DAR vs Cuenca

Facts:

All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that are also legal
or constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR,
since the law has granted it special and original authority to hear and
adjudicate agrarian matters.
Private respondent Roberto J. Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of
land containing an area of 81.76 hectares
Noe Fortunado, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of La Carlota City
issued and sent a NOTICE OF COVERAGE to private respondent Cuenca
placing the above-described landholding under the compulsory coverage of
R.A. 6657
private respondent Cuenca filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, La
Carlota City, a complaint against Noe Fortunado and Land Bank of the
Philippines for Annulment of Notice of Coverage and Declaration of
Unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 405
Cuenca alleged that the implementation of CARP in his landholding is no
longer with authority of law
Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be declared null and void ab
initio and Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990 be declared
unconstitutional.
Issue: Whether or not the issue of exclusion of land from coverage from CARP is an
agrarian reform matter
Held: Petition has merit
In its bare essentials, petitioners argument is that private respondent, in his
Complaint for Annulment of the Notice of Coverage, is asking for the
exclusion of his landholding from the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
According to the DAR, the issue involves the implementation of agrarian
reform, a matter over which the DAR has original and exclusive jurisdiction,
pursuant to Section 50 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657).
On the other hand, private respondent maintains that his Complaint assails
mainly the constitutionality of EO 405. He contends that since the Complaint
raises a purely legal issue, it thus falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
We do not agree with Private respondent

Two basic rules have guided this Court in determining jurisdiction in these
cases. First, jurisdiction is conferred by law. [8] And second, the nature of the
 action and the issue of jurisdiction are shaped by the material averments of
the complaint and the character of the relief sought.
Clearly, the main thrust of the allegations is the propriety of the Notice of
Coverage
Plainly then, the propriety of the Notice relates to the implementation of the
CARP, which is under the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the DAR.
Thus, the DAR could not be ousted from its authority by the simple
expediency of appending an allegedly constitutional or legal dimension to an
issue that is clearly agrarian.
Cabral vs CA
Facts:
On January 16, 1990, petitioner Victoria Cabral filed a petition before the
Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) for the cancellation of the
Emancipation Patents and Torrens Titles issued in favor of private
respondents
Petitioner sought the cancellation of the TCTs on the grounds that:
o petitioner had a pending application for conversion and
reclassification;
o the lots covered by the emancipation patents included areas not
actually tilled by private respondents;
o private respondents had illegally transferred their rights over the
parcels of land covered by the emancipation patents;
o private respondents are deemed to have abandoned their rights over
the properties; and
o the subject property was taken without just compensation.
On February 11, 1990, Regional Director Eligio Pacis issued an order
dismissing the petition[2] for cancellation of Emancipation Patents
Petitioner contended before the Court of Appeals that jurisdiction over the
case pertained to the Department of Agrarian Reform Agrarian Board
(DARAB), not the Regional Director. Addressing this argument, the Court of
Appeals held in its Decision:
CA held that the jurisdiction of the case is with the Regional Director
Issue: Whether or not the Regional Director has jurisdiction
Held: NO.
Petitioner is correct. Whatever jurisdiction the Regional Director may have
had over the cancellation of emancipation patents, it lost with the passage of
subsequent laws.
The foregoing provisions were already in effect when petitioner filed her
petition in the BARC in 1990. And it is amply clear from these provisions that
the function of the Regional Office concerns the implementation of agrarian
reform laws while that of the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD is the adjudication of
agrarian reform cases.
o The first is essentially executive. It pertains to the enforcement and
administration of the laws, carrying them into practical operation and
enforcing their due observance.[14] Thus, the Regional Director is
primarily tasked with implementing laws, policies, rules and regulations
within the responsibility of the agency, as well as the agency program
in the region
 o The second is judicial in nature, involving as it does the determination
of rights and obligations of the parties. To aid the DARAB in the
exercise of this function, the Rules grant the Board and Adjudicators
the powers to issue subpoenas [16] and injunctions,[17] to cite and punish
for contempt, and to order the execution of its orders and decision,
[19]
among other powers.
The Court of Appeals has underscored the fact that Section 13 of E.O. No.
129-A authorizes the DARAB to delegate its powers and functions to the
regional office in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by
the Board.

Morta vs Occidental
Facts:
petitioners Jaime Morta, Sr. and Purificacion Padilla filed two (2) cases [4] for
damages with preliminary injunction, with the Municipal Trial Court,
Guinobatan, Albay, against respondents
petitioners alleged that respondents gathered pilinuts, anahaw leaves, and
coconuts from their respective land, delivered the produce to Atty. Mariano
Baranda, Jr., and destroyed their banana and pineapple plants.
In their answer, respondents claimed that petitioners were not the owners of
the land in question
o contended that he was a bona fide tenant of Josefina Opiana-Baraclan
MTC ruled in favor of petitioners
RTC and CA reversed MTC and ruled in favor of respondent ( both saying MTC
has no jurisdiction)
Petitioners claim that Morta is not a tenant of either Jaime Occidental or
Josefina Opiana-Baraclan, as shown by the MARO certification. They argue
that the civil actions for damages are not tenancy-related, and, hence, are
properly cognizable by the trial court, not the DARAB.
Issue: Whether or not this case is cognizable by the MTC
Held: YES.
It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action as well as which
court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought.
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy
relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take
hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable
elements,
RTC relied on the findings in DARAB Case No. 2413 that Josefina Opiana-
Baraclan appears to be the lawful owner of the land and Jaime Occidental was
her recognized tenant.
 o However, petitioner Morta claimed that he is the owner of the land.
o Thus, there is even a dispute as to who is the rightful owner of the
land, Josefina Opiana-Baraclan or petitioner Morta.
The issue of ownership cannot be settled by the DARAB since it is definitely
outside its jurisdiction. Whatever findings made by the DARAB regarding the
ownership of the land are not conclusive to settle the matter.
The issue of ownership shall be resolved in a separate proceeding before the
appropriate trial court between the claimants thereof.
At any rate, whoever is declared to be the rightful owner of the land, the case
can not be considered as tenancy-related for it still fails to comply with the
other requirements
o Assuming arguendo that Josefina Opiana-Baraclan is the owner, then
the case is not between the landowner and tenant.
o If, however, Morta is the landowner, Occidental can not claim that
there is consent to a landowner-tenant relationship between him and
Morta.
Thus, for failure to comply with the above requisites, we conclude that the
issue involved is not tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB.

Padunan vs DARAB
Facts:
landholdings subject of the present controversy consist of three parcels of
agricultural land with an area of sixteen thousand two hundred twenty-seven
(16,227), six thousand five hundred eighty-seven (6,587) and nine thousand
nine (9,009) square meters,.
Angelina Rodriguez waived her rights over the said landholdings in favor of
private respondent Marcos Rodriguez by virtue of the Sinumpaang
Salaysay duly executed and thumbmarked by her
private respondent Marcos Rodriguez obtained a loan from herein petitioner,
Graciano Padunan, for P50,000 with the subject landholdings as collateral
covered by a Kasunduan
Emancipation Patents (EP, for brevity) Nos. 414430, 414440 and 414448
covering the subject three parcels of land were issued to Angelina Rodriguez,
even though she had already waived her rights over the said land in favor of
private respondent
Angelina Rodriguez executed, for the second time, a waiver of rights by way
of sale, this time in favor of petitioner Graciano Padunan
o Claiming ownership, petitioner Graciano Padunan started constructing
thereon a house and a warehouse
Private respondent filed with the PARAD a case for injunction against
petitioner
Provincial Adjudicator Romeo Bello decided in favor of private respondent
Marcos Rodriguez,
Issue: Whether or not the PARAD and DARAB has jurisdiction over the case in
cancelling the EPs
Held: NO as far as the jurisdiction to cancel the unregistered emancipation patents.
This belongs to the Secretary of DAR
jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law.
it is therefore incorrect for the private respondent Marcos Rodriguez to argue
that the DARAB derives its jurisdiction from the DARAB Rules of Procedure.
The DARAB derives its jurisdiction from RA 6657 or popularly known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988.
To implement this particular provision of RA 6657 regarding the adjudication
of agrarian reform matters, the DAR adopted the DARAB New Rules of
Procedure, issued on May 30, 1994
Thus, rightly so, the DARAB New Rules of Procedure provide that DARAB has
exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered EPs.
However this case involves unregistered Eps
The answer can be found in Administrative Order No. 06-00, issued on August
30, 2000, which provides for the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law
Implementation (ALI) Cases.
Administrative Order No. 06-00 govern the administrative function of the
DAR.
Under the said Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI)
Cases, the Agrarian Reform Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over the
issuance, recall or cancellation of EPs/CLOAs that are not yet registered with
the Register of Deeds
Clearly, the cancellation of EPs that are not yet registered with the Register of
Deeds falls within the authority of the Agrarian Reform Secretary or DAR
officials[35] duly designated by him, in the exercise of his/their administrative
functions.
o And since, in the case at bar, the erroneously issued EPs in the name of
Angelina Rodriguez were unregistered, it is the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform who has the authority to cancel the same.
Republic vs CA
Facts:
Private respondent Acil Corporation owned several hectares of land in Linoan,
Montevista, Davao del Norte, which the government took pursuant to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657).
Private respondent's certificates of title were cancelled and new ones were
issued and distributed to farmer-beneficiaries.
Lands valued at P439,105.39
Private respondent rejected the government's offer, pointing out that nearby
lands planted to the same crops were valued at the higher price of
P24,717.40 per hectare.
private respondent filed a Petition for Just Compensation in the Regional Trial
Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte
 the RTC dismissed its petition on the ground that private respondent should
have appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB)
CA reversed RTC. Siding with Private respondent na dapat sa RTC dinala. Sila
may jurisdiction
Issue: Whether or not a petition for just compensation lies with the DARAB
Held: NO. It lies with the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court ( SAC)
it is noteworthy that the New Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, which was
adopted on May 30, 1994, now provide that in the event a landowner is not
satisfied with a decision of an agrarian adjudicator, the landowner can bring
the matter directly to the Regional Trial Court sitting as Special Agrarian
Court.
Thus, under the law, the Land Bank of the Philippines is charged with the
initial responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land
reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking.
a summary administrative proceeding is held 7 and afterward the provincial
(PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB) adjudicator as the case
may be, depending on the value of the land, fixes the price to be paid for the
land.
If the landowner does not agree to the price fixed, he may bring the matter
to the RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court
o This in essence is the procedure for the determination of compensation
cases under R.A. No. 6657.
the private respondent's case was properly brought by it in the RTC, and it
was error for the latter court to have dismissed the case.
the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has "original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners.
Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to convert the
original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be contrary
to 57 and therefore would be void
What adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary
manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to
the courts the ultimate power to decide this question.

LBP vs Bellista
Facts:
spouses Pablo Ralla and Carmen Munoz Ralla had donated their eight (8)
parcels of lot located in Ligao, Albay to their daughter, Rene Ralla Belista, the
herein private respondent.
The eight (8) parcels of lot were placed by the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR, for brevity) under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228).
 Consequently, private respondent claimed payment of just compensation
over said agricultural lands.
It further appears that the DAR's evaluation of the subject farms was
only P227,582.58, while petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP, for
brevity) assessed the same at P317,259.31.
Private respondent, on 11 November 2002, filed a Petition for Valuation and
Payment of Just Compensation against petitioning bank before the DARAB-
Regional Adjudicator for Region V
Petitioner contends that the petition for valuation and payment of just
compensation was filed with the DARAB- Regional Adjudicator for Region V
(RARAD) on November 11, 2002, long before the effectivity of the 2003 Rules
of Procedure;
o that under the transitory provision of the 2003 DARAB Rules, all cases
pending with the Board and the adjudicators prior to the date of the
Rules' effectivity shall be governed by the DARAB Rules prevailing at
the time of their filing;
o that clear from the transitory provision that it is the proceeding of the
DARAB which is governed by the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure,
o thus, it is the date of filing of the petition with the DARAB or any of its
adjudicators which is the reckoning date of the applicability of the 2003
DARAB Rules and not the date of filing with the SAC;
o that under the 1994 DARAB Rules prevailing at the time of the filing of
the respondent's claim for just compensation
, respondent claims that petitioner's petition with the RTC is an original action
and, since the case was filed at a time when appeal to the DARAB Central
Office was already provided in the 2003 DARAB Rules before resorting to
judicial action, the RTC correctly dismissed the petition, which was correctly
affirmed by the CA.
Issue: whether it is necessary that in cases involving claims for just compensation
under Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 that the decision of the Adjudicator must first be
appealed to the DARAB before a party can resort to the RTC sitting as SAC.
Held: NO.
Further exception to the DAR's original and exclusive jurisdiction are all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners and the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA No. 6657, which are within the
jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a Special Agrarian Court.
Thus, jurisdiction on just compensation cases for the taking of lands under RA
No. 6657 is vested in the courts.
Although Section 5, Rule XIX of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides
that the land valuation cases decided by the adjudicator are now appealable
to the Board, such rule could not change the clear import of Section 57 of RA
No. 6657 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine just
compensation is in the RTC.
Thus, Section 57 authorizes direct resort to the SAC in cases involving
petitions for the determination of just compensation. [
petitioner properly filed the petition before the RTC and, hence, the RTC erred
in dismissing the case
Batongbacal vs CA
Facts:
Juana Luciano was the registered owner of an agricultural land planted to rice
and corn measuring 16,555 square meters, situated in Barangay Bolakan,
Bocaue, Bulacan,
 she mortgaged the parcel of land to the Philippine Banking Corporation.
After Luciano defaulted in the payment of her loan, the bank foreclosed the
mortgage. Thereafter, the bank became absolute owner of the land in due
course, upon registration of its Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership
the bank sold the property to petitioner Guillermo Batongbacal. [
o executed an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy[6] in order to enable petitioner to
register the land in his name.
However, when petitioner tried to register the deed of absolute sale, he
discovered that Certificate of Land Transfer No.0-025760, issued in the name
of private respondent Catalino Santos, also covers the same property
Hence, petitioner filed a letter-complaint with the Department of Agrarian
Reform Team Office in Sta. Maria, Bulacan
Catalino Santos countered that he was awarded Certificate of Land Transfer
No. 0-025760 dated January 22, 1981 affecting the property by the
Department of Agrarian Reform, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27
the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board rendered a decision in favor
of Catalino and Severino Santos
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner owns the land
Held: NO.
Before the sale of the bank, Luciano had a tenancy relationship
Therefore when the bank became the owner, it subrograted to the rights of
the previous owner
Section 7 of R.A. 3844, on the other hand, states that once the agricultural
leasehold relation is established, the same shall confer upon the lessee the
right to continue working on the landholding until such relation is
extinguished, and the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of
tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized
by the Court and for causes provided by law.
Sale of the land is not a mode of extinguishing the tenancy
When P.D. 27 took effect on October 21, 1972, the land was already owned by
Philbanking, but the tenancy relations remained in force. By virtue of this law,
tenant-farmers are deemed owners of the land they till, subject to the rules
and regulations to be hereafter promulgated
Pursuant to the mandate of P.D. 27, a Certificate of Land Transfer was issued
to private respondent Catalino Santos on January 22, 1981, and was
registered on February 1, 1981 with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan.
During all this time, private respondent continued tilling the land and paying
rentals to Juana Luciano, and after her death, to her representatives
Juana Lucianos representatives began to refuse accepting the rentals from
private respondent.
private respondent deposited the rentals with a certain Crispin Santiago, a
rice mill owner in nearby Tuvo, Bocaue, through the mediation of the
Barangay Captain. Under the circumstances, we find that private respondent
complied in good faith with the obligations incumbent upon him as an
agricultural lessee.
Gronifillo vs CA
Facts:
On March 9, 1974, Pilar Guzman donated seven parcels of land located in
Jaro, Iloilo, to Alejandro Gronifillo, the petitioner herein
o The lands donated had been held under leasehold contracts since
many years before by the private respondents.
Their leases were confirmed in contracts which they executed with Pilar
Guzman on May 23, 1975.
o And because they were tenant farmers when P.D. No. 27 was
promulgated, land transfer certificates had been issued to them
Petitioner claims he did not see the tenant farmers because he was so busy.
He only saw them on 1977.
He claimed that since the contracts were executed subsequent to the
donation made the previous year. they were null and void. lie asked that he
be declared owner of the lands, that the respondents be ordered to vacate
the same, and that they render an accounting.
The Court of Agrarian Relations rendered judgment "Declaring the deed of
donation executed by Pilar Guzman in favor of the plaintiff Alejandro Gronifillo
as null and void, the same being contrary to law and public policy
Issue: Whether or not the land belongs to the ownership
Held: It belongs to the tenant farmers pursuant to PD 27.
The lower courts were both correct in holding that Pilar Guzman could not
validly donate the lands in question to the petitioner because when the
donation was made she was no longer the owner of the lands.
o It belonged to the private respondents due to PD 27.

Natalia Realty Inc vs DAR

Facts:
Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA, for brevity) is the owner of three (3)
contiguous parcels of land located in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal,
petitioner Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC, for brevity), as
developer of NATALIA properties, applied for and was granted preliminary
approval and locational clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission
Upon the passing of RA 6657, DAR issued a Notice of Coverage on the
undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of
roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA immediately registered its objection to
the notice of Coverage.
Public respondents argue that there was no valid conversion
Issue: Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, as
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its precursor
agencies 1 prior to 15 June 1988, 2 covered by R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
Held: The petition is impressed with merit
petitioners NATALIA and EDIC did in fact comply with all the requirements of
law.
As a matter of fact, there was even no need for petitioners to secure a
clearance or prior approval from DAR. The NATALIA properties were within the
areas set aside for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation.
Due to PD 1637, it in effect converted for residential use what were erstwhile
agricultural lands provided all requisites were met.
And, in the case at bar, there was compliance with all relevant rules and
requirements.
"Agricultural lands" are only those lands which are "arable and suitable
agricultural lands" and "do not include commercial, industrial and residential
lands."
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as
"agricultural lands." These lots were intended for residential use.
o They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in
the Lungsod Silangan Reservation
Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of
CARL.
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent
DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the
undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of
CARL.
Advincula vs CA
Facts:
The spouses Jose Velasquez and Justina Velasquez were the agricultural
lessees of a riceland with an area of 51,538 square meters, located in Sitio
Malaking Kahoy, Bo. Ibayo, Paraaque, Metro Manila.
The subject property was originally possessed and claimed by Martin Nery.
On August 24, 1979, Jose S. Velasquez, in his capacity as agricultural
leasehold tenant, filed an action before the then Court of Agrarian Relations,
docketed as CAR Case No. 42, 6th Regional District, Branch 1, Quezon City,
for the redemption of the subject property under Presidential Decree No. 27.
He claimed that he had information that the property had been offered for
sale.
On January 25, 1980, Delta Motors Corporation purchased the subject
property for P2,319,210.00, evidenced by a Deed of Sale. The Register of
Deeds of Metro Manila issued TCT No. 20486 on March 4, 1980 in favor of the
corporation.
By then, the property was already surrounded by residential subdivisions and
industrial firms, as well as diversion roads.
The CAR ruled that the property was not covered by the Operation Land
Transfer.
As it was, the property had been reclassified as low density residential
zone as early as 1981 under Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01.
The ordinance was prepared by the Metro Manila Commission and the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), and approved in March
1981 by the then Metropolitan Manila Authority.
The respondent decided to develop the property into a residential subdivision
as part of its socialized housing project.
The DARAB ruled that it was the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), not
the HLURB and the Department of Finance, which had the
power and authority to approve or disapprove any application for the
conversion of tenanted private agricultural land into a non-agricultural land.
Issue: whether the subject land was still agricultural in nature
Held: NO.
the petitioner avers that this Court had already declared in its decision in G.R.
No. L-64284[36] that the subject property is agricultural
Any conversion of agricultural property to residential property without the
approval of the DAR is void.
o She avers that even the respondent saw the need for a DAR approval
considering that it requested the DAR on December 21, 1988 to
approve the conversion of the property
 The records show that as early as 1981, the landholding was reclassified as a
low density zone under Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, Series of
1981[38] before Rep. Act No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1998.
, the HSRC, likewise, issued a license in favor of the respondent to sell the
1,086 subdivision lots.[40] In the said permit and license, the property was
classified as a second class housing project
Since the property was already reclassified as residential by the Metro Manila
Commission and the HSRC before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657, there
was no need for the private respondent to secure any post facto approval
thereof from the DAR.
Following the DOJ opinion, the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 6, Series
of 1994, stating that lands already classified as non-agricultural before the
enactment of Rep. Act No. 6657 no longer needed any conversion clearance
the ruling of this Court in the Natalia case is not confined solely to
agricultural lands located within townsite reservations, but applies also to
lands converted to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL, where
such conversion was made by government agencies other than the DAR,
including the HLURB and its predecessor, namely, the HSRC. [46]