278514 Sotero Diola, Felixberto Cubero, Judy U. Lim, Manuel R. Lahoz, and Nerissa C. Natividad Vs. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. — Official PDF

Decision 5 G.R. No. 278514 enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. 24 For it to lie, the following requisites must be present: (i) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded, or those rights which are founded in law, are specific, certain, clear, established, complete, undisputed or unquestioned, and are without any semblance or color of doubt; (ii) it must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act, because it is mandated by law; (iii) the defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (iv) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and, (v) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course oflaw. 25 Section 59 of Presidential Decree No. 152926 provides that "[i]f, at the time of any transfer, subsisting encumbrances or annotations appear in the registration book, they shall be carried over and stated in the new certificate or certificates, except so far as they may be simultaneously released or discharged." This provision embodies the rule that encumbrances and annotations duly inscribed in the registration book adhere to the title and continue to bind the property notwithstanding its transfer, unless they have been validly released or discharged in accordance with law. Thus, where such encumbrances remain extant at the time of transfer, the Register of Deeds is under a mandatory and ministerial duty to carry them over to the transferee's certificate of title. 27 Applying the foregoing, Laguna West possessed a clear legal right to require the annotation of its JV As on the TCTs issued in the names of Diola et al. Correspondingly, the Register of Deeds had the ministerial obligation to carry over the existing annotations. Its inaction in this regard is therefore subject to compulsion through mandamus. With respect to the issue concerning the validity of the JV As, the Court adopts and quotes with approbation the following ruling of the CA: The Court likewise finds no merit in [Diola et al.' s] argument that the RTC could pass upon the validity of the subject N As. It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint, including the character of the reliefs prayed for. The jurisdiction over the administrative implementation of agrarian laws exclusively belong to the Department of Agrarian Reform [(DAR)]. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by [Republic Act] No. 9700, provides that the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. Under Section 50-A of the same law, no court shall take cognizance 24 See Guiao v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp., 955 Phil. 40, 49 (2024) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. 25 See id. 26 Presidential Decree No. 1529 ( I 978), Property Registration Decree. 27 See Saberon v. Ventanilla, Jr., 733 Phil. 275, 299(2014) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].