CABRAL

vs.
CA, DAR RD, et. al
G.R. No. 101974, July 12, 2001
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
6/23/14 9:47 AM
Nature of the Case
A petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA with an urgent subsequent prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO)
due to conveyance of property in issue by private respondent to a third party.

Facts
Sometime in July 1973, petitioner sought in frustration DARs reclassification of property into residential, commercial or industrial purposes.
However, in April 25, 1988, Emancipation Patents and Transfer Certificates of Title (EP and TCT) were issued in favor of private-
respondents. Thus, petitioner sought for cancellation of the EP and TCT before the BARC on 16 January 1990 citing four reasons. On 19
January 1990, petitioner also petitioned DAR for cancellation of the EP and TCT but DAR denied the same on trial and on motion for
reconsideration, and by CA on certiorari and motion for reconsideration. Thus, this petition for certiorari. A TRO was granted on subsequent
motion of petitioner due to conveyance of private-respondent to a third party that has commenced conversion of the property on issue for
commercial and industrial use.

Issue(s)
(1). Whether it is the DAR Regional Office (RO) or DARAB
1
that has jurisdiction over agrarian reform issues.
(2). Whether petitioner was denied due process being not given the opportunity to be heard on appeal.

Held
(1). DARAB has jurisdiction, and not DAR RO.

The function of DAR RO is the implementation (purely executive) of agrarian reform laws whereas that of
DARAB/RARAD
2
/PARAD
3
(in this hierarchical order) is for adjudication (judicial in nature) of agrarian reform cases. These were the
laws at the time.

Although the CA cited that DARAB can delegate its powers and functions (judicial) to the regional office, adjudication has been
delegated to the Regional Office, the same is however subject to the rules promulgated by DARAB. The same rules have been
revised, so that the same has now been delegated to RARAD and PARAD which are deemed part of the Regional Office where it is
located. This comingling of powers (executive and judicial) must not be confused, for duplication of functions would seem: 1)
impractical; 2) confusion as to what each agency serves; 3) divides agencys resources. The intention of law is to avoid such
confusion, and thus, the theory that DAR RO has jurisdiction is without merit.

The petition is granted, CA Resolution is reversed and set aside. TRO made permanent.

(2). The Court did not resolve the issue on denial of due process by DAR [since DAR has no jurisdiction in the first place].



1
DAR Adjudication Board
2
Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicators
3
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicators