their favor. cultural miniorities to avoid social unrest.
Herrera filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reopening – motion denied.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA – petition denied. The material allegations or the reliefs sought in the present case does not involve a
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC – petition granted. large number of patties, nor is there a presence of social tension or unrest. The
COSLAP thus, has no jurisdiction over the case. Since the COSLAP has no
jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the decision
FACTS:
rendered, are null and void. Having no legal effect, it would be as if there was no
Respondents filed a complaint before the Commission on the Settlement of Land
judgment at all.
Problems (COSLAP) against Herrera for interference, disturbance, unlawful claim,
harassment, and trespassing over a portion of a parcel of land. Respondents claim
Petitioner is not estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction
that their predecessor-in-interest originally owned the land, while Herrera claims
In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a
that it was his father who owned the land.
Motion to Dismiss filed by the surety almost 15 years after the questioned ruling
The COSLAP ruled in favor of the respondents, and later denied the Motion for
had been rendered. The factual settings attendant in Sibonghanoy are not present
Reconsideration and/or Reopening filed by Herrera. Aggrieved, petitioner Vda. De
in the case at bar that would justify the application of estoppel by laches against the
Herrera filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. The CA affirmed the ruling of
petitioner. Here, petitioner assailed the jurisdiction of COSLAP when she appealed
the COSLAP, and further ruled that the COSLAP has exclusive jurisdiction over
the case to the CA, and at that time, no considerable period had yet elapsed for
the present case and even assuming that the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the
laches to attach.
case, petitioner is already estoppel from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction
because Herrera actively participated in the proceedings before the said body.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the SC.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT(S):
COSLAP has no adjudicatory powers to settle and decide the question of ownership
over the subject land. The present case cannot be classified as “explosive” that
would fall under COSLAP’s jurisdiction.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT(S):

Monique Lee Page 1 of 1 Case # 14