RepublicofthePhilippines

SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC

G.R.No.100091October22,1992
CENTRALMINDANAOUNIVERSITYREPRESENTEDITSPRESIDENTDR.LEONARDOA.CHUA,
petitioner,
vs.
THEDEPARTMENTOFAGRARIANREFORMADJUDICATIONBOARD,THECOURTOFAPPEALS
andALVINOBRIQUE,REPRESENTINGBUKIDNONFREEFARMERSAGRICULTURALLABORERS
ORGANIZATION(BUFFALO),respondents.

CAMPOS,JR.,J.:
ThisisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourttonullifythe
proceedingsanddecisionoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard(DARABfor
brevity)datedSeptember4,1989andtosetasidethedecisionthedecision*oftheCourtof
AppealsdatedAugust20,1990,affirmingthedecisionoftheDARABwhichorderedthesegregation
of400hectaresofsuitable,compactandcontiguousportionsoftheCentralMindanaoUniversity
(CMUforbrevity)landandtheirinclusionintheComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgram(CARP
forbrevity)fordistributiontoqualifiedbeneficiaries,onthegroundoflackofjurisdiction.
ThiscaseoriginatedinacomplaintfiledbycomplainantscallingthemselvesastheBukidnonFree
FarmersandAgriculturalLaborersOrganization(BUFFALOforbrevity)undertheleadershipof
AlvinObriqueandLuisHermosoagainsttheCMU,beforetheDepartmentofAgrarianReformfor
DeclarationofStatusasTenants,undertheCARP.
Fromtherecords,thefollowingfactsareevident.Thepetitioner,theCMU,isanagricultural
educationalinstitutionownedandrunbythestatelocatedinthetownofMusuan,Bukidnon
province.ItstartedasafarmschoolatMarilang,Bukidnoninearly1910,inresponsetothepublic
demandforanagriculturalschoolinMindanao.ItexpandedintotheBukidnonNational
AgriculturalHighSchoolandwastransferredtoitsnewsiteinManagoknearMalaybalay,the
provincialcapitalofBukidnon.
Intheearly1960's,itwasconvertedintoacollegewithcampusatMusuan,untilitbecamewhatis
nowknownastheCMU,butstillprimarilyanagriculturaluniversity.Fromitsbeginning,theschool
wastheanswertothecryingneedfortrainingpeopleinordertodeveloptheagriculturalpotential
oftheislandofMindanao.Thosewhoplannedandestablishedtheschoolhadavisionastothe
futuredevelopmentofthatpartofthePhilippines.OnJanuary16,1958thePresidentofthe
RepublicofthePhilippines,thelateCarlosP.Garcia,"upontherecommendationoftheSecretaryof
AgricultureandNaturalResources,andpursuanttotheprovisionsofSection53,ofCommonwealth
ActNo.141,asamended",issuedProclamationNo.476,withdrawingfromsaleorsettlementand

reservingfortheMindanaoAgriculturalCollege,asitewhichwouldbethefuturecampusofwhatis
nowtheCMU.Atotallandareacomprising3,080hectareswassurveyedandregisteredandtitledin
thenameofthepetitionerunderOCTNos.160,161and162. 1
Inthecourseofthecadastralhearingoftheschool'spetitionforregistrationoftheaforementioned
grantofagriculturalland,severaltribesbelongingtoculturalcommunities,opposedthepetition
claimingownershipofcertainancestrallandsformingpartofthetribalreservations.Someofthe
claimsweregrantedsothatwhatwastitledtothepresentpetitionerschoolwasreducedfrom
3,401hectaresto3,080hectares.
Intheearly1960's,thestudentpopulationoftheschoolwaslessthan3,000.By1988,thestudent
populationhadexpandedtosome13,000students,sothattheschoolcommunityhasanacademic
population(student,facultyandnonacademicstaff)ofalmost15,000.Tocopewiththeincreasein
itsenrollment,ithasexpandedandimproveditseducationalfacilitiespartlyfromgovernment
appropriationandpartlybyselfhelpmeasures.
Truetotheconceptofalandgrantcollege,theschoolembarkedonselfhelpmeasurestocarryout
itseducationalobjectives,trainitsstudents,andmaintainvariousactivitieswhichthegovernment
appropriationcouldnotadequatelysupportorsustain.In1984,theCMUapprovedResolutionNo.
160,adoptingalivelihoodprogramcalled"KilusangSarilingSikapProgram"underwhichtheland
resourcesoftheUniversitywereleasedtoitsfacultyandemployees.Thisarrangementwascovered
byawrittencontract.Underthisprogramthefacultyandstaffcombinethemselvestogroupsoffive
memberseach,andtheCMUprovidedtechnicalknowhow,practicaltrainingandallkindsof
assistance,toenableeachgrouptocultivate4to5hectaresoflandforthelowlandriceproject.
EachgrouppaystheCMUaservicefeeandalsoalanduseparticipant'sfee.Thecontractprohibits
participantsandtheirhiredworkerstoestablishhousesorliveintheprojectareaandtousethe
cultivatedlandasacollateralforanykindofloan.Itwasexpresslystipulatedthatnolandlord
tenantrelationshipexistedbetweentheCMUandthefacultyand/oremployees.Thisparticular
programwasconceivedasamultidisciplinaryappliedresearchextensionandproductivity
programtoutilizeavailableland,trainpeopleinmodernagriculturaltechnologyandatthesame
timegivethefacultyandstaffopportunitieswithintheconfinesoftheCMUreservationtoearn
additionalincometoaugmenttheirsalaries.ThelocationoftheCMUatMusuan,Bukidnon,whichis
quiteadistancefromthenearesttown,wasthepropersettingfortheadoptionofsuchaprogram.
AmongtheparticipantsinthisprogramwereAlvinObrique,FelixGuinanao,JovenCaballero,
NestorPulao,DaniloVasquez,AronioPelayoandothercomplainants.ObriquewasaPhysics
InstructorattheCMUwhiletheotherswereemployeesinthelowlandriceproject.Theother
complainantswhowerenotmembersofthefacultyornonacademicstaffCMU,werehiredworkers
orlaborersoftheparticipantsinthisprogram.WhenpetitionerDr.LeonardoChuabecame
PresidentoftheCMUinJuly1986,hediscontinuedtheagribusinessprojectfortheproductionof
rice,cornandsugarcaneknownasAgriBusinessManagementandTrainingProject,duetolosses
incurredwhilecarryingonthesaidproject.SomeCMUpersonnel,amongwhomwerethe
complainants,werelaidoffwhenthisprojectwasdiscontinued.AsAssistantDirectorofthisagri
businessproject,ObriquewasfoundguiltyofmishandlingtheCMUfundsandwasseparatedfrom
servicebyvirtueofExecutiveOrderNo.17,thereorganizationlawoftheCMU.
Sometimein1986,underDr.ChuaasPresident,theCMUlaunchedaselfhelpprojectcalledCMU
IncomeEnhancementProgram(CMUIEP)todevelopunutilizedlandresources,mobilizeand
promotethespiritofselfreliance,providesocioeconomicandtechnicaltraininginactualfield
projectimplementationandaugmenttheincomeofthefacultyandthestaff.

Underthetermsofa3partyMemorandumofAgreement2amongtheCMU,theCMUIntegrated
DevelopmentFoundation(CMUIDF)andgroupsor"seldas"of5CMUemployees,theCMUwould
providetheuseof4to5hectaresoflandtoaseldaforone(1)calendaryear.TheCMUIDFwould
provideresearchersandspecialiststoassistinthepreparationofprojectproposalsandtomonitor
andanalyzeprojectimplementation.TheseldainturnwouldpaytotheCMUP100asservicefee
andP1,000perhectareasparticipant'slandrentalfee.Inaddition,400kilogramsoftheproduce
peryearwouldbeturnedoverordonatedtotheCMUIDF.Theparticipantsagreednottoallow
theirhiredlaborersormemberoftheirfamilytoestablishanyhouseorlivewithinvicinityofthe
projectareaandnottousetheallocatedlotascollateralforaloan.Itwasexpresslyprovidedthat
notenantlandlordrelationshipwouldexistasaresultoftheAgreement.
Initially,participationintheCMUIEPwasextendedonlytoworkersandstaffmemberswhowere
stillemployedwiththeCMUandwasnotmadeavailabletoformerworkersoremployees.Inthe
middleof1987,tocushiontheimpactofthediscontinuanceoftherice,cornandsugarcaneproject
onthelivesofitsformerworkers,theCMUallowedthemtoparticipateintheCMUIEPasspecial
participants.
UnderthetermsofacontractcalledAddendumToExistingMemorandumofAgreement
ConcerningParticipationTotheCMUIncomeEnhancementProgram,3aformeremployeewould
begroupedwithanexistingseldaofhischoiceandprovidedone(1)hectareforalowlandrice
projectforone(1)calendaryear.Hewouldpaythelandrentalparticipant'sfeeofP1,000.00per
hectarebutonachargetocropbasis.Hewouldalsobesubjecttothesameprohibitionsasthose
imposedontheCMUemployees.Itwasalsoexpresslyprovidedthatnotenantlandlord
relationshipwouldexistasaresultoftheAgreement.
TheoneyearcontractsexpiredonJune30,1988.Somecontractswererenewed.Thosewhose
contractswerenotrenewedwereservedwithnoticestovacate.
Thenonrenewalofthecontracts,thediscontinuanceoftherice,cornandsugarcaneproject,the
lossofjobsduetoterminationorseparationfromtheserviceandtheallegedharassmentbyschool
authorities,allcontributedto,andprecipitatedthefilingofthecomplaint.
Onthebasisoftheabovefacts,theDARABfoundthattheprivaterespondentswerenottenantsand
cannotthereforebebeneficiariesundertheCARP.Atthesametime,theDARABorderedthe
segregationof400hectaresofsuitable,compactandcontiguousportionsoftheCMUlandandtheir
inclusionintheCARPfordistributiontoqualifiedbeneficiaries.
ThepetitionerCMU,inseekingareviewofthedecisionsoftherespondentsDARABandtheCourtof
Appeals,raisedthefollowingissues:
1.)WhetherornottheDARABhasjurisdictiontohearanddecideCaseNo.005forDeclarationof
StatusofTenantsandcoverageoflandundertheCARP.
2.)WhetherornotrespondentCourtofAppealscommittedseriouserrorsandgraveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackofjurisdictionindismissingthePetitionforReviewonCertiorariand
affirmingthedecisionofDARAB.
Intheircomplaint,docketedasDARCaseNo.5,filedwiththeDARAB,complainantsObrique,etal.
claimedthattheyaretenantsoftheCMUand/orlandlesspeasantsclaiming/occupyingapartor

portionoftheCMUsituatedatSinalayan,Valencia,BukidnonandMusuan,Bukidnon,consistingof
about1,200hectares.WeagreewiththeDARAB'sfindingthatObrique,et.al.arenottenants.Under
thetermsofthewrittenagreementsignedbyObrique,et.al.,pursuanttothelivelihoodprogram
called"KilusangSarilingSikapProgram",itwasexpresslystipulatedthatnolandlordtenant
relationshipexistedbetweentheCMUandthefacultyandstaff(participantsintheproject).The
CMUdidnotreceiveanysharefromtheharvest/fruitsofthelandtilledbytheparticipants.What
theCMUcollectedwasanominalservicefeeandlanduseparticipant'sfeeinconsiderationofall
thekindsofassistancegiventotheparticipantsbytheCMU.Again,theagreementsignedbythe
participantsundertheCMUIEPclearlystipulatedthatnolandlordtenantrelationshipexisted,and
thattheparticipantsarenotsharecroppersnorlessees,andtheCMUdidnotshareintheproduce
oftheparticipants'labor.
Inthesameparagraphoftheircomplaint,complainantsclaimthattheyarelandlesspeasants.This
allegationrequiresproofandshouldnotbeacceptedasfactuallytrue.Obriqueisnotalandless
peasant.ThefactsshowedhewasPhysicsInstructoratCMUholdingaveryresponsibleposition
wasseparatedfromtheserviceonaccountofcertainirregularitieshecommittedwhileAssistant
DirectoroftheAgriBusinessProjectofcultivatinglowlandrice.Othersmay,atthemoment,ownno
landinBukidnonbuttheymaynotnecessarilybesodestituteintheirplacesoforigin.Noproof
whatsoeverappearsintherecordtoshowthattheyarelandlesspeasants.
Theevidenceonrecordestablishwithoutdoubtthatthecomplainantswereoriginallyauthorized
orgivenpermissiontooccupycertainareasoftheCMUpropertyforadefinitepurposetocarry
outcertainuniversityprojectsaspartoftheCMU'sprogramofactivitiespursuanttoitsavowed
purposeofgivingtrainingandinstructioninagriculturalandotherrelatedtechnologies,usingthe
landandotherresourcesoftheinstitutionasalaboratoryfortheseprojects.Theirentryintothe
landoftheCMUwaswiththepermissionandwrittenconsentoftheowner,theCMU,foralimited
periodandforaspecificpurpose.Aftertheexpirationoftheirprivilegetooccupyandcultivatethe
landoftheCMU,theircontinuedstaywasunauthorizedandtheirsettlementontheCMU'slandwas
withoutlegalauthority.Apersonenteringuponlandsofanother,notclaimingingoodfaiththe
righttodosobyvirtueofanytitleofhisown,orbyvirtueofsomeagreementwiththeowneror
withonewhomhebelievesholdstitletotheland,isasquatter.4Squatterscannotenterthelandof
anothersurreptitiouslyorbystealth,andundertheumbrellaoftheCARP,claimrightstosaid
propertyaslandlesspeasants.UnderSection73ofR.A.6657,personsguiltyofcommitting
prohibitedactsofforcibleentryorillegaldetainerdonotqualifyasbeneficiariesandmaynotavail
themselvesoftherightsandbenefitsofagrarianreform.Anysuchpersonwhoknowinglyand
wilfullyviolatestheaboveprovisionoftheActshallbepunishedwithimprisonmentorfineatthe
discretionoftheCourt.
Inviewoftheabove,theprivaterespondents,notbeingtenantsnorproventobelandlesspeasants,
cannotqualifyasbeneficiariesundertheCARP.
ThequestioneddecisionoftheAdjudicationBoard,affirmedintotobytheCourtofAppeals,
segregating400hectaresfromtheCMUlandisprimarilybasedontheallegedfactthattheland
subjecthereofis"notdirectly,actuallyandexclusivelyusedforschoolsites,becausethesamewas
leasedtoPhilippinePackingCorporation(nowDelMontePhilippines)".
Insupportofthisview,theBoardheldthatthe"respondentUniversityfailedtoshowthatitisusing
actually,really,trulyandinfact,thequestionedareatotheexclusionofothers,nordiditshowthat
thesameisdirectlyusedwithoutanyinterveningagencyorperson",5and"thereisnodefiniteand

concreteshowingthattheuseofsaidlandsareessentiallyindispensableforeducationalpurposes".
6ThereliancebytherespondentsBoardandAppellateTribunalonthetechnicalorliteraldefinition
fromMoreno'sPhilippineLawDictionaryandBlack'sLawDictionary,maygivetheordinaryreader
aclassroommeaningofthephrase"isactuallydirectlyandexclusively",butinsodoingtheymissed
thetruemeaningofSection10,R.A.6657,astowhatlandsareexemptedorexcludedfromthe
coverageoftheCARP.
ThepertinentprovisionsofR.A.6657,otherwiseknownastheComprehensiveAgrarianReform
Lawof1988,areasfollows:
Sec.4.SCOPE.TheComprehensiveAgrarianReformLawof1988shallcover,
regardlessoftenurialarrangementandcommodityproduced,allpublicandprivate
agriculturallandsasprovidedinProclamationNo.131andExecutiveOrderNo.229
includingotherlandsofthepublicdomainsuitableforagriculture.
Morespecifically,thefollowinglandsarecoveredbytheComprehensiveAgrarian
ReformProgram:
(a)Allalienableanddisposablelandsofthepublicdomaindevotedtoorsuitablefor
agriculture.Noreclassificationofforestofminerallandstoagriculturallandsshall
beundertakenaftertheapprovalofthisActuntilCongress,takingintoaccount
ecological,developmentalandequityconsiderations,shallhavedeterminedbylaw,
thespecificlimitsofthepublicdomain;
(b)Alllandsofthepublicdomaininexcessofthespecificlimitsaddeterminedby
Congressintheprecedingparagraph;
(c)AllotherlandsownedbytheGovernmentdevotedtoorsuitableforagriculture;
and
(d)Allprivatelandsdevotedtoorsuitableforagricultureregardlessofthe
agriculturalproductsraisedorthatcanberaisedthereon.
Sec.10EXEMPTIONSANDEXCLUSIONS.Landsactually,directlyandexclusively
usedandfoundtobenecessaryforparks,wildlife,forestreserves,reforestration,
fishsanctuariesandbreedinggrounds,watershedsandmangroves,national
defense,schoolsitesandcampusesincludingexperimentalfarmstationsoperatedby
publicorprivateschoolsforeducationalpurposes,seedsandseedlingsresearchand
pilotproductioncenters,churchsitesandconventsappurtenantthereto,mosque
sitesandIslamiccentersappurtenantthereto,communalburialgroundsand
cemeteries,penalcoloniesandpenalfarmsactuallyworkedbytheinmates,
governmentandprivateresearchandquarantinecentersandalllandswith
eighteenpercent(18%)slopeandover,exceptthosealreadydevelopedshallbe
exemptfromthecoverageofthisAct.(Emphasissupplied).
TheconstructiongivenbytheDARABtoSection10restrictsthelandareaoftheCMUtoitspresent
needsortoalandareapresently,activelyexploitedandutilizedbytheuniversityincarryingoutits
presenteducationalprogramwithitspresentstudentpopulationandacademicfacility
overlookingtheverysignificantfactorofgrowthoftheuniversityintheyearstocome.Bythe

natureoftheCMU,whichisaschoolestablishedtopromoteagricultureandindustry,theneedfora
vasttractofagriculturallandandforfutureprogramsofexpansionisobvious.Attheoutset,the
CMUwasconceivedinthesamemanneraslandgrantcollegesinAmerica,atypeofeducational
institutionwhichblazedthetrailforthedevelopmentofvasttractsofunexploredandundeveloped
agriculturallandsintheMidWest.WhatwenowknowasMichiganStateUniversity,PennState
UniversityandIllinoisStateUniversity,startedassmalllandgrantcolleges,withmeagerfundingto
supporttheireverincreasingeducationalprograms.Theyweregivenextensivetractsof
agriculturalandforestlandstobedevelopedtosupporttheirnumerousexpandingactivitiesinthe
fieldsofagriculturaltechnologyandscientificresearch.Fundsforthesupportoftheeducational
programsoflandgrantcollegescamefromgovernmentappropriation,tuitionandotherstudent
fees,privateendowmentsandgifts,andearningsfrommiscellaneoussources.7Itwasinthissame
spiritthatPresidentGarciaissuedProclamationNo.476,withdrawingfromsaleorsettlementand
reservingfortheMindanaoAgriculturalCollege(forerunneroftheCMU)alandreservationof
3,080hectaresasitsfuturecampus.ItwassetupinBukidnon,inthehinterlandsofMindanao,in
orderthatitcanhaveenoughresourcesandwideopenspacestogrowasanagricultural
educationalinstitution,todevelopandtrainfuturefarmersofMindanaoandhelpattractsettlersto
thatpartofthecountry.
Inlinewithitsavowedpurposeasanagriculturalandtechnicalschool,theUniversityadopteda
landutilizationprogramtodevelopandexploitits3080hectarelandreservationasfollows:8
No.ofHectaresPercentage
a.LivestockandPasture1,016.4033
b.UplandCrops61620
c.CampusandResidentialsites46215
d.Irrigatedrice400.4013
e.Watershedandforestreservation30810
f.FruitandTreesCrops1545
g.Agricultural
Experimentalstations123.204
3,080.00100%
ThefirstlanduseplanoftheCARPwaspreparedin1975andsincethenithasundergoneseveral
revisionsinlinewithchangingeconomicconditions,nationaleconomicpoliciesandfinancial
limitationsandavailabilityofresources.TheCMU,throughResolutionNo.160S.1984,pursuantto
itsdevelopmentplan,adoptedamultidisciplinaryappliedresearchextensionandproductivity
programcalledthe"KilusangSarilingSikapProject"(CMUKSSP).Theobjectives9ofthisprogram
were:

1.Provideresearcheswhoshallassistin(a)preparationofproposal;(b)monitor
projectimplementation;and(c)collectandanalyzealldataandinformation
relevanttotheprocessesandresultsofprojectimplementation;
2.ProvidetheuseoflandwithintheUniversityreservationforthepurposeof
establishingalowlandriceprojectforthepartyoftheSecondPartforaperiodof
onecalendaryearsubjecttodiscretionaryrenewalbythePartyoftheFirstPart;
3.ProvidepracticaltrainingtothePartyoftheSecondPartonthemanagementand
operationoftheirlowlandprojectuponrequestofPartyoftheSecondPart;and
4.Providetechnicalassistanceintheformofrelevantlivelihoodprojectspecialists
whoshallextendexpertiseonscientificmethodsofcropproductionuponrequest
byPartyoftheSecondPart.
InreturnforthetechnicalassistanceextendedbytheCMU,theparticipantsinaprojectpaya
nominalamountasservicefee.TheselfrelianceprogramwasadjuncttotheCMU'slowlandrice
project.
TheportionoftheCMUlandleasedtothePhilippinePackingCorporation(nowDelMontePhils.,
Inc.)wasleasedlongbeforetheCARPwaspassed.TheagreementwiththePhilippinePacking
CorporationwasnotaleasebutaManagementandDevelopmentAgreement,ajointundertaking
whereusebythePhilippinePackingCorporationofthelandwaspartoftheCMUresearchprogram,
withthedirectparticipationoffacultyandstudents.SaidcontractswiththePhilippinePacking
Corporationandothersofasimilarnature(likeMMAgraplex)weremadepriortotheenactmentof
R.A.6657andweredirectlyconnectedtothepurposeandobjectivesoftheCMUasaneducational
institution.AssoonastheobjectivesoftheagreementforthejointuseoftheCMUlandwere
achievedasofJune1988,theCMUadoptedablueprintfortheexclusiveuseandutilizationofsaid
areastocarryoutitsownresearchandagriculturalexperiments.
AstothedeterminationofwhenandwhatlandsarefoundtobenecessaryforusebytheCMU,the
schoolisinthebestpositiontoresolveandanswerthequestionandpassupontheproblemofits
needsinrelationtoitsavowedobjectivesforwhichthelandwasgiventoitbytheState.Neitherthe
DARABnortheCourtofAppealshastherighttosubstituteitsjudgmentordiscretiononthis
matter,unlesstheevidentiaryfactsaresomanifestastoshowthattheCMUhasnorealfortheland.
Itisouropinionthatthe400hectaresorderedsegregatedbytheDARABandaffirmedbytheCourt
ofAppealsinitsDecisiondatedAugust20,1990,isnotcoveredbytheCARPbecause:
(1)Itisnotalienableanddisposablelandofthepublicdomain;
(2)TheCMUlandreservationisnotinexcessofspecificlimitsasdeterminedby
Congress;
(3)Itisprivatelandregisteredandtitledinthenameofitslawfulowner,theCMU;
(4)ItisexemptfromcoverageunderSection10ofR.A.6657becausethelandsare
actually,directlyandexclusivelyusedandfoundtobenecessaryforschoolsiteand
campus,includingexperimentalfarmstationsforeducationalpurposes,andfor

establishingseedandseedlingresearchandpilotproductioncenters.(Emphasis
supplied).
UnderSection4andSection10ofR.A.6657,itiscrystalclearthatthejurisdictionoftheDARABis
limitedonlytomattersinvolvingtheimplementationoftheCARP.Morespecifically,itisrestricted
toagrariancasesandcontroversiesinvolvinglandsfallingwithinthecoverageofthe
aforementionedprogram.Itdoesnotincludethosewhichareactually,directlyandexclusivelyused
andfoundtobenecessaryfor,amongsuchpurposes,schoolsitesandcampusesforsettingup
experimentalfarmstations,researchandpilotproductioncenters,etc.
Consequently,theDARABhasnopowertotry,hearandadjudicatethecasependingbeforeit
involvingaportionoftheCMU'stitledschoolsite,astheportionoftheCMUlandreservation
orderedsegregatedisactually,directlyandexclusivelyusedandfoundbytheschooltobe
necessaryforitspurposes.TheCMUhasconstantlyraisedtheissueoftheDARAB'slackof
jurisdictionandhasquestionedtherespondent'sauthoritytohear,tryandadjudicatethecaseat
bar.DespitethelawandtheevidenceonrecordtendingtoestablishthatthefactthattheDARAB
hadnojurisdiction,itmadetheadjudicationnowsubjectofreview.
WhethertheDARABhastheauthoritytoorderthesegregationofaportionofaprivateproperty
titledinthenameofitslawfulowner,eveniftheclaimantisnotentitledasabeneficiary,isanissue
wefeelwemustresolve.ThequasijudicialpowersofDARABareprovidedinExecutiveOrderNo.
129A,quotedhereunderinsofaraspertinenttotheissueatbar:
Sec.13.AGRARIANREFORMADJUDICATIONBOARDThereisherebycreated
anAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoardundertheofficeoftheSecretary....The
Boardshallassumethepowersandfunctionswithrespecttoadjudicationof
agrarianreformcasesunderExecutiveOrder229andthisExecutiveOrder...
Sec.17.QUASIJUDICIALPOWERSOFTHEDAR.TheDARisherebyvestedwith
quasijudicialpowerstodetermineandadjudicateagrarianreformmattersand
shallhaveexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoverallmattersincludingimplementation
ofAgrarianReform.
Section50ofR.A.6658confersontheDARquasijudicialpowersasfollows:
TheDARisherebyvestedwithprimaryjurisdictiontodetermineandadjudicate
agrarianreformmattersandshallhaveoriginaljurisdictionoverallmatters
involvingtheimplementationofagrarianreform....
Section17ofExecutiveOrderNo.129AismerelyarepetitionofSection50,R.A.6657.
ThereisnodoubtthattheDARABhasjurisdictiontotryanddecideanyagrariandisputein
theimplementationoftheCARP.Anagrariandisputeisdefinedbythesamelawasany
controversyrelatingtotenurialrightswhetherleasehold,tenancystewardshiporotherwise
overlandsdevotedto
agriculture.10
Inthecaseatbar,theDARABfoundthatthecomplainantsarenotsharetenantsorleaseholdersof
theCMU,yetitorderedthe"segregationofasuitablecompactandcontiguousareaofFourHundred
hectares,moreorless",fromtheCMUlandreservation,anddirectedtheDARRegionalDirectorto

implementitsorderofsegregation.Havingfoundthatthecomplainantsinthisagrariandisputefor
DeclarationofTenancyStatusarenotentitledtoclaimasbeneficiariesoftheCARPbecausethey
arenotsharetenantsorleaseholders,itsorderforthesegregationof400hectaresoftheCMUland
waswithoutlegalauthority.wdonotbelievethatthequasijudicialfunctionoftheDARABcarries
withitgreaterauthoritythanordinarycourtstomakeanawardbeyondwhatwasdemandedbythe
complainants/petitioners,eveninanagrariandispute.Wherethequasijudicialbodyfindsthatthe
complainants/petitionersarenotentitledtotherightstheyaredemanding,itisanerroneous
interpretationofauthorityforthatquasijudicialbodytoorderprivatepropertytobeawardedto
futurebeneficiaries.Theordersegregation400hectaresoftheCMUlandwasissuedonafinding
thatthecomplainantsarenotentitledasbeneficiaries,andonanerroneousassumptionthatthe
CMUlandwhichisexcludedorexemptedunderthelawissubjecttothecoverageoftheCARP.
Goingbeyondwhatwasaskedbythecomplainantswhowerenotentitledtothereliefprayedthe
complainantswhowerenotentitledtothereliefprayedfor,constitutesagraveabuseofdiscretion
becauseitimpliessuchcapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackof
jurisdiction.
Theeducationoftheyouthandagrarianreformareadmittedlyamongthehighestprioritiesinthe
governmentsocioeconomicprograms.Inthiscase,neitherneedgivewaytotheother.Certainly,
theremuststillbevasttractsofagriculturallandinMindanaooutsidetheCMUlandreservation
whichcanbemadeavailabletolandlesspeasants,assumingtheclaimantshere,orsomeofthem,
canqualifyasCARPbeneficiaries.Toourmind,thetakingoftheCMUlandwhichhadbeen
segregatedforeducationalpurposesfordistributiontoyetuncertainbeneficiariesisagross
misinterpretationoftheauthorityandjurisdictiongrantedbylawtotheDARAB.
Thedecisioninthiscaseisoffarreachingsignificanceasfarasitconcernsstatecollegesand
universitieswhoseresourcesandresearchfacilitiesmaybegraduallyerodedbymisconstruingthe
exemptionsfromtheCARP.Thesestatecollegesanduniversitiesarethemainvehiclesforour
scientificandtechnologicaladvancementinthefieldofagriculture,sovitaltotheexistence,growth
anddevelopmentofthiscountry.
ItistheopinionofthisCourt,inthelightoftheforegoinganalysisandforthereasonsindicated,
thattheevidenceissufficienttosustainafindingofgraveabuseofdiscretionbyrespondentsCourt
ofAppealsandDARAdjudicationBoard.WeherebydeclarethedecisionoftheDARABdated
September4,1989andthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedAugust20,1990,affirmingthe
decisionofthequasijudicialbody,asnullandvoidandherebyorderthattheybesetaside,with
costsagainsttheprivaterespondents.
SOORDERED
Gutierrez,Jr.,Cruz,Feliciano,Padilla,Bidin,GrioAquino,Medialdea,Regalado,Davide,Jr.,Romero,
Nocon,andMelo,JJ.,concur.
Bellosillo,J.,tooknopart.
Narvasa,C.J.,isonleave.