Facts

Petitioners’ contentions

Respondents’ contentions

ISSUE

HELD

Cases cited

Medyo important details

 SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 70237. March 18, 1985.]

JESUS C. EBOL, ROSA E. BERNARDO, AMADEO

RIZAN, IGNACIO EBOL, MELCHOR EBOL and LUCILA
E. CICHON, Petitioners, v. JUDGE OMAR U. AMIN and
WILFREDO SAN LUIS, SR., Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

LAW; CONCILIATION PROCESS, MAY BE WAIVED;
CASE AT BAR. — We hold that San Luis, herein
respondent, who failed to plead in a motion to dismiss
or in his answer the defense of failure to comply with
the conciliation provided for in Katarungang
Pambarangay Law otherwise known as Presidential
Decree No. 1508, waived that condition precedent
(Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 127 SCRA
470). It is not jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is conferred by
the Judiciary Revamp law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
and the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended.

DECISION

AQUINO, J.:

The petitioners sued in 1982 Wilfredo San Luis, Sr. for

the recovery of the value of their house allegedly
destroyed by the latter. San Luis did not plead in a
motion to dismiss or in his 1983 answer the defense
that the plaintiffs did not comply with the conciliation
process provided for in the Katarungang Pambarangay
law, Presidential Decree No. [Link]
lawlibrary : rednad

He raised it only in a motion to dismiss filed in 1984

when the case was set for trial.

The trial court dismissed the action. The petitioners

appealed to this Court.

We hold that San Luis waived that condition precedent

(Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 127 SCRA
470). It is not jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is conferred by
the Judiciary Revamp law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
and the Judiciary Act of 1948 as [Link]
virtualawlibrary [Link]:[Link]

The petition for certiorari is granted. Judge Amin’s

order of dismissal dated July 25, 1984 is set aside. He is
directed to try the case. No costs.

SO ORDERED.
 [G.R. NO. 112526 : March 16, 2005] RODRIGUEZ, VICTOR MOLINAR, DANILO CANLOBO,
RESTING CARAAN, IGNACIO VERGARA, HANDO
STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT MERCADO, FAUSTINO MAILOM, CONRADO
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JUAN B. AMANTE, BARRIENTOS, RENATO VISAYA, DANTE BATHAN,
FRANCISCO L. ANDAL, LUCIA ANDAL, ANDREA P. SERAPIO NATIVIDAD, HONESTO TENORIO, NESTOR
AYENDE, LETICIA P. BALAT, FILOMENA B. BATINO, MERCADO, BIENVENIDO OLFATO, RENE LIRAZAN,
ANICETO A. BURGOS, JAIME A. BURGOS, FLORENCIA RUDY CANLOBO, BASIOLIO MULINGTAPANG, ITO
CANUBAS, LORETO A. CANUBAS, MAXIMO A. GONZALES, RENATO RINO, TINOY MABAGA, PACIO
CANUBAS, REYNALDO CARINGAL, QUIRINO C. PADILLA, JOHNNY REAMILLO, ROLANDO CARINGAL,
CASALME, BENIGNO A. CRUZAT, ELINO A. CRUZAT, IGNOY VILLAMAYOR, ROMEO TANTENGCO,
GREGORIO F. CRUZAT, RUFINO C. CRUZAT, SERGIO LODRING CARAAN, FREDO MERCADO, TOMMY
CRUZAT, SEVERINO F. CRUZAT, VICTORIA DE MENDOZA, RAFAEL ONTE, REY MANAIG, DICK
SAGUN, SEVERINO DE SAGUN, FELICISIMO A. GASPAR, ANTONIO MALLARI, ALFREDO ANIEL,
GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. GONZALES, GREGORIO A. BARIT, ALBERTO MANGUE, AGATON LUCIDO,
GONZALES, LEODEGARIO N. GONZALES, PASCUAL P. ONYONG CANTAL, BAYANI LACSON, ISKO CABILION,
GONZALES, ROLANDO A. GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. MANGUIAT, IGME OPINA, VILARETE, PEDRO
JUANGCO, GERVACIO A. JUANGCO, LOURDES U. BENEDICTO, HE CTOR BICO, RUFO SANCHEZ,
LUNA, ANSELMO M. MANDANAS, CRISANTO LARRY DE LEON, BARIVAR SAMSON and ROMEO
MANDANAS, EMILIO M. MANDANAS, GREGORIO A. NAVARRO, Respondents.
MANDANAS, MARIO G. MANDANAS, TEODORO
MANDANAS, CONSTANCIO B. MARQUEZ, EUGENIO B. DECISION
MARQUEZ, ARMANDO P. MATIENZO, DANIEL D.
MATIENZO, MAXIMINO MATIENZO, PACENCIA P. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
MATIENZO, DOROTEA L. PANGANIBAN, JUANITO T.
PEREZ, MARIANITO T. PEREZ, SEVERO M. PEREZ, By virtue of the En Banc Resolution issued on January
INOCENCIA S. PASQUIZA, BIENVENIDO F. PETATE, 13, 2004, the Court authorized the Special First
IGNACIO F. PETATE, JUANITO PETATE, PABLO A. Division to suspend the Rules so as to allow it to
PLATON, PRECILLO V. PLATON, AQUILINO B. SUBOL, consider and resolve the second Motion for
CASIANO T. VILLA, DOMINGO VILLA, JUAN T. VILLA, Reconsideration of respondents,1 after the motion was
MARIO C. VILLA, NATIVIDAD B. VILLA, JACINTA S. heard on oral arguments on August 13, 2003. On July 9,
ALVARADO, RODOLFO ANGELES, DOMINGO A. 2004,2 the Court resolved to submit for resolution the
CANUBAS, EDGARDO L. CASALME, QUIRINO DE second Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No.
LEON, LEONILO M. ENRIQUEZ, CLAUDIA P. 112526 together with G.R. No. 118338 in view of the
GONZALES, FELISA R. LANGUE, QUINTILLANO Resolution of the Court dated January 15, 2001 issued
LANGUE, REYNALDO LANGUE, ROMEO S. LANGUE, in G.R. No. 118838,3 consolidating the latter case
MARIANITO T. PEREZ, INOCENCIA S. PASQUIZA, with G.R. No. 112526, the issues therein being
AQUILINO B. SUBOL, BONIFACIO VILLA, ROGELIO interrelated.4 Hence, the herein Amended Decision.
AYENDE, ANTONIO B. FERNANDEZ, ZACARIAS
HERRERA, REYNARIO U. LAZO, AGAPITO
The factual background of the two cases is as follows:
MATIENZO, DIONISIO F. PETATE, LITO G. REYES,
JOSE M. SUBOL, CELESTINO G. TOPI NO, ROSA C.
AMANTE, SOTERA CASALME, REMIGIO M. SILVERIO, The Canlubang Estate in Laguna is a vast landholding
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECRETARY OF previously titled in the name of the late Speaker and
AGRARIAN REFORM, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN Chief Justice Jose Yulo, Sr. Within this estate are two
REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, LAND BANK OF parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as the "subject
THE PHILIPPINES, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA, property") covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL measuring 254.766 hectares and part of Barangay
RESOURCES REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR Casile, subsequently titled in the name of Sta. Rosa
REGION IV and REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM Realty Development Corporation (SRRDC), the majority
OFFICER FOR REGION IV., Respondents. stockholder of which is C.J. Yulo and Sons, Inc.

[G.R. NO. 118838 : March 16, 2005] The subject property was involved in civil suits and
administrative proceedings that led to the filing of G.R.
NOS. 112526 and 118838, thus:
JUAN B. AMANTE, IGNACIO PETATE, DOMINGO
CANUBAS, FLORENCIO CANUBAS, CRESENCIO
AMANTE, QUIRINO CASALME, LEODEGARIO Injunction Case  Filed by Amante, et al.
GONZALES, DOMINGO VILLA, JAIME BURGOS,
NICOMEDES PETATE, MAXIMINO MATIENZO, On December 6, 1985, Amante, et al., who are the
MAXIMO CANUBAS, ELINO CRUZAT, RUFINO private respondents in G.R. No. 112526 and petitioners
CRUZAT, FELICISIMO GONZALES, QUINTILLANO in G.R. No. 118838, instituted an action for injunction
LANGUE, TEODORO MANDANAS, SERGIO CRUZAT, with damages in the Regional Trial Court of Laguna
AGAPITO MATIENZO and SEVERINO DE (Branch 24) against Luis Yulo, SRRDC, and several
SAGUM, Petitioner, v. LUIS YULO, JESUS MIGUEL SRRDC security personnel, docketed as Civil Case No. B-
YULO, C-J YULO & SONS, INC., STA. ROSA REALTY 2333. Amante, et al. alleged that: they are residents of
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOSE LAMBATIN, Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna, which covers an
LAUREANO LAUREL, GALICANO MAILOM, JR., area of around 300 hectares; in 1910, their ancestors
REYNALDO OPENA, AGAPITO PRECILLA, DANILO started occupying the area, built their houses and
SUMADSAD, ALFREDO SUMADSAD, JUAN CANTAL, planted fruit-bearing trees thereon, and since then,
INIGO MENDOZA, ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, SENADOR have been peacefully occupying the land; some time in
June 3, 1985, SRRDC's security people illegally entered Nominal damages were awarded by the CA because it
Bgy. Casile and fenced the area; SRRDC's men also found that SRRDC violated Amante, et al.'s rights as
entered the barangay on November 4, 1985, cut down possessors of the subject property.12
the trees, burned their huts, and barred the lone
jeepney from entering the Canlubang Sugar Estate; as a Amante, et al. filed a motion for reconsideration
result of these acts, Amante, et al. were deprived of thereof, pointing out the DARAB's decision placing the
possession and cultivation of their lands. Thus, they property under compulsory acquisition, and the CA
claimed damages, sought the issuance of permanent decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234, affirming the
injunction and proposed that a right of way be same.13 The CA, however, denied the motion, with the
declared.5 modification that only SRRDC and the defendants-
security guards should be held jointly and severally
In their Answer, the defendants denied the allegations liable for the nominal damages awarded. It also made
and disclaimed any control and supervision over its the clarification that the decision should not preempt
security personnel. Defendant SRRDC also alleged that any judgment or prejudice the right of any party in the
as the real owner of the property, it was the one that agrarian reform case pending before the Supreme
suffered damages due to the encroachment on the Court (G.R. No. 112526).14
property.6
Thus, Amante, et al. filed on March 2, 1995, herein
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial petition, docketed as G.R. No. 118838 on the following
court on August 17, 1987,7 but this was subsequently grounds:
dissolved by the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 22,
1988 in its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 13908. 8 4.1. The Court of Appeals decided the case contrary to
law or applicable Supreme Court decisions because:
After trial on the merits, the trial court, on January 20,
1992, rendered a decision ordering Amante, et al. to 4.1.1 First, petitioners may not be lawfully evicted from
vacate the property, the dispositive portion of which their landholdings considering that:
reads:
- - (a) Petitioners are already the registered owners
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby under the torrens system of the properties in question
rendered in favor of the defendants and against the since February 26, 1992 by virtue of RA 6657 or the
plaintiffs hereby dismissing the complaint and Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law;
amended complaint.
- - (b) The Court of Appeals has affirmed the Regional
The plaintiffs are hereby ordered to vacate the parcels Trial Court of Laguna's dismissal of the ejectment cases
of land belonging to the defendants Luis Yulo and Sta. filed by respondent SRRDC against petitionerS;
Rosa Realty. They are likewise enjoined from entering andcralawlibrary
the subject parcels of land.
- - (c) Assuming for the sake of argument only that
Although attorney's fees and expenses of litigation are petitioners are not yet the registered owners of the
recoverable in case of a clearly unfounded civil action properties in question, respondents may not raise the
against the plaintiff (Enervida v. De la Torre, 55 SCRA issue of ownership in this case for injunction with
339), this Court resolves not to award attorney's fees damages, the same to be ventilated in a separate action,
etc. in favor of the defendants because the plaintiffs not in this case brought to prevent respondents from
appear to have acted in good faith in filing the present committing further acts of dispossession [Bacar v. del
civil action (Salao v. Salao, 70 SCRA 65) and that it Rosario et al., 171 SCRA 451 (1989)].
would not be just and equitable to award the same in
the case at bar. (Liwanag v. Court of Appeals, 121 SCRA 4.1.2 Second, petitioners are entitled to moral,
354) Accordingly, the other reliefs prayed for by the exemplary damages and attorney's fees, instead of
defendants are hereby dismissed. mere nominal damages, considering that the Court of
Appeals found respondents to have unlawfully and
SO ORDERED.9 illegally disturbed petitioners' peaceful and continuous
possession.15
Amante, et al. appealed the aforesaid decision to the CA,
docketed as CA - G.R. CV No. 38182. Ejectment Cases  Filed by SRRDC

On June 28, 1994, the CA affirmed with modification Between October 1986 and August 1987, after the
the decision of the trial court in the injunction case. The injunction case was filed by Amante, et al., SRRDC filed
dispositive portion of the appellate court's with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao,
decision10 reads as follows: Laguna, several complaints for forcible entry with
preliminary injunction and damages against Amante, et
WHEREFORE, the judgment herein appealed from is al., docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 250, 258, 260, 262 and
hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that the 266. SRRDC alleged that some time in July 1987, they
defendants-appellees are hereby ordered, jointly and learned that Amante, et al., without their authority and
severally, to pay the plaintiffs-appellants nominal through stealth and strategy, were clearing, cultivating
damages in the amount of P5,000.00 per plaintiff. No and planting on the subject property; and that despite
pronouncement as to costs. requests from SRRDC's counsel, Amante, et al. refused
to vacate the property, prompting them to file the
SO ORDERED.11 ejectment cases.16 Amante, et al. denied that SRRDC are
the absolute owners of the property, stating that they
have been in peaceful possession thereof, through their Acquisition Claim Folders covering the landholding of
predecessors-in-interest, since 1910.17 SRRDC, covered by TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891 to
the President, Land Bank of the Philippines for further
On May 24, 1991, the MTC-Cabuyao rendered its review and evaluation.
decision in favor of SRRDC. Amante, et al. were
ordered to surrender possession and vacate the subject On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian
property. The decision was appealed to the Regional Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago sent two (2)
Trial Court of Bià ±an, Laguna (Assisting Court). notices of acquisition to petitioner, stating that
petitioner's landholdings covered by TCT Nos. T-
On February 18, 1992, the RTC dismissed the 81949 and T-84891, containing an area of
ejectment cases on the ground that the subject 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares, valued
property is an agricultural land being tilled by at P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93, respectively,
Amante, et al., hence it is the Department of had been placed under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform (DAR), which has jurisdiction over Agrarian Reform Program.
the dispute.18 The RTC's dismissal of the complaints
was brought to the CA via a Petition for Review , On February 6, 1990, petitioner SRRDC in two letters
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 33382.19 In turn, the CA separately addressed to Secretary Florencio B. Abad
dismissed the petition per its Decision dated January and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition and
17, 1995 on the ground that SRRDC failed to show any Distribution, sent its formal protest, protesting not only
prior physical possession of the subject property that the amount of compensation offered by DAR for the
would have justified the filing of the ejectment property but also the two (2) notices of acquisition.
cases.20 Also, the CA did not sustain the RTC's finding
that the subject properties are agricultural lands and On March 17, 1990, Secretary Abad referred the
Amante, et al. are tenant/farmers thereof, as the case to the DARAB for summary proceedings to
evidence on record does not support such finding. The determine just compensation under R.A. No. 6657,
parties did not file any motion for reconsideration from Section 16.
the Court of Appeals' dismissal, hence, it became final
and executory.21 On March 23, 1990, the LBP returned the two (2) claim
folders previously referred for review and evaluation
Administrative Proceedings to the Director of BLAD mentioning its inability to value
the SRRDC landholding due to some deficiencies.
While the injunction and ejectment cases were still
in process, it appears that in August, 1989, the On March 28, 1990, Executive Director Emmanuel S.
Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued a Galvez wrote the Land Bank President Deogracias
Notice of Coverage to SRRDC, informing petitioners Vistan to forward the two (2) claim folders
that the property covered by TCT Nos. T-81949, T- involving the property of SRRDC to the DARAB for it
84891 and T-92014 is scheduled for compulsory to conduct summary proceedings to determine the
acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform just compensation for the land.
Program (CARP).22 SRRDC filed its "Protest and
Objection" with the MARO on the grounds that the area On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land
was not appropriate for agricultural purposes, as it was Bank of the Philippines stating that its property under
rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and above, and the aforesaid land titles were exempt from CARP
that the occupants of the land were squatters, who coverage because they had been classified as
were not entitled to any land as watershed area and were the subject of a pending
beneficiaries.23 Thereafter, as narrated in the Decision petition for land conversion.
of the Court dated October 12, 2001 in G.R. No.
112526, the following proceedings ensued:
On May 10, 1990, Director Narciso Villapando of BLAD
turned over the two (2) claim folders (CACF's) to the
On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries together Executive Director of the DAR Adjudication Board for
with the BARC chairman answered the protest and proper administrative valuation. Acting on the CACF's,
objection stating that the slope of the land is not 18% on September 10, 1990, the Board promulgated a
but only 5-10% and that the land is suitable and resolution asking the office of the Secretary of
economically viable for agricultural purposes, as Agrarian Reform (DAR) to first resolve two (2)
evidenced by the Certification of the Department of issues before it proceeds with the summary land
Agriculture, municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna. valuation proceedings.

On September 8, 1989, MARO Belen dela Torre made a The issues that need to be threshed out were as
summary investigation report and forwarded the follows: (1) whether the subject parcels of land fall
Compulsory Acquisition Folder Indorsement (CAFI) to within the coverage of the Compulsory Acquisition
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (hereafter, Program of the CARP; and (2) whether the petition for
PARO). land conversion of the parcels of land may be granted.

On September 21, 1989, PARO Durante Ubeda On December 7, 1990, the Office of the Secretary,
forwarded his endorsement of the compulsory DAR, through the Undersecretary for Operations
acquisition to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. (Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations) and the
Regional Director of Region IV, submitted a report
On November 23, 1989, Acting Director Eduardo C. answering the two issues raised. According to them,
Visperas of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and firstly, by virtue of the issuance of the notice of
Development, DAR forwarded two (2) Compulsory coverage on August 11, 1989, and notice of
acquisition on December 12, 1989, the property is Cabuyao, Province of Laguna under the Comprehensive
covered under compulsory acquisition. Secondly, Agrarian Reform Program is hereby affirmed;
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, Section
IV D also supports the DAR position on the 2. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay Sta.
coverage of the said property. During the Rosa Realty Development Corporation the amount of
consideration of the case by the Board, there was Seven Million Eight Hundred Forty-One Thousand, Nine
no pending petition for land conversion specifically Hundred Ninety Seven Pesos and Sixty-Four centavos
concerning the parcels of land in question. (P7,841,997.64) for its landholdings covered by the
two (2) Transfer Certificates of Title mentioned above.
On February 19, 1991, the Board sent a notice of Should there be a rejection of the payment tendered, to
hearing to all the parties interested, setting the hearing open, if none has yet been made, a trust account for
for the administrative valuation of the subject parcels said amount in the name of Sta. Rosa Realty
of land on March 6, 1991. However, on February 22, Development Corporation;
1991, Atty. Ma. Elena P. Hernandez-Cueva, counsel for
SRRDC, wrote the Board requesting for its assistance in 3. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Laguna to
the reconstruction of the records of the case because cancel with dispatch Transfer Certificate of Title Nos.
the records could not be found as her co-counsel, Atty. 84891 and 81949 and new one be issued in the name of
Ricardo Blancaflor, who originally handled the case for the Republic of the Philippines, free from liens and
SRRDC and had possession of all the records of the case encumbrances;
was on indefinite leave and could not be contacted. The
Board granted counsel's request and moved the 4. The Department of Environment and Natural
hearing on April 4, 1991. Resources either through its Provincial Office in Laguna
or the Regional Office, Region IV, to conduct a final
On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a petition to segregation survey on the lands covered by Transfer
the Board for the latter to resolve SRRDC's petition Certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 so the same
for exemption from CARP coverage before any can be transferred by the Register of Deeds to the name
administrative valuation of their landholding could of the Republic of the Philippines;
be had by the Board.
5. The Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian
On April 4, 1991, the initial DARAB hearing of the case Reform through its Municipal and Provincial Agrarian
was held and subsequently, different dates of hearing Reform Office to take immediate possession on the said
were set without objection from counsel of SRRDC. landholding after Title shall have been transferred to
During the April 15, 1991 hearing, the subdivision plan the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and
of subject property at Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna was distribute the same to the immediate issuance of
submitted and marked as Exhibit "5" for SRRDC. At the Emancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as
hearing on April 23, 1991, the Land Bank asked for a determined by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of
period of one month to value the land in dispute. Cabuyao, Laguna.25

At the hearing on April 23, 1991, certification from On July 11, 1991, DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong
Deputy Zoning Administrator Generoso B. Opina was issued a memorandum directing the Land Bank of the
presented. The certification issued on September 8, Philippines (LBP) to open a trust account in favor of
1989, stated that the parcels of land subject of the SRRDC, for P5,637,965.55, as valuation for the SRRDC
case were classified as "Industrial Park" per property.
Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 45-89 dated
March 29, 1989. The titles in the name of SRRDC were cancelled and
corresponding TCTs were issued in the name of the
To avert any opportunity that the DARAB might Republic of the Philippines on February 11,
distribute the lands to the farmer beneficiaries, on April 1992,26 after which Certificates of Land Ownership
30, 1991, petitioner filed a petition with DARAB to Award (CLOA) were issued in the name of the
disqualify private respondents as beneficiaries. farmers-beneficiaries on February 26, 1992.27
However, DARAB refused to address the issue of
beneficiaries.24 In the meantime, SRRDC had filed with the CA a
Petition for Review of the DARAB's decision, docketed
... as CA-G.R. SP No. 27234.

On December 19, 1991, the DARAB promulgated a On November 5, 1993, the CA affirmed the decision of
decision, affirming the dismissal of the protest of DARAB, to wit:
SRRDC against the compulsory coverage of the
property covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891. The WHEREFORE, premises considered, the DARAB
decretal portion of the decision reads: decision dated December 19, 1991 is AFFIRMED,
without prejudice to petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Development Corporation ventilating its case with the
Board hereby orders: Special Agrarian Court on the issue of just
compensation.28
1. The dismissal for lack of merit of the protest against
the compulsory coverage of the landholdings of Sta. Hence, SRRDC filed on November 24, 1993, herein
Rosa Realty Development Corporation (Transfer petition, docketed as G.R. No. 112526 on the following
Certificates of Title Nos. 81949 and 84891 with an area grounds:
of 254.766 hectares) in Barangay Casile, Municipality of
 I In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the
DAR to supposed farmer beneficiaries shall continue to
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE be stayed by the temporary restraining order issued on
ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR December 15, 1993, which shall remain in effect until
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT THE final decision on the case.
SRRDC PROPERTIES, DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT
OF THEIR NON-AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION No costs.
PRIOR TO RA 6657, ARE COVERED BY THE CARP
CONTRARY TO THE NATALIA REALTY DECISION OF SO ORDERED.30
THIS HONORABLE COURT.
It is the opinion of the Court in G.R. No. 112526, that
i. The SRRDC properties have been zoned and approved the property is part of a watershed, and that during the
as 'PARK' since 1979. hearing at the DARAB, "there was proof that the land
may be excluded from the coverage of the CARP
ii. The SRRDC properties form part of a watershed area. because of its high slopes."31 Thus, the Court concluded
that a remand of the case to the DARAB for re-
II evaluation of the issue of coverage is appropriate in
order to resolve the true nature of the subject
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE property.32
ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN DISREGARDING In their Memorandum, Amante, et al. argues that there
ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AS MANDATED BY exist compelling reasons to grant the second motion for
LAW. reconsideration of the assailed decision of the Court, to
wit:
III
2.1 Only QUESTIONS OF LAW are admittedly and
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE undeniably at issue; yet the Honorable Court reviewed
ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals and the
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN AFFIRMING THE DARAB although the case does not fall into any of the
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SRRDC PROPERTIES TO well-recognized exceptions to conduct a factual review.
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN Worse, the 12 October 2001 Decision assumed facts not
JUDICIALLY DECLARED AS SQUATTERS AND proven before any administrative, quasi-judicial or
THEREFORE ARE NOT QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES judicial bodies;
PURSUANT TO THE CENTRAL MINDANAO
UNIVERSITY DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT. 2.2 The DARAB and the Court of Appeals already found
the land to be CARPable; yet the Honorable Court
i. The acquisition of the SRRDC properties cannot be remanded the case to DARAB to re-evaluate if the land
valid for future beneficiaries. is CARPable;

ii. Section 22 of RA 6657 insofar as it expands the 2.3 The Decision did not express clearly and distinctly
coverage of the CARP to 'landless residents' is the facts and the law on which it is based;
unconstitutional.
2.4 The Decision renewed the Temporary Restraining
IV Order issued on 15 December 1993, issuance of which
is barred by Sec. 55 of R.A. 6657; andcralawlibrary
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR 2.5 This Honorable Court denied private respondents'
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE Motion for Reconsideration although issues raised
DARAB HAS JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE ISSUE therein were never passed upon in the 12 October
OF WHETHER THE SRRDC PROPERTIES ARE SUBJECT 2001 Decision or elsewhere.33
TO CARP COVERAGE.29
The DAR and the DARAB, through the Office of the
On October 12, 2001, the Court rendered its Decision Solicitor General, did not interpose any objection to the
in G.R. No. 112526 only, setting aside the decision of second motion for reconsideration. It also maintained
the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234 and ordering the that if SRRDC's claim that the property is watershed is
remand of the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and true, then it is the DENR that should exercise control
determination of the nature of the land. The dispositive and supervision in the disposition, utilization,
portion of the Decision reads as follows: management, renewal and conservation of the
property.34
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234. SRRDC meanwhile insists that there are no compelling
reasons to give due course to the second motion for
reconsideration.35
In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the case to the
DARAB for re-evaluation and determination of the
nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the At the outset, the Court notes that petitioner designated
issue of its coverage by the Comprehensive Land its petition in G.R. No. 112526 as one for review
Reform Program. on certiorari of the decision of the CA. In the same
breath, it likewise averred that it was also being filed as
a special civil action for certiorari as public Exhibits "A" to "S", Records). In other words, they
respondents committed grave abuse of are already productive and fully developed.
discretion.36 Petitioner should not have been allowed,
in the first place, to pursue such remedies ...
simultaneously as these are mutually exclusive.37
As the landholdings of SRRDC subject of the instant
It is SRRDC's claim that the CA committed grave abuse proceedings are already developed not only as a
of discretion in holding that the subject property is community but also as an agricultural farm capable
agricultural in nature. In support of its contention, it of sustaining daily existence and growth, We find
argued, among others, that the subject property had no infirmity in placing said parcels of land under
already been classified as "park" since 1979 under the compulsory coverage. They do not belong to the
Zoning Ordinance of Cabuyao, as approved by the exempt class of lands. The claim that the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB); that landholding of SRRDC is a watershed; hence,
it forms part of a watershed; and that the CA belonging to the exempt class of lands is literally
disregarded ecological considerations.38 SRRDC also "throwing punches at the moon" because the DENR
claimed that Amante, et al. are not qualified certified that "the only declared watershed in
beneficiaries.39 Laguna Province and San Pablo City is the Caliraya-
Lumot Rivers (Petitioner's Exhibit "A"). A sensu
Clearly, these issues are factual in nature, which the contrario, the landholdings subject herein are
Court, as a rule, should not have considered in this case. not.41 (Emphasis supplied)Ï‚rαlαωlιbrαrà ¿
However, there are recognized exceptions, e.g., when
the factual inferences of the appellate court are The evidence on record supports these findings, to
manifestly mistaken; the judgment is based on a wit:
misapprehension of facts; or the CA manifestly
overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts 1. Certification dated January 16, 1989 by the OIC
that, if properly considered, would justify a Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office
different legal conclusion.40 The present cases fall of Laguna that the only declared watershed in the
under the above exceptions. Laguna province and San Pablo City is the Caliraya-
Lumot Rivers No. 1570 dated September 1, 1976;42
Thus, in order to finally set these cases to rest, the
Court shall resolve the substantive matters raised, 2. Map prepared by Agricultural Engineer Rosalina H.
which in effect comes down to the issue of the validity Jumaquio showing that: a) the topography of the
of the acquisition of the subject property by the property covered by TCT No. T-84891 topography is
Government under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, or the flat to undulating with a 5 to 10% slope; (b) it is
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL). suitable to agricultural crops; and (c) the land is
presently planted with diversified crops;43
As noted earlier, the DARAB made its finding regarding
the nature of the property in question, i.e., the parcels 3. Certification dated August 28, 1989 by APT Felicito
of land are agricultural and may be the subject of Buban of the Department of Agriculture of Laguna that,
compulsory acquisition for distribution to farmer- per his ocular inspection, the subject property is an
beneficiaries, thus: agricultural area, and that the inhabitants' main
occupation is farming;44
Ocular inspections conducted by the Board show that
the subject landholdings have been under the 4. Pictures taken by MARO Belen La Torre of Cabuyao,
possession and tillage of the DAR identified potential Laguna, showing that the property is cultivated and
beneficiaries which they inherited from their forebears inhabited by the farmer-beneficiaries;45
(workers of the Yulo Estate). They are bonafide
residents and registered voters (DARAB Exhibits "C"
SRRDC however, insists that the property has already
and "J") of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna. There is a
been classified as a "municipal park" and beyond the
barangay road leading toward the barangay school and
scope of CARP. To prove this, SRRDC submitted the
sites and the settlement has a barangay hall, church,
following:
elementary school buildings (DARAB Exhibit "Q"),
Comelec precincts (DARAB Exhibits "J-1" and J-2"), and
other structures extant in progressive communities. 1. Certification dated March 1, 1991 by the Municipality
The barangay progressive development agencies, like of Cabuyao, Laguna that the entire barangay of Casile is
the DECS, DA, COMELEC, DAR and Support Services of delineated as Municipal Park;46
Land Bank, DPWH, DTI and the Cooperative
Development Authority have extended support 2. Certification dated March 11, 1991 by the Housing
services to the community (DARAB Exhibits "I", "K" to and Land Use Regulatory Board that the parcels of land
"K-3", "L", "M", "N", "O", "P" to "P-6"). More located in Barangay Casile are within the Municipal
importantly, subject landholdings are suitable for Park, based on the municipality's approved General
agriculture. Their topography is flat to undulating Land Use Plan ratified by the Housing and Land Use
3-15% slope. (Testimony of Rosalina Jumaquio, Regulatory Board as per Resolution No. 38-2 dated
Agricultural Engineer, DAR, TSN, June 21, 1991, June 25, 1980;47
DARAB Exhibits "F" and "H"). Though some
portions are over 18% slope, nevertheless, clearly 3. Photocopies of pictures taken by Mr. Ernesto Garcia,
visible thereat are fruit-bearing trees, like coconut, Officer-in-Charge of the Special Project Section of CJ
coffee, and pineapple plantations, etc. (see Yulo and Sons, Inc., of portions of Barangay Casile;48
Petitioners Exhibits "A" to "YYY" and DARAB
The Court recognizes the power of a local SRRDC cites the case of Natalia Realty, Inc. v.
government to reclassify and convert lands through DAR,55 wherein it was ruled that lands not devoted to
local ordinance, especially if said ordinance is agricultural activity and not classified as mineral or
approved by the HLURB.49 Municipal Ordinance No. forest by the DENR and its predecessor agencies, and
110-54 dated November 3, 1979, enacted by the not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as
Municipality of Cabuyao, divided the municipality into approved by the HLURB and its preceding competent
residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and authorities prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 6657 on
institutional districts, and districts and parks for open June 15, 1988, are outside the coverage of the CARP.
spaces.50 It did not convert, however, existing Said ruling, however, finds no application in the
agricultural lands into residential, commercial, present case. As previously stated, Municipal Ordinance
industrial, or institutional. While it classified Barangay No. 110-54 of the Municipality of Cabuyao did not
Casile into a municipal park, as shown in its permitted provide for any retroactive application nor did it
uses of land map, the ordinance did not provide for the convert existing agricultural lands into residential,
retroactivity of its classification. In Co v. Intermediate commercial, industrial, or institutional. Consequently,
Appellate Court,51 it was held that an ordinance the subject property remains agricultural in nature and
converting agricultural lands into residential or light therefore within the coverage of the CARP.
industrial should be given prospective application only,
and should not change the nature of existing Only on March 9, 2004, SRRDC filed with the Court a
agricultural lands in the area or the legal relationships Manifestation pointing out DAR Order No. (E)4-03-507-
existing over such lands. Thus, it was stated: 309 dated February 17, 2004, exempting from CARP
coverage two parcels of land owned by SRRDC and
A reading of Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, covered by TCT Nos. T-85573 and T-92014.56 The DAR
series of 1981, does not disclose any provision found that these properties have been re-classified into
converting existing agricultural lands in the covered Municipal Parks by the Municipal Ordinance of
area into residential or light industrial. While it Cabuyao, Laguna, and are part of the Kabangaan-Casile
declared that after the passage of the measure, the watershed, as certified by the DENR.57
subject area shall be used only for residential or light
industrial purposes, it is not provided therein that it The Court notes however that the said DAR Order has
shall have retroactive effect so as to discontinue all absolutely no bearing on these cases. The herein
rights previously acquired over lands located within subject property is covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and
the zone which are neither residential nor light 34891, totally different, although adjacent, from the
industrial in nature. This simply means that, if we property referred to in said DAR Order.
apply the general rule, as we must, the ordinance
should be given prospective operation only. The SRRDC also contends that the property has an 18%
further implication is that it should not change the slope and over and therefore exempt from acquisition
nature of existing agricultural lands in the area or and distribution under Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657.
the legal relationships existing over such What SRRDC opted to ignore is that Section 10, as
lands 52 (Emphasis supplied)Ï‚rαlαωlιbrαrà ¿ implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 13
dated August 30, 1990, also provides that those with
Under Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, agricultural land 18% slope and over but already developed for
is defined as land devoted to agricultural activity and agricultural purposes as of June 15, 1988, may be
not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial allocated to qualified occupants.58 Hence, even
or industrial land. Section 3 (b) meanwhile defines assuming that the property has an 18% slope and
agricultural activity as the cultivation of the soil, above, since it is already developed for agricultural
planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of purposes, then it cannot be exempt from acquisition
livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of and distribution. Moreover, the topography maps
such products, and other farm activities, and practices prepared by Agricultural Engineer Rosalina H.
performed by a farmer in conjunction with such Jumaquio show that the property to be acquired has a
farming operations done by persons whether natural 5-10% flat to undulating scope;59 that it is suitable to
or juridical. agricultural crops;60 and it is in fact already planted
with diversified crops.61
Before Barangay Casile was classified into a municipal
park by the local government of Cabuyao, Laguna in Also, the Certification dated July 1, 1991 by Geodetic
November 1979, it was part of a vast property Engineer Conrado R. Rigor that the top portion of
popularly known as the Canlubang Sugar Estate. SRRDC Barangay Casile has a 0 to 18% slope while the side of
claimed that in May 1979, "the late Miguel Yulo - the hill has a 19 to 75% slope,62 was presented by
allowed the employees of the Yulo group of companies SRRDC only during the proceedings before the CA
to cultivate a maximum area of one hectare each which had no probative value in a Petition for Review
subject to the condition that they should not plant proceedings. The Court notes that SRRDC had been
crops being grown by the Canlubang Sugar Estate, like given ample time and opportunity by the DARAB to
coconuts and coffee, to avoid confusion as to ownership prove the grounds for its protest and objection but
of crops."53 The consolidation and subdivision plan miserably failed to take advantage of such time and
surveyed for SRRDC on March 10-15, 198454 also show opportunity63 in the DARAB proceedings.
that the subject property is sugar land. Evidently, the
subject property is already agricultural at the time the SRRDC also contends that the property is part of a
municipality of Cabuyao enacted the zoning ordinance, watershed, citing as evidence, the Certification dated
and such ordinance should not affect the nature of the June 26, 1991 by the Laguna Lake Development
land. More so since the municipality of Cabuyao did Authority that Barangay Casile is part of the watershed
not even take any step to utilize the property as a area of the Laguna Lake Basin,64 and the Final Report
park. for Watershed Area Assessment Study for the
Canlubang Estate dated July 1991 undertaken by the A. Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and
Engineering & Development Corporation of the found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest
Philippines.65 It must be noted, however, that these reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding
pieces of evidence were likewise brought to record grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national defense,
only when petitioner filed its Petition for Review with school sites and campuses including experimental farm
the CA. The DARAB never had the opportunity to assess stations operated by public or private schools for
these pieces of evidence. educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research
and pilot production centers, church sites and convents
The DARAB stated: appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers
appurtenant thereof, communal burial grounds and
Noting the absence of evidence which, in the nature of cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually
things, should have been submitted by landowner worked by the inmates, government and private
SRRDC and to avoid any claim of deprivation of its right research and quarantine centers; andcralawlibrary
to prove its claim to just compensation (Uy v. Genato,
57 SCRA 123). We practically directed its counsel in not ...
only one instance, during the series of hearings
conducted, to do so. We even granted continuances to II. POLICIES
give it enough time to prepare and be ready with the
proof and documents. To Our dismay, none was In the application of the aforecited provision of law, the
submitted and this constrained Us to take the following guidelines shall be observed:
failure/refusal of SRRDC to present evidence as a
waiver or, at least, an implied acceptance of the A. For an area in I.A to be exempted from CARP
valuation made by the DAR. coverage, it must be "actually, directly and exclusively
used and found to be necessary" for the purpose so
The same goes with the CA, which did not have the stated.
discretion to consider evidence in a Petition
for Certiorari or Petition for Review ...
on Certiorari outside than that submitted before the
DARAB. The CA noted petitioner's failure to present
C. Lands which have been classified or proclaimed,
evidence in behalf of its arguments, thus:
and/or actually directly and exclusively used and found
to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, fish
. . . It must be recalled that petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty sanctuaries and breeding grounds, and watersheds and
itself had asked the DARAB in a petition dated March mangroves shall be exempted from the coverage of
18, 1991 to allow it 'to adduce evidence in support of CARP until Congress, taking into account ecological,
its position that the subject parcels of land are not developmental and equity considerations, shall have
covered by the CARP beginning on the scheduled determined by law, the specific limits of public domain,
hearing dated April 4, 1991. 'And DARAB obliged as in as provided for under Sec. 4(a) of RA 6657, and a
fact the petitioner commenced to introduce evidence. If reclassification of the said areas or portions thereof as
petitioner failed to complete the presentation of alienable and disposable has been approved. (Emphasis
evidence to support its claim of exemption from CARP supplied)Ï‚rαlαωlιbrαrà ¿
coverage, it has only itself to blame for which DARAB
cannot be accused of not being impartial.67
In order to be exempt from coverage, the land must
have been classified or proclaimed  and actually,
Consequently, there is no need to order the remand of directly and exclusively used and found to be
the case to the DARAB "for re-evaluation and necessary for watershed purposes.68 In this case, at the
determination of the nature of the parcels of land time the DAR issued the Notices of Coverage up to the
involved." It runs contrary to orderly administration of time the DARAB rendered its decision on the dispute,
justice and would give petitioner undue opportunity to the subject property is yet to be officially classified or
present evidence in support of its stance, an proclaimed as a watershed and has in fact long been
opportunity it already had during the DARAB used for agricultural purposes. SRRDC relies on the
proceedings, and which opportunity it regrettably case of Central Mindanao University (CMU) v.
failed to take advantage of. DARAB,69 wherein the Court ruled that CMU is in the
best position to determine what property is found
More significantly however, it is the DAR Secretary necessary for its use. SRRDC claims that it is in the best
that originally declared the subject property as position to determine whether its properties are
falling under the coverage of the CARP. "necessary" for development as park and watershed
area.70
Moreover, DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of
1990 (Rules and Procedure Governing Exemption of But SRRDC's reliance on the CMU case is flawed. In the
Lands from CARP Coverage under Section 10, R.A. No. CMU case, the subject property from the very beginning
6657) provides: was not alienable and disposable because Proclamation
No. 476 issued by the late President Carlos P. Garcia
I. LEGAL MANDATE already reserved the property for the use of the school.
Besides, the subject property in the CMU case was
The general policy under CARP is to cover as much actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
lands suitable for agriculture as possible. However, necessary for educational purposes.
Section 10, RA 6657 excludes and exempts certain
types of lands from the coverage of CARP, to wit: In the present case, the property is agricultural and was
not actually and exclusively used for watershed
purposes. As records show, the subject property was farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of
first utilized for the purposes of the Canlubang Sugar the CARP. These potential beneficiaries with the
Estate.71 Later, petitioner claimed that the occupants assistance of the BARC and the DAR shall provide the
were allowed to cultivate the area so long as they do following data:
not plant crops being grown by the Canlubang Sugar
Estate in order to avoid confusion as to ownership (a) names and members of their immediate farm
thereof.72 Thus, based on its own assertions, it appears household;
that it had benefited from the fruits of the land as
agricultural land. Now, in a complete turnaround, it is (b) owners or administrators of the lands they work on
claiming that the property is part of a watershed. and the length of tenurial relationship;

Furthermore, in a belated attempt to prove that the (c) location and area of the land they work;
subject property is part of a watershed that must be
environmentally protected, SRRDC submitted before
(d) crops planted; andcralawlibrary
the Court a Final Report dated February 1994
undertaken by the Ecosystems Research and
Development Bureau (ERDB) of the DENR entitled, (e) their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid
"Environmental Assessment of the Casile and Kabanga- or wages received.
an River Watersheds."73 The study, according to SRRDC,
was made pursuant to a handwritten instruction issued A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP
by then President Fidel V. Ramos. The study noted that, beneficiaries in the barangay shall be posted in the
"the continuing threat of widespread deforestation and barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the
unwise land use practices have resulted in the barangay where it shall be open to inspection by the
deteriorating condition of the watersheds."74 But the public at all reasonable hours.
Court also notes the Memorandum for the President
dated September 1993 by then DENR Secretary Angel Meanwhile, Administrative Order No. 10 (Rules and
C. Alcala that, after a field inspection conducted by the Procedures Governing the Registration of
DENR's Regional Executive Director and the Provincial Beneficiaries), Series of 1989, provides:
and Community Natural Resource Officers, it was found
that: SUBJECT: I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

... Pursuant to Section 15, Chapter IV, of the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, the DAR,
2. Many bankal trees were found growing in the in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform
watershed/CARP areas, including some which have Committee (BARC), as organized pursuant to RA 6657,
been coppiced, and that water conduits for domestic shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and
and industrial uses were found installed at the farmworkers who are qualified beneficiaries of the
watershed area claimed by the Yulos. Records further CARP. This Administrative Order provides the
show that in the 1970s, a Private Land Timber Permit Implementing Rules and Procedures for the said
was issued to Canlubang Sugar Estate thru its registration.
marketing arm, the Sta. Rosa Realty Devpt. Corp.
...
3. Resident farmers denied that they have been cutting
bankal trees and volunteered the information that one B. Specific
of the Estates' security guards was dismissed for
cutting and transporting bankal trees. The trees cut by
1. Identify the actual and potential farmer-beneficiaries
the dismissed security guard were found stacked
of the CARP.
adjacent to the Canlubang Security Agency's
headquarters.75
In Lercana v. Jalandoni,76 the Court categorically stated
that:
Evidently, SRRDC had a hand in the degradation of the
area, and now wants to put the entire blame on the
farmer-beneficiaries. It is reasonable to conclude that 'the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries
SRRDC is merely using "ecological considerations" to are matters involving strictly the administrative
avert any disposition of the property adverse to it. implementation of the CARP, a matter exclusively
cognizable by the Secretary of the Department of
Agrarian Reform, and beyond the jurisdiction of the
SRRDC also objects to the identification of Amante, et
DARAB.77
al. as beneficiaries of the subject property. Suffice it to
say that under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6657, the
identification of beneficiaries is a matter involving The farmer-beneficiaries have already been identified
strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, in this case. Also, the DAR Secretary has already issued
a matter which is exclusively vested in the Secretary of Notices of Coverage and Notices of Acquisition
Agrarian Reform, through its authorized offices. Section pertaining to the subject property. It behooves the
15 reads: courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own
determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse
of discretion committed by the administrative
SECTION 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. - The DAR in
agency,78 which in these cases the Court finds none.
coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall
register all agricultural lessees, tenants and SRRDC questions the constitutionality of Section 22 of
R.A. No. 6657, which reads in part:
SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. The lands covered Likewise, the constitutional question raised by SRRDC
by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to is not the very lis mota in the present case. Basic is the
landless residents of the same barangay, or in the rule that every law has in its favor the presumption of
absence thereof, landless residents of the same constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there
municipality in the following order of priority. must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; or argumentative.85 The controversy at hand is
principally anchored on the coverage of the subject
(b) regular farmworkers; property under the CARP, an issue that can be
determined without delving into the constitutionality
of Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657. While the identification
(c) seasonal farmworkers; of Amante, et al. as farmer-beneficiaries is a corollary
matter, yet, the same may be resolved by the DAR.
(d) other farmworkers;
SRRDC questions the DARAB's jurisdiction to entertain
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands; the question of whether the subject property is subject
to CARP coverage.
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above
beneficiaries; andcralawlibrary According to SRRDC, such authority is vested with the
DAR Secretary who has the exclusive prerogative to
(g) others directly working on the land. resolve matters involving the administrative
implementation of the CARP and agrarian laws and
... regulations.86

SRRDC argues that Section 22 "sweepingly declares There is no question that the power to determine
landless residents as beneficiaries of the CARP (to whether a property is subject to CARP coverage lies
mean also squatters)," in violation of Article XIII, with the DAR Secretary. Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657
Section 4 of the Constitution, which aims to benefit only provides that:
the landless farmers and regular farmworkers. 79
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is
The Court cannot entertain such constitutional hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine
challenge. The requirements before a litigant can and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have
challenge the constitutionality of a law are well- exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving
delineated, viz.: the implementation of agrarian reform, except those
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
(1) The existence of an actual and appropriate case; Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
(2) A personal and substantial interest of the party
raising the constitutional question; ...

(3) The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the The DAR's jurisdiction under Section 50 of R.A. No.
earliest opportunity; andcralawlibrary 6657 is two-fold. The first is essentially executive and
pertains to the enforcement and administration of the
laws, carrying them into practical operation and
(4) The constitutional question is the lis mota of the
enforcing their due observance, while the second is
case.80 (Emphasis supplied)Ï‚rαlαωlιbrαrà ¿
judicial and involves the determination of rights and
obligations of the parties.87
Earliest opportunity means that the question of
unconstitutionality of the act in question should have
Pursuant to its judicial mandate of achieving a just,
been immediately raised in the proceedings in the
expeditious and inexpensive determination of every
court below,81 in this case, the DAR Secretary. It must
action or proceeding before it,88 the DAR adopted the
be pointed out that all controversies on the
DARAB Revised Rules, Rule II (Jurisdiction of the
implementation of the CARP fall under the jurisdiction
Adjudication Board) of which provides:
of the DAR, even though they raise questions that
are also legal or constitutional in nature.82 The
earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to SECTION 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction.
raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that - The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have
can resolve the same, such that, "if it is not raised in the primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to
pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases,
not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on controversies, and matters or incidents involving the
appeal."83 Records show that SRRDC raised such implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
constitutional challenge only before this Court despite Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657,
the fact that it had the opportunity to do so before the Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act
DAR Secretary. The DARAB correctly refused to deal on No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389,
this issue as it is the DAR Secretary who, under the law, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and
has the authority to determine the beneficiaries of the their implementing rules and regulations.
CARP. This Court will not entertain questions on the
invalidity of a statute where that issue was not Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not
specifically raised, insisted upon, and adequately be limited to the following:
argued84 in the DAR.
a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons (d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of
engaged in the cultivation and use of agricultural land Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates
covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential
Program (CARP) and other agrarian laws; Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall or
cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or
b) Cases involving the valuation of land, and Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet
determination and payment of just compensation, registered with the Register of Deeds;
fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance
compensation, amortization payments, and similar (e) Exercise of the right of retention by landowner; . . .
disputes concerning the functions of the Land Bank; (Emphasis supplied)Ï‚rαlαωlιbrαrà ¿

c) Cases involving the annulment or cancellation of Thus, the power to determine whether a property is
orders or decisions of DAR officials other than the agricultural and subject to CARP coverage together
Secretary, lease contracts or deeds of sale or their with the identification, qualification or disqualification
amendments under the administration and disposition of farmer-beneficiaries lies with the DAR Secretary.90
of the DAR and LBP;
Significantly, the DAR had already determined that
d) Cases arising from, or connected with membership the properties are subject to expropriation under
or representation in compact farms, farmers' the CARP and has distributed the same to the
cooperatives and other registered farmers' associations farmer-beneficiaries.
or organizations, related to land covered by the CARP
and other agrarian laws; Initially, the LBP forwarded the two Compulsory
Acquisition Claim Folders (CACF) covering the subject
e) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, properties to the DARAB for summary proceedings for
foreclosure, pre-emption and redemption of the sole purpose of determining just compensation.
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or SRRDC then sent a letter to the LBP claiming that the
other agrarian laws; subject properties were exempt from CARP coverage
and subject of a pending petition for land conversion.
f) Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land As a consequence, the DARAB asked the DAR Secretary
Transfer (CLT), Certificate of Land Ownership Award to first resolve the issues raised by SRRDC before it can
(CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the proceed with the land valuation proceedings. In
administrative correction thereof; response, the DAR, through the Undersecretary for
Operations and the Regional Director of Region IV,
g) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or submitted its report stating that: (1) the property is
concerns referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR. subject to compulsory acquisition by virtue of the
Notice of Coverage issued on August 11, 1989, and
Notice of Acquisition issued on December 12, 1989, and
Provided, however, that matters involving strictly that it was subject to CARP coverage per Section IV D of
the administrative implementation of the CARP and DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990; and
other agrarian laws and regulations, shall be the (2) there was no pending petition for land conversion
exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the involving the subject property. When SRRDC petitioned
Secretary of the DAR. (Emphasis supplied)Ï‚rαlÎ±Ï the DARAB to resolve the issue of exemption from
‰lιbrαrà ¿ coverage, it was only then that the DARAB took
cognizance of said issue.91
On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 06-
00,89 which provides for the Rules of Procedure for As the DARAB succinctly pointed out, it was SRRDC that
Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, govern the initiated and invoked the DARAB's jurisdiction to pass
administrative function of the DAR. Under said Rules of upon the question of CARP coverage. As stated by the
Procedure, the DAR Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction DARAB:
over classification and identification of landholdings for
coverage under the CARP, including protests or
oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage. [Link]. The ISSUE ON CARP COVERAGE was initiated
Section 2 of the said Rules specifically provides, inter and incorporated in said proceeding, at the instance of
alia, that: petitioner itself, by filing a petition dated March 18,
1991, - Prayed therein were that DARAB:
SECTION 2. Cases Covered. - These Rules shall govern
cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the 1. Take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over the
DAR Secretary which shall include the following: question of CARP coverage of the subject parcels of
land;
(a) Classification and identification of landholdings
for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian 2. Defer or hold in abeyance the proceedings for
Reform Program (CARP), including protests or administrative valuation of the subject properties
oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of pending determination of the question of CARP
coverage; coverage;

(b) Identification, qualification or disqualification 3. Allow respondent SRRDC to adduce evidence in

of potential farmer-beneficiaries; support of its position that the subject parcels of land
are not covered by the CARP beginning on the
scheduled hearing date of April 4, 1991" (p.3; emphasis
(c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP; and underscoring supplied).
Upon persistent request of petitioner SRRDC, it was In CA-G.R. SP No. 27234, the CA likewise found that it
accommodated by DARAB and a counsel of SRRDC even was SRRDC that called upon the DARAB to determine
took the witness stand. Its lawyers were always in the issue and it, in fact, actively participated in the
attendance during the scheduled hearings until it was proceedings before it.93 It was SRRDC's own act of
time for SRRDC to present its own evidence. summoning the DARAB's authority that cured
whatever jurisdictional defect it now raises. It is
[Link]. But, as earlier stated, despite the open session elementary that the active participation of a party in a
proddings by DARAB for SRRDC to submit evidence case pending against him before a court or a quasi-
and the rescheduling for, allegedly, they are still judicial body, is tantamount to a recognition of that
collating the evidence, nay, the request that it be court's or body's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide
allowed to adduce evidence, none was adduced and this by the resolution of the case and will bar said party
constrained public respondent to declare SRRDC as from later on impugning the court's or body's
having waived its right to present evidence. And, after jurisdiction.94
the remaining parties were heard, the hearing was
formally terminated. Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction was raised by
SRRDC only before the CA. It was never presented or
... discussed before the DARAB for obvious reasons, i.e., it
was SRRDC itself that invoked the latter's jurisdiction.
4.5.3. Needless to state, the jurisdictional objection As a rule, when a party adopts a certain theory, and the
(CARP coverage), now being raised herein was not case is tried and decided upon that theory in the court
one of the original matters in issue. Principally, below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on
DARAB was called upon under Section 16 of appeal.95 Points of law, theories, issues and arguments
Republic Act No. 6657 to resolve a land valuation not brought to the attention of the lower court need not
case. But SRRDC itself insisted that DARAB should be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a
take cognizance thereof in the same land valuation reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first
proceeding. And, SRRDC, through its lawyers, time at such late stage.96 To permit SRRDC to change its
actively participated in the hearings conducted. theory on appeal would not only be unfair to Amante,
et al. but would also be offensive to the basic scales of
fair play, justice and due process.97
4.5.4. It was only when an adverse decision was
rendered by DARAB that the jurisdictional issue
was raised in the Petition for Review it filed with Finally, the Court notes that then DAR Secretary
the Honorable Court of Appeals. It was also only Benjamin T. Leong issued a Memorandum on July 11,
then that petitioner presented proof/evidence. 1991, ordering the opening of a trust account in favor
of SRRDC. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals, this Court struck down as void DAR
... Administrative Circular No. 9, Series of 1990, providing
for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of the deposit
4.5.6. Public respondents (DAR/DARAB) are not in cash or in bonds contemplated in Section 16 (e) of
unmindful of the rule that matter of jurisdiction may be R.A. No. 6657. As a result, the DAR issued
raised at any stage of the proceeding. But for two Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1996, converting
serious considerations, the applicability thereof in the trust accounts in the name of landowners into deposit
case at bar should not be allowed. accounts.98 Thus, the trust account opened by the LBP
per instructions of DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong
[Link]. The fact [part (municipal/industrial) and/or should be converted to a deposit account, to be
watershed] upon which the jurisdictional issue retroactive in application in order to rectify the error
interchangeably hinges were not established during the committed by the DAR in opening a trust account and
hearing of the case. No proof was adduced. That the to grant the landowners the benefits concomitant to
matter of CARP coverage is strictly administrative payment in cash or LBP bonds prior to the ruling of the
implementation of CARP and, therefore, beyond the Court in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals.
competence of DARAB, belonging, as it does, to the DAR The account shall earn a 12% interest per annum from
Secretary, was not even alleged, either before DARAB the time the LBP opened a trust account up to the time
or the Honorable Court of Appeals, the numerous said account was actually converted into cash and LBP
petitions/incidents filed notwithstanding. Be it that as bonds deposit accounts.
it may, the records of the case show that initially
DARAB refused to take cognizance thereof and, in fact, Given the foregoing conclusions, the petition filed
forwarded the issue of CARP coverage to the office of in G.R. No. 118838, which primarily rests on G.R. No.
the DAR Secretary. It was only when it was returned to 112526, should be granted.
DARAB by said office that proceedings thereon
commenced pursuant to Section 1(g) of Rule II of the The judgments of the trial court in the injunction case
DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure. (Civil Case No. B-2333) and the CA in CA-G.R. SP No.
38182 were premised on SRRDC's transfer certificates
[Link]. Petitioner is now estopped from assailing of title over the subject property. The trial court and
the jurisdiction of DARAB. First, it expressly the CA cannot be faulted for denying the writ of
acknowledged the same, in fact invoked it, when it injunction prayed for by Amante, et al. since at the time
filed its petition (Annex "4"); and, second, during the trial court rendered its decision in the injunction
the scheduled hearings, SRRDC, through its counsel, case on January 20, 1992, SRRDC was still the holder of
actively participated, one of its counsel (sic) even the titles covering the subject property. The titles in its
testifying. It may not now be allowed to impugn the name were cancelled and corresponding TCTs were
jurisdiction of public respondent '92 (Emphasis issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines on
supplied)Ï‚rαlαωlιbrαrà ¿ February 11, 1992, and CLOAs were issued to the
farmer-beneficiaries on February 26, 1992. When If SRRDC sincerely wants to preserve the property for
Amante, et al., in their motion for reconsideration filed ecological considerations, it can be done regardless of
in CA-G.R. SP No. 38182, brought to the CA's attention who owns it. After all, we are all stewards of this earth,
the issuance of the CLOAs, the CA, per Resolution dated and it rests on all of us to tend to it.
January 19, 1995, reiterated its ruling that "whether or
not the subject property is covered by the WHEREFORE, the Second Motion for Reconsideration
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) is is GRANTED. The Court's Decision dated October 12,
the subject matter of a separate case, and we cannot 2001 in G.R. No. 112526 is SETASIDE and the Decision
interfere with the same at the present time." The CA of the Court of Appeals dated November 5, 1993 in CA-
further stated that "(O)ur present decision is, therefore, G.R. SP No. 27234 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in
not intended to preempt any judgment or prejudice the that the Land Bank of the Philippines is ordered to
right of any party in the said case."99 It must be noted convert the trust account in the name of Sta. Rosa
that at that juncture, the DARAB Decision and the CA Realty Development Corporation to a deposit account,
decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234, finding the subject subject to a 12% interest per annum from the time the
property covered by the CARP Law, is yet to be finally LBP opened a trust account up to the time said account
resolved by this Court in G.R. No. 112526 and in fact, a was actually converted into cash and LBP bonds
temporary restraining order was issued by the Court deposit accounts. The temporary restraining order
on December 15, 1993, enjoining the DARAB from issued by the Court on December 15, 1993, is LIFTED.
enforcing the effects of the CLOAs. Amante, et al. was
likewise restrained from further clearing the subject The petition filed by Amante, et al. in G.R. No.
property.100 Hence, the decision of the trial court and 118838 is GRANTED in that Sta. Rosa Realty
the CA denying the writ of injunction was warranted. Development Corporation is hereby ENJOINED from
disturbing the peaceful possession of the farmer-
Nevertheless, considering that the subject property is beneficiaries with CLOAs. The Decision of the Court of
agricultural and may be acquired for distribution to Appeals dated June 28, 1994 in CA-G.R. CV No. 38182
farmer-beneficiaries identified by the DAR under the is AFFIRMED insofar as the award of nominal damages
CARP, the transfer certificates of title issued in the is concerned.
name of the Republic of the Philippines and the CLOAs
issued by the DAR in the names of Amante, et al.,101 are The Department of Environment and Natural
valid titles and therefore must be upheld. By virtue Resources and the Department of Agrarian Reform, in
thereof, Amante, et al. who have been issued CLOAs coordination with the farmer-beneficiaries identified
are now the owners of the subject property. by the DAR, are URGED to formulate a community-
Consequently, the decisions of the trial court in the based watershed plan for the management and
injunction case and the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 38182 rehabilitation of Barangay Casile.
must now be set aside, insofar as it orders Amante, et
al. to vacate and/or enjoins them from entering the
subject property.

The Court, however, agrees with the CA that Amante, et

al. is not entitled to actual, moral and exemplary
damages, as well as attorney's fees. SRRDC's right of
possession over the subject property was predicated on
its claim of ownership, and it cannot be sanctioned in
exercising its rights or protecting its interests thereon.
As was ruled by the CA, Amante, et al. is merely entitled
to nominal damages as a result of SRRDC's acts.102

All is not lost in this case. In its Memorandum dated

September 29, 1993, to the DAR Secretary, the DENR
manifested that:

. . . the farmers themselves could be tapped to

undertake watershed management and protection. This
community-based approach in natural resource
management, is in fact, being used in numerous
watershed management projects nationwide. Adopting
the same approach in the area is deemed the best
possible solution to the case since it will not prejudice
the CLOAs issued to the farmer-beneficiaries. They
should, however, be required to undertake the
necessary reforestation and other watershed
management/rehabilitation measures in the area.

In view of the foregoing, we recommend that a

watershed management plan for the area espousing the
community-based approach be drawn-up jointly by the
DAR and DENR. . . .103
[G.R. NO. 154112 : September 23, 2004] "On 29 September 1999, private respondent Cuenca
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, La
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN Carlota City, a complaint against Noe Fortunado and
REFORM, Petitioner, v. ROBERTO J. CUENCA and Hon. Land Bank of the Philippines for 'Annulment of Notice
ALFONSO B. COMBONG JR., in His Capacity as the of Coverage and Declaration of Unconstitutionality of
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch E.O. No. 405, Series of 1990, With Preliminary
63, La Carlota City, Respondents. Injunction and Restraining Order.' The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 713.
DECISION
"In his complaint, Cuenca alleged, inter alia, that the
PANGANIBAN, J.:
implementation of CARP in his landholding is no longer
All controversies on the implementation of the with authority of law considering that, if at all, the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall implementation should have commenced and should
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian have been completed between June 1988 to June 1992,
Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that as provided in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts Law (CARL); that the placing of the subject landholding
should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law under CARP is without the imprimatur of the
has granted it special and original authority to hear and Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the
adjudicate agrarian matters. Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCOM) as required by R.A. 7905; that Executive
The Case Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990 amends, modifies
and/or repeals CARL and, therefore, it is
Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the unconstitutional considering that on 14 June 1990,
Rules of Court, assailing the March 15, 2002 then President Corazon Aquino no longer had law-
Decision2 and the June 18, 2002 Resolution3 of the making powers; that the NOTICE OF COVERAGE is a
Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 58536. In the gross violation of PD 399 dated 28 February 1974.
challenged Decision, the CA disposed as follows:
"Private respondent Cuenca prayed that the Notice of
"As previously stated, the principal issue raised in the Coverage be declared null and void ab initio and
court below involves a pure question of law. Thus, it Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990 be
being clear that the court a quo has jurisdiction over declared unconstitutional.
the nature and subject matter of the case below, it did
not commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued "On 05 October 1999, MARO Noe Fortunado filed a
the assailed order denying petitioner's motion to motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
dismiss and granting private respondent's application court a quo has no jurisdiction over the nature and
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. subject matter of the action, pursuant to R.A. 6657.

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is "On 12 January 2000, the respondent Judge issued a
denied due course and is accordingly DISMISSED."4 Temporary Restraining Order directing MARO and LBP
to cease and desist from implementing the Notice of
The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied Coverage. In the same order, the respondent Judge set
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. the hearing on the application for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction on January 17 and 18, 2000.
The Facts
"On 14 January 2000, MARO Fortunado filed a Motion
The CA narrated the facts as follows:
for Reconsideration of the order granting the TRO
"Private respondent Roberto J. Cuenca is the registered contending inter alia that the DAR, through the MARO,
owner of a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 816-A in the course of implementing the Notice of Coverage
and covered by TCT No. 1084, containing an area of under CARP cannot be enjoined through a Temporary
81.6117 hectares, situated in Brgy. Haguimit, La Carlota Restraining Order in the light of Sections 55 and 68 of
City and devoted principally to the planting of sugar R.A. 6657.
cane.
"In an order dated 16 February 2000, the respondent
"On 21 September 1999, Noe Fortunado, Municipal Judge denied MARO Noe Fortunado's motion to dismiss
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of La Carlota City and issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction directing
issued and sent a NOTICE OF COVERAGE to private Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease
respondent Cuenca placing the above-described and desist from implementing the Notice of Coverage,
landholding under the compulsory coverage of R.A. and the LBP from proceeding with the determination of
6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian the value of the subject land.
Reform Program (CARP). The NOTICE OF COVERAGE
"The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) [thereafter
also stated that the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
filed before the CA] a petition for certiorari under Rule
will determine the value of the subject land pursuant to
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the
Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990.
writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent Hence, this Petition.6
Judge on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Issues

"It is the submission of the petitioner that the assailed In its Memorandum, petitioner raises the following
order is 'in direct defiance' of Republic Act 6657, issues:
particularly Section 55 and 68' thereof, which read:
"1. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed serious
'SECTION 55. NO RESTRAINING ORDERS OR error by not taking into cognizance that the issues
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS - No court in the raised in the complaint filed by the private respondent,
Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any which seeks to exclude his land from the coverage of
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction the CARP, is an agrarian reform matter and within the
against the PARC or any of its duly authorized or jurisdiction of the DAR, not with the trial court.
designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy
"2. The Honorable Court of Appeals, with due respect,
arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the
gravely abused its discretion by sustaining the writ of
application, implementation, or enforcement or
injunction issued by the trial court, which is a violation
interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on
of Sections 55 and 68 of Republic Act No. 6657."7
agrarian reform.'
The Court's Ruling
'SECTION 68 - IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
FROM COURT'S INTERFERENCE - No injunction, The Petition has merit.
Restraining Order, prohibition or mandamus shall be
issued by the lower court against the Department of First Issue:
Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture
(DA), the Department of Environment and Natural Jurisdiction
Resources (DENR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
In its bare essentials, petitioner's argument is that
in the implementation of their program.'
private respondent, in his Complaint for Annulment of
"Petitioner contends that by virtue of the above the Notice of Coverage, is asking for the exclusion of his
provisions, all lower courts, such as the court presided landholding from the coverage of the Comprehensive
over by respondent Judge, 'are barred if not prohibited Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). According to the
by law to issue orders of injunctions against the DAR, the issue involves the implementation of agrarian
Department of Agrarian Reform in the full reform, a matter over which the DAR has original and
implementation of the Notice of Coverage which is the exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 50 of the
initial step of acquiring lands under R.A. 6657.' Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657).

"Petitioner also contends that the nature and subject On the other hand, private respondent maintains that
matter of the case below is purely agrarian in character his Complaint assails mainly the constitutionality of EO
over which the court a quo has no jurisdiction and that 405. He contends that since the Complaint raises a
therefore, it had no authority to issue the assailed purely legal issue, it thus falls within the jurisdiction of
injunction order."5 the RTC. We do not agree.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals Conflicts involving jurisdiction over agrarian disputes
are as tortuous as the history of Philippine agrarian
Stressing that the issue was not simply the improper reform laws. The changing jurisdictional landscape is
issuance of the Notice of Coverage, but was mainly the matched only by the tumultuous struggle for, and
constitutionality of Executive Order No. 405, the CA resistance to, the breaking up and distribution of large
ruled that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had landholdings.
jurisdiction over the case. Consonant with that
authority, the court a quo also had the power to issue Two Basic Rules
writs and processes to enforce or protect the rights of
Two basic rules have guided this Court in determining
the parties.
jurisdiction in these cases. First, jurisdiction is
The appellate court likewise held that petitioner's conferred by law.8 And second, the nature of the action
reliance on Sections 55 and 68 of RA 6657 had been and the issue of jurisdiction are shaped by the material
misplaced, because the case was not about a purely averments of the complaint and the character of the
agrarian matter. It opined that the prohibition in relief sought.9 The defenses resorted to in the answer
certain statutes against such writs pertained only to or motion to dismiss are disregarded; otherwise, the
injunctions against administrative acts, to question of jurisdiction would depend entirely upon
controversies involving facts, or to the exercise of the whim of the defendant.10
discretion in technical cases. But on issues involving
Grant of Jurisdiction
pure questions of law, courts were not prevented from
exercising their power to restrain or prohibit
administrative acts.
Ever since agrarian reform legislations began, litigants exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian
have invariably sought the aid of the courts. Courts of Reform, namely:
Agrarian Relations (CARs) were organized under RA
126711 "[f]or the enforcement of all laws and (1) classification and identification of landholdings;
regulations governing the relation of capital and labor
(2) x x x;
on all agricultural lands under any system of
cultivation." The jurisdiction of these courts was (3) parcellary mapping;
spelled out in Section 7 of the said law as follows:
(4) x x x;
"Sec. 7. Jurisdiction of the Court. - The Court shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the entire xxx
Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle
all questions, matters, controversies or disputes m) Cases involving expropriation of all kinds of land in
involving all those relationships established by law furtherance of the agrarian reform program;
which determine the varying rights of persons in the
xxx
cultivation and use of agricultural land where one of
the parties works the land, and shall have concurrent p) Ejectment proceedings instituted by the Department
jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank involving lands
employer and farm employee or labor under Republic under their administration and disposition, except
Act Numbered six hundred two and over landlord and urban properties belonging to the Land Bank;
tenant involving violations of the Usury Law (Act No.
2655, as amended) and of inflicting the penalties q) Cases involving violations of the penal provisions of
provided therefor." Republic Act Numbered eleven hundred and ninety-
nine, as amended, Republic Act Numbered thirty eight
All the powers and prerogatives inherent in or hundred and forty-four, as amended, Presidential
belonging to the then Courts of First Instance12 (now Decrees and laws relating to agrarian reform; Provided,
the RTCs) were granted to the CARs. The latter were however, That violations of the said penal provisions
further vested by the Agricultural Land Reform Code committed by any Judge shall be tried by the courts of
(RA 3844) with original and exclusive jurisdiction over general jurisdiction; andcralawlibrary
the following matters:
r) Violations of Presidential Decrees Nos. 815 and 816.
"(1) All cases or actions involving matters,
controversies, disputes, or money claims arising from The CARs were abolished, however, pursuant to Section
agrarian relations: x x x 4414 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 12915 (approved August 14,
1981), which had fully been implemented on February
"(2) All cases or actions involving violations of 14, 1983. Jurisdiction over cases theretofore given to
Chapters I and II of this Code and Republic Act Number the CAR's was vested in the RTCs.16
eight hundred and nine; andcralawlibrary
Then came Executive Order No. 229.17 Under Section 17
"(3) Expropriations to be instituted by the Land thereof, the DAR shall exercise "quasi-judicial powers
Authority: x x x."13 to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters,
and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 946 thereafter
involving implementation of agrarian reform, except
reorganized the CARs, streamlined their operations,
those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
and expanded their jurisdiction as follows:
the DENR and the Department of Agriculture [DA]." The
"Sec. 12. Jurisdiction over Subject Matter. - The Courts of DAR shall also have the "powers to punish for contempt
Agrarian Relations shall have original and exclusive and to issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum and
jurisdiction over: writs to enforce its orders or decisions."

a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons In Quismundo v. CA,18 this provision was deemed to
in the cultivation and use of agricultural land except have repealed Section 12 (a) and (b) of Presidential
those cognizable by the National Labor Relations Decree No. 946, which vested the then Courts of
Commission; x x x; Agrarian Relations with "original exclusive jurisdiction
over cases and questions involving rights granted and
b) Questions involving rights granted and obligations obligations imposed by presidential issuances
imposed by laws, Presidential Decrees, Orders, promulgated in relation to the agrarian reform
Instructions, Rules and Regulations issued and program."
promulgated in relation to the agrarian reform
program; Provided, however, That matters involving Under Section 4 of Executive Order No. 129-A, the DAR
the administrative implementation of the transfer of was also made "responsible for implementing the
the land to the tenant-farmer under Presidential Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program." In
Decree No. 27 and amendatory and related decrees, accordance with Section 5 of the same EO, it possessed
orders, instructions, rules and regulations, shall be the following powers and functions:
"(b) Implement all agrarian laws, and for this purpose, and obligations of persons engaged in the cultivation
punish for contempt and issue subpoena, subpoena and use of agricultural land covered by the
duces tecum, writs of execution of its decisions, and Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and
other legal processes to ensure successful and other agrarian laws x x x."20
expeditious program implementation; the decisions of
the Department may in proper cases, be appealed to In the same case, the Court also held that the
the Regional Trial Courts but shall be immediately jurisdictional competence of the DAR had further been
executory notwithstanding such appeal; clarified by RA 6657 thus:

xxx "x x x. The Act [RA 6657] makes references to and

explicitly recognizes the effectivity and applicability of
"(h) Provide free legal services to agrarian reform Presidential Decree No. 229. More particularly, the Act
beneficiaries and resolve agrarian conflicts and land- echoes the provisions of Section 17 of Presidential
tenure related problems as may be provided for by law; Decree No. 229, supra, investing the Department of
Agrarian Reform with original jurisdiction, generally,
xxx over all cases involving agrarian laws, although, as shall
shortly be pointed out, it restores to the Regional Trial
"(l) Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove
Court, limited jurisdiction over two groups of cases.
conversion of agricultural lands for residential,
Section 50 reads as follows:
commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be
provided x x x." 'SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is
hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine
The above grant of jurisdiction to the DAR covers these
and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have
areas:
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving
(a) adjudication of all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those
implementation of agrarian reform; falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture [DA] and the Department of
(b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure Environment and Natural Resources [DENR].
related problems; andcralawlibrary
xxx
(c) approval or disapproval of the conversion,
restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into 'It shall have the power to summon witnesses,
residential, commercial, industrial, and other non- administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of
agricultural uses. reports, compel the production of books and
documents and answers to interrogatories and issue
The foregoing provision was as broad as those subpoena and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its
"theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Court by writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers.
Presidential Decree No. 946," as the Court ruled in Vda. It shall likewise have the power to punish direct and
de Tangub v. CA,19 which we quote: indirect contempt in the same manner and subject to
the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.'
"x x x. The intention evidently was to transfer original "21
jurisdiction to the Department of Agrarian Reform, a
proposition stressed by the rules formulated and Nonetheless, we have held that the RTCs have not been
promulgated by the Department for the completely divested of jurisdiction over agrarian
implementation of the executive orders just quoted. reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657 confers special
The rules included the creation of the Agrarian Reform jurisdiction on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are
Adjudication Board designed to exercise the actually RTCs designated as such by the Supreme
adjudicatory functions of the Department, and the Court.22 Under Section 57 of the same law, these Special
allocation to it of ' Agrarian Courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over the following matters:
'x x x [O]riginal and exclusive jurisdiction over the
subject matter vested upon it by law, and all cases, "1) 'all petitions for the determination of just
disputes, controversies and matters or incidents compensation to land-owners,' and
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program under Executive Order No. "2) 'the prosecution of all criminal offenses under x x x
229, Executive Order No. 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844, [the] Act.' "
as amended by Republic Act No. 6289, Presidential
The above delineation of jurisdiction remains in place
Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their
to this date. Administrative Circular No. 29-200223 of
implementing rules and regulations.'
this Court stresses the distinction between the quasi-
"The implementing rules also declare that judicial powers of the DAR under Sections 50 and 55 of
'(s)pecifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but RA 6657 and the jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian
not be limited to x x x (that theretofore vested in the Courts referred to by Sections 56 and 57 of the same
Regional Trial Courts, i.e.) (c)ases involving the rights law.
Allegations of the Complaint existing and operational pursuant to the 1987
Constitution. A copy of the said Executive Order is
A careful perusal of respondent's Complaint24 shows hereto attached as Annex 'B' forming part hereof.
that the principal averments and reliefs prayed for
refer - - not to the "pure question of law" spawned by "11. Our constitutional system of separation of powers
the alleged unconstitutionality of EO 405 - - but to the renders the said Executive Order No. 405
annulment of the DAR's Notice of Coverage. Clearly, the unconstitutional and all valuations made, and to be
main thrust of the allegations is the propriety of the made, by the defendant Land Bank pursuant thereto
Notice of Coverage, as may be gleaned from the are null and void and without force and effect.
following averments, among others: Indispensably and ineludibly, all related rules,
regulations, orders and other issuances issued or
"6. This implementation of CARP in the landholding of promulgated pursuant to said Executive Order No. 405
the [respondent] is contrary to law and, therefore, are also null and void ab initio and without force and
violates [respondent's] constitutional right not to be effect."26
deprived of his property without due process of law.
The coverage of [respondent's] landholding under We stress that the main subject matter raised by
CARP is NO longer with authority of law. If at all, the private respondent before the trial court was not the
implementation of CARP in the landholding of issue of compensation (the subject matter of EO 40527).
[respondent] should have commenced and [been] Note that no amount had yet been determined nor
completed between June 1988 to June 1992 as proposed by the DAR. Hence, there was no occasion to
provided for in CARL, to wit: x x x; invoke the court's function of determining just
compensation.28
"7. Moreover, the placing of [respondent's] landholding
under CARP as of 21 September 1999 is without the To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of
imprimatur of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Coverage29 constitutes the first necessary step towards
Council (PARC) and the Provincial Agrarian Reform the acquisition of private land under the CARP. Plainly
Coordinating Committee (PARCOM) as mandated and then, the propriety of the Notice relates to the
required by law pursuant to R.A. 7905 x x x; implementation of the CARP, which is under the quasi-
judicial jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not
xxx be ousted from its authority by the simple expediency
of appending an allegedly constitutional or legal
"9. Under the provisions of CARL, it is the PARC and/or
dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian.
the DAR, and not x x x Land Bank, which is authorized
to preliminarily determine the value of the lands as In view of the foregoing, there is no need to address the
compensation therefor, thus - x x x; other points pleaded by respondent in relation to the
jurisdictional issue. We need only to point that in case
xxx
of doubt, the jurisprudential trend is for courts to
"12. That the aforementioned NOTICE OF COVERAGE refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters
with intendment and purpose of acquiring that demand the special competence of administrative
[respondent's] aforementioned land is a gross violation agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] also
of law (PD 399 dated 28 February 1974 which is still judicial in character,"30 as in this case.
effective up to now) inasmuch as [respondent's] land is
Second Issue:
traversed by and a road frontage as admitted by the
DAR's technician and defendant FORTUNADO (MARO) Preliminary Injunction
x x x;"
Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction
"13. That as reflected in said Pre-Ocular Inspection over the instant case, it follows that the RTC of La
Report, copy of which is hereto attached as annex 'D' Carlota City (Branch 63) was devoid of authority to
forming part hereof, [respondent's] land is above issue the assailed Writ of Preliminary Injunction. That
eighteen percent (18%) slope and therefore, Writ must perforce be stricken down as a nullity. Such
automatically exempted and excluded from the nullity is particularly true in the light of the express
operation of Rep. Act 6657, x x x.25 (Italics supplied) prohibitory provisions of the CARP and this Court's
Administrative Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 38-2002.
In contrast, the 14-page Complaint touches on the
These Circulars enjoin all trial judges to strictly observe
alleged unconstitutionality of EO 405 by merely making
Section 68 of RA 6657, which reads:
these two allegations:
"Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from
"10. Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990
Undue Interference. - No injunction, restraining order,
(issued by the then President Corazon Aquino) is
prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower
unconstitutional for it plainly amends, modifies and/or
courts against the Department of Agrarian Reform
repeals CARL. On 14 June 1990, then President Corazon
(DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the
Aquino had no longer law-making powers as the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Philippine Congress was by then already organized,
(DENR) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their
implementation of the program."

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED, and

the challenged Decision and Resolution REVERSED
AND SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the February 16, 2000
Order of the Regional Trial Court of La Carlota City
(Branch 63) is ANNULLED and a new one
entered, DISMISSING the Complaint in Civil Case 713.
The Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued therein is
also expressly VOIDED. No costs.
G.R. No.177374               July 2, 2014 WHEREFORE, premises considered and by virtue of the
powers vested in me under DAR Memorandum Circular
MARIANO JOSE, FELICISIMO JOSE, deceased, 5-87 ORDER is hereby rendered as follows:
substituted by his children MARIANO JOSE, CAMILO
JOSE, TIBURCIA JOSE, FERMINA JOSE, and VICTORIA 1. That herein petitioners have better right as
JOSE, Petitioners, beneficiaries of the 16 hectares in question to
vs. the exclusion of the respondents due to the
ERNESTO M. NOVIDA, RODOLFO PALA YLA Y, JR., defective installation as beneficiaries;
ALEX M. BELARMINO, RODRIGO LIBED, LEONARDO
L. LIBED, BERNARDO B. BELARMINO, BENJAMIN G. 2. That Emancipation Patents be generated in
ACOSTA, MODESTO A. ORLANDA, W ARLITO B. favor of the herein petitioners;
MEJIA, MAMERTO B. BELARMINO, MARCELO 0.
DELFIN and HEIRS OF LUCINO A. ESTEBAN, 3. That [inasmuch] as payments on the land in
represented by CRESENCIA M. VDA. DE question were already made by the
ESTEBAN, Respondents. respondents who are not qualified to become
beneficiaries of the estate, the complainants
DECISION are hereby ordered to pay the said amount to
the Administrator who shall likewise
DEL CASTILLO, J.: reimburse the same to the respondents, as
suggested by MARO Constancio Castillo to
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the settle the problem at bar; and
September 25, 2006 Decision2 and March 16, 2007
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP 4. That the PARO of Pangasinan or his duly
No. 48681, which affirmed the June 20, 1997 authorized representative is directed to
Decision4 and June 24, 1998 Resolution5 of the implement this ORDER and if necessary with
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board the help of the PNP of the Municipality of
(DARAB), Quezon City in DARAB Case No. 1429. Alcala, Pangasinan.

Factual Antecedents SO ORDERED.10

In 1990, herein respondents Ernesto M. Novida, On December 17, 1991, respondents filed a
Rodolfo Palaylay, Jr., Alex M. Belarmino, Rodrigo Libed, Complaint11 for recovery of possession, accounting,
Leonardo L. Libed, Bernardo B. Belarmino, Benjamin G. liquidation and damages with injunctive relief against
Acosta, Modesto A. Orlanda, Warlito B. Mejia, Mamerto petitioners Mariano and Felicisimo Jose (Felicisimo),
B. Belarmino and Marcelo O. Delfin, together with and Virgilio Jose (Virgilio). The case was docketed in
Cristina M. Esteban, were each granted – as farmer- the Region I Office of the DARAB in Urdaneta,
beneficiaries – Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Pangasinan (DARAB Urdaneta) as Case No. 01-465-
Certificates of Title6 (covering one hectare each) over a EP’91.12 Respondents alleged that Felicisimo was the
parcel of land which formed part of a 16.4142-hectare original tenant of the subject property; that Felicisimo
agricultural land (subject property) in San Vicente, obtained loans from one Benigno Siobal (Siobal) and
Alcala, Pangasinan which was placed within the one Rogelio Cerezo (Cerezo), which were secured by a
coverage of Operation Land Transfer.7 mortgage over the subject property; that Felicisimo did
not redeem the subject property from Siobal and
On January 4, 1991, petitioners Mariano, Camilo, Cerezo, but instead abandoned the same when he
Victoria, Tiburcia and Fermina, as well as Josefina and migrated to the United States of America (U.S.A.) and
Anecita – all surnamed Jose – filed with the Region I became a naturalized citizen thereof; that with the
Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) at sanction of the DAR, the owners of the subject property
San Fernando, La Union (DAR Region I) a Petition for subdivided the land and sold portions thereof to
Reinvestigation and Cancellation of Anomalously respondents; and that on or about May 10, 1990, after
Prepared and Generated Emancipation Patents8 against Felicisimo returned from the U.S.A., he and the other
the respondents, claiming that they are the bona fide petitioners ousted respondents from the subject
and actual tenant-tillers of the subject property; that property, using force, stealth, threats and intimidation.
they were issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) Respondents prayed that they be placed in peaceful
to the same; that they are actually in possession of the possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the land; that
same; and that the EPs issued to respondents were petitioners be declared as usurpers and without right
anomalous. They prayed that the respondents’ EPs be to the land; that an accounting be made of all lost
cancelled; that new EPs be issued to them; and that an harvests; that injunctive relief be granted in order that
investigation be conducted on the circumstances petitioners shall desist from further disturbing
surrounding the issuance of respondents’ EPs, and the respondents’ peaceful possession, cultivation and
guilty parties prosecuted. enjoyment of the land; that petitioners be made to pay
actual, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of
On January 30, 1991, the DAR Region I Director issued at least ₱180,000.00, ₱25,000.00 litigation expenses,
an Order9 relative to the petitioners’ petition for ₱50,000.00 attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
reinvestigation and cancellation of EPs – which was not
docketed or assigned a case number – which held thus: In their Answer with Counterclaim,13 petitioners
alleged that in addition to Felicisimo, Mariano, and
Virgilio, the subject property was being cultivated by
their siblings Tiburcia, Fermina, Victoria, and Josefina,
and their mother Aniceta Jose; that Felicisimo indeed 3. ORDERING the respondents to desist from
mortgaged the subject property in 1981 to secure a disturbing the possession and cultivation of
loan of ₱10,000.00, which was settled by letting the the complainants.
lender Siobal take exclusive possession of the land,
cultivating the same and keeping the harvests; that 4. All other claims of the parties are hereby
Siobal cultivated the subject property up to 1987, after denied for lack of evidence.
which petitioners Camilo, Virgilio, Mariano, and the
other siblings took over; that when Felicisimo returned SO ORDERED.15
from the U.S.A. in 1990, Siobal attempted to negotiate
another agreement with him, but this time he refused;
Meanwhile, on August 22,1995, the DAR Secretary
that petitioners – and not the respondents – are the
issued an Order16 affirming the January 30, 1991 Order
owner beneficiaries of the subject property; that
of the DAR Region I Director in the petition for
respondents have never been in possession of the land;
reinvestigation and cancellation of EPs filed by
and that the case should be dismissed. By way of
petitioners against the respondents. The Order reads in
counterclaim, petitioners sought to be awarded
part:
₱100,000.00 actual damages, ₱20,000.00 exemplary
damages, ₱15,000.00 attorney’s fees, and ₱20,000.00
litigation expenses. The issue to be resolved is who are the qualified
beneficiaries over the subject landholdings.
On July 13, 1992, the DARAB Urdaneta issued a
Decision14 in Case No. 01-465-EP’91, which held thus: Mariano Jose, et al. (petitioners) are the qualified
beneficiaries of the subject landholdings considering
that CLT’s were already issued to them which is a
The evidence on record revealed that respondent
recognition to the grantees as the [parties] qualified to
Felicisimo E. Jose was the former tenant-lessee of the
avail of the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of
16.4142 hectares in question; that on August 13, 1981,
ownership of the land tilled by them as provided under
respondent Felicisimo E. Jose and his wife Anecita
Presidential Decree No. 27. Moreover, the Agreement
Bautista mortgaged to Benigno Siobal x x x one-half
entered into by Felicisimo Jose and Benigno Siobal
(1/2) of their real estate with an area of 82,579 square
wherein the subject landholdings were used to answer
meters in the amount of Ten Thousand (₱10,000.00)
the amount loaned by their father is considered as
Pesos; that immediately after the execution of the
illegal transaction therefore null and void (Memo
mortgage contract, respondent Felicisimo Jose, who
was then the tenant over the same parcel of land of Circular No. 7, Series of 1979).
approximately eight (8) hectares more or less delivered
actual physical possession to Benigno Siobal and the As to the allegation of denial of due process, we find the
other half portion or eight (8) hectares plus to one same unmeritorious. Respondents’ subsequent Motion
Rogelio Cerezo; that the landholding in question was for Reconsideration has the effect of curing whatever
formerly owned by the Galvan-Cabrera Estate which irregularity might have been committed in the
was covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) proceeding below x x x.
pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 27; that
Emancipation Patents were already issued to the WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Order is
complainants. hereby issued denying the instant appeal for lack of
merit and the Order issued by the Regional Director is
The evidence on record clearly disclosed that the hereby affirmed.
former tenant-lessee, the respondent Felicisimo Jose
delivered actual physical possession of the landholding SO ORDERED.17
in question on August 13, 1981. From that date he lost
his security of tenure as tenant and that his tenancy However, on respondents’ motion for reconsideration,
relationship was terminated. the DAR Secretary issued another Order18 on June 5,
1996 which declared thus:
The act of Felicisimo E. Jose in giving up his possession
and cultivation of the landholding in question and his It appears that DARAB Case No. 01-465-EP’92 entitled
going abroad in 1981 is a clear case of abandonment, as Ernesto M. Novida, et al., vs. Mariano Jose, et al., for
enunciated in the case of "Mateo Balanay, et al., vs. Peaceful Possession and Damages involving the same
Sergio Rafael, CA G.R. No. SP-01746 CAR, August 2, parties and same cause of action as in the case herein is
1976". Acceptance of new employment is an pending appeal before the DARAB Central Office.
abandonment, how much more [in] this instant case
when the tenant-lessee went abroad. Likewise, records show that Emancipation Patents Nos.
550853, 550854, 550855, 550849, 550851, 550848,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby 550852 and 550856 were already awarded to
rendered as follows to wit: Respondents herein. The jurisdiction to cancel the
same is not with this Office but with the DARAB x x x.
1. DECLARING the complainants the tenant-
beneficiaries of the land in question; WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby
issued remanding the case to the DAR Adjudication
2. DECLARING the respondents [to have] no Board for its proper disposition in the light of DARAB
right whatsoever [to] the landholding in Case No. 01-465-EP’92 pending before it.
question;
SO ORDERED.19
The DARAB Quezon City Decision Cabrera estate to be tenant-tillers who peacefully,
openly and continuously occupied and cultivated the
Meanwhile, failing to obtain a reconsideration of the land as lessees to their respective landholdings. Finally,
DARAB Urdaneta’s July 13, 1992 decision in Case No. on December 7, 1990, all the sixteen (16) complainants
01-465-EP’91, petitioners interposed an appeal with appellees received their Emancipation Patents thru
the DARAB Quezon City. Docketed as DARAB Case No. Secretary Benjamin C. Leong, Department of Agrarian
1429, the appeal was premised on the arguments that Reform x x x.
the DARAB Urdaneta erred in taking cognizance of the
case, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the When Felicisimo Jose left to pursue his desire to
Secretary of Agrarian Reform as the subject property acquire his naturalization of citizenship in the United
was covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform States which amounted to a circumstance
Program (CARP); and that there is another case advantageous to him and his family, in effect, there was
between the parties – for cancellation of anomalously literally an implied extinguishment and/or voluntary
prepared/generated Emancipation Patents – pending termination of the agricultural tenancy relation on the
in the Office of the DAR Secretary. part of the respondent-appellant as contemplated in
Section 8 (2) in relation to Section 28 (5) of RA
On June 20, 1997, the DARAB Quezon City issued its 3844.23 Both the elements of physical relinquishment of
Decision affirming in toto the July 13, 1992 decision of possession and intention to vacate were consummated
the DARAB Urdaneta. It held – and remained undisputed findings of facts of the case.

Based on the facts of the case and evidences adduced, If ever DAR Regional Director, Region I issued an Order
Felicisimo Jose was the former legitimate agricultural dated January 30, 1991, to the effect that the
lessee of the Galvan-Cabrera estate. However, on respondents-appellants have a better right as
August 13, 1981, he and his spouse mortgaged one-half beneficiaries over the subject landholding, this said
of the said property with an area of 82,579 square official issuance of a lesser officer in the bureaucratic
metersto secure a loan of ₱10,000 from a certain totempole could not overrule nor nullify the acts
Benigno Siobal and Rogelio Orezo20 by delivering the performed earlier by the head of agency or the
physical possession thereof to the mortgagees. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform unless
Subsequently, respondent-appellant (Felicisimo Jose) the cancellation/revocation is initiated by the Secretary
left for abroad to acquire his citizenship by himself. For the Emancipation Patents dated December
naturalization in the United States of America. 7, 1990 were issued earlier to the farmer-beneficiaries.
And with the same token, that the enactment of our
Sometime in 1985, the subject landholding was agrarian reform laws is principally intended to make
subdivided into sixteen (16) farm lots and the the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and
complainants-appellees21 were installed by the responsible citizens and a source of a genuine strength
mortgagee Benigno Siobal. Their possession and in our democratic society x x x. Clearly, those who
cultivation were duly sanctioned by the landowner and renounce their citizenship should yield to those rights
DAR Team Leader of Alcala, Pangasinan. They paid the and privileges intended for those with undivided
rentals and later on the amortization payments to the loyalty and unquestioned nationalism to the Filipino
subject landholding. nation.

On January 6, 1991, their peaceful enjoyment and WHEREFORE, premises considered, the challenged
cultivation of their respective landholdings was decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
interrupted upon the unlawful dispossession, through
force and intimidation by the defendants- Let the entire records of this case be remanded to the
appellants,22 who forcibly took over by destroying the Adjudicator a quo for the issuance of a Writ of
corn plants by hiring two (2) tractor operators despite Execution immediately.
the issuance of the tenant-farmers’ Emancipation
Patents. Complainants-appellees were compelled to file SO ORDERED.24
a criminal case of malicious mischief x x x in addition to
this instant agrarian case. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,25 but the
DARAB Quezon City denied the same via its June 24,
xxxx 1998 Resolution.

We are not convinced by the arguments of the The Assailed Court of Appeals Decision
respondents-appellants.
Petitioners went up to the CA via Petition for
There is an overwhelming evidence indicating that Review26 insisting that the DAR Secretary has exclusive
Felicisimo Jose caused the execution of a Deed of jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to the Revised
Mortgage, for and in consideration of Ten Thousand (1989) DARAB Rules of Procedure which state that
(₱10,000) Pesos, using the subject landholding as matters involving the administrative implementation of
security to the loan and transferring the physical the CARP and other agrarian laws and regulations shall
possession thereof to the mortgagees as per Document be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the
No. 254, Page 52, Book No. XVII series of 1981 as duly DAR
notarized by Porferio A. Tadeo x x x. In the interim,
Felicisimo Jose left for the United States of America. Secretary;27 that in the January 30, 1991 Order of the
Sometime in 1985, the mortgagees, as legal possessors, DAR Region I Director which was affirmed via the DAR
allowed the installation of the complainants-appellees Secretary’s August 22, 1995 Order, they were declared
with the consent of the Administrator of the Galvan- to have better rights as beneficiaries and that
respondents’ EPs should be cancelled; and that II.
respondents previously instituted two cases with the
DARAB Urdaneta – one of them docketed as Case No. THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED
01-318-EP’90 – which were dismissed. IN NOT REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DARAB
DECISION DATED 20 JUNE 1997 X X X AND DARAB
On September 25, 2006, the CA issued the assailed UNDATED RESOLUTION, DENYING PETITIONERS’
Decision, decreeing as follows: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CA
DECISION X X X, ONTHE GROUNDS THAT THE
WHEREFORE, the challenged DARAB decision and INSTANT CASE WAS BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT
resolution dated June 20, 1997 and June 24, 1998 AND THAT THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PROVE
respectively, in DARAB CASE NO. 1429 are hereby THAT THEYARE AGRICULTURAL TENANTS OVER THE
AFFIRMED. LAND IN QUESTION.

SO ORDERED.28 III.

The CA held that under Section 1,Rule II of the 1994 THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED
DARAB Rules of Procedure,29 the DARAB has primary IN ITS RESOLUTION DATEDSEPTEMBER 5, 2005,
and exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving EXPUNGING THE MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONERS
the issuance and cancellation of EPs;30 the DAR DATED17 APRIL 2001 FILED VIA REGISTERED MAIL
Secretary had no power to cancel EPs, and petitioners’ ON 18 APRIL 2001 FOR LATE FILING.34
argument that such power is part of his administrative
functions is misplaced. It noted further that the DAR Petitioners’ Arguments
Secretary himself recognized the DARAB’s jurisdiction
over cases involving the cancellation of EPs when he In their Petition and Reply,35 petitioners reiterate the
issued his June 5, 1996 Order in the undocketed case January 30, 1991 Order of the DAR Region I Director
for reinvestigation and cancellation of EPs filed by which the DAR Secretary affirmed through his August
petitioners against the respondents.31 22, 1995 Order, particularly citing the pronouncement
in said Orders that they are the actual tillers of the
The CA further upheld the DARAB’s conclusion that subject property, and not respondents. They add that
petitioners in effect abandoned their rights as respondents failed to prove in Case No. 01-465-EP’91
beneficiaries, and that respondents’ installation as that they are tenants of the land; that respondents have
beneficiaries by the mortgagees (Siobal and Cerezo) never cultivated the subject property, and have never
was regular and in accordance with law, and they paid been in possession of the same; that respondents are
the required amortizations as well. It held that as mere landgrabbers; that Felicisimo has settled his
landless farmers, respondents deserved the land more financial obligations to Siobal; that respondents’ EPs
than petitioners, noting that one of them was a have been cancelled by the DAR Region I Director and
naturalized American citizen; it would thus go against the DAR Secretary; and that it was erroneous and
the rationale of the agrarian laws to award land to such unjust for the CA to have expunged their Memorandum.
an individual.
Petitioners essentially prayfor the reversal of the
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,32 but in assailed dispositions, as well as the reinstatement of
its assailed March 16, 2007 Resolution, the CA stood its both the January 30, 1991 Order of the DAR Region I
ground. Thus, the instant Petition. Director and the August 22,1995 Order of the DAR
Secretary in their petition for reinvestigation and
Meanwhile, a substitution of parties was accordingly cancellation of EPs filed with the DAR Region [Link],
made in view of the death of some of the parties.33 petitioners pray that the DAR Region I Director and the
DAR Secretary be ordered to issue EPs in their favor.
Issues
Respondents’ Arguments
Petitioners submit the following assignment of errors:
In their Comment,36 respondents point out that a
I. review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure is discretionary and will be granted only
when there are special and important reasons therefor;
THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED that such special and important circumstances that
IN NOT SUSTAINING THE ORDER DATED JANUARY 30, should warrant review do not obtain in petitioners’
1991 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION I, case; that the CA is correct in stating that the DARAB
BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE (BALA), has primary and exclusive jurisdiction over cases
DEPARTMENTOF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR), SAN involving the issuance and cancellation of EPs; and
FERNANDO, LA UNION X X X,ORDER DATED 22 finally, that based on the merits and consonant with the
AUGUST 1995, ISSUED BY DAR SECRETARY, substance and intent of the agrarian laws, respondents
AFFIRMING SAID ORDER DATED JANUARY 30, 1991 X – and not petitioners – are entitled to the subject
X X AND IN NOT REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE property.
ORDER DATED 05 JUNE 1996 X X X ISSUED BY THE
DAR SECRETARY IN THE SAME CASE THERE BEING NO
PENDING CASE INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUES WITH Our Ruling
THE X X X (DARAB) AND HENCE THE DAR SECRETARY
HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE LAND IN QUESTION TO The Court affirms.
THE EXCLUSION OF THE DARAB, QUEZON CITY.
When petitioners filed, on January 4, 1991, their defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under
Petition for Reinvestigation and Cancellation of Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946,
Anomalously Prepared and Generated Emancipation except subparagraph (Q) thereof and
Patents with the DAR Region I Office at San Fernando, Presidential Decree No. 815.
La Union, certificates of title have been issued to the
respondents. Thus, the DARAB – and not the DAR xxxx
Region I or the DAR Secretary – had exclusive
jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to law and the 1994 Matters involving strictly the administrative
DARAB Rules of Procedure. implementation of Republic Act. No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive
x x x. The DARAB derives its jurisdiction from RA 6657 Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and
or popularly known as the Comprehensive Agrarian other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent
Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and
cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.
Section 50 of RA 6657 confers jurisdiction on the
DARAB over agrarian reform cases or controversies as (h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes,
follows: matters or concerns referred to it by the
Secretary of the DAR.
Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR
is hereby vested with the primary jurisdiction to Subparagraph (f) stated above provides that the
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all the issuance, [correction and cancellation of CLOAs and
matters involving the implementation of agrarian EPs which are] registered with the Land Registration
reform except those falling under the exclusive Authority (the Registry of Deeds).
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources The grounds for cancellation of registered EPs were
(DENR). summarized by DAR Memorandum Order No. 02, Series
of 1994, to wit:
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure
and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all 1. Misuse or diversion of financial and support
cases, disputes, or controversies in a most expeditious services extended to the ARB; (Section 37 of
manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain R.A. No. 6657)
the facts of every case in accordance with justice and
equity and the merits of the case. Towards this end, it
2. Misuse of land; (Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657)
shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a
just, expeditious and inexpensive determination for
every action or proceeding before it. 3. Material misrepresentation of the ARB’s
basic qualifications as provided under Section
22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other
To implement this particular provision of RA 6657
agrarian laws;
regarding the adjudication of agrarian reform matters,
the DAR adopted the DARAB New Rules of Procedure,
issued on May 30, 1994. Under Section 1, Rule II of the 4. Illegal conversion by the ARB; (Cf. Section
said Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has exclusive 73, Paragraph C and E of R.A. No. 6657)
original jurisdiction over the following cases:
5. Sale, transfer, lease or other forms of
(a) The rights and obligations of persons, conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use
whether natural or juridical, engaged in the or any other usufructuary right over the land
management, cultivation and use of all acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary in
agricultural lands covered by the CARP and order to circumvent the provisions of Section
other agrarian laws; 73 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other
agrarian laws. However, if the land has been
acquired under P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228,
(b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary
ownership may be transferred after full
determination and payment of just
payment of amortization by the beneficiary;
compensation, fixing and collection of lease
(Sec. 6 of E.O. No. 228)
rentals, disturbance compensation,
amortization payments, and similar disputes
concerning the functions of the Land Bank of 6. Default in the obligation to pay an aggregate
the Philippines (LBP); of three (3) consecutive amortizations in case
of voluntary land transfer/direct payment
scheme, except in cases of fortuitous events
xxxx
and force majeure;
(f) Those involving the issuance, correction
7. Failure of the ARBs to pay for at least three
and cancellation of Certificates of Land
(3) annual amortizations to the LBP, except in
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation
cases of fortuitous events and force majeure;
Patents (EPs) which are registered with the
(Section 26 of RA 6657)
Land Registration Authority;

8. Neglect or abandonment of the awarded

(g) Those cases previously falling under the
land continuously for a period of two (2)
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
 calendar years as determined by the Secretary (e) Exercise of the right of retention by
or his authorized representative; (Section 22 of landowner;
RA 6657)
xxxx
9. The land is found to be exempt/excluded
from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP (q) Such other matters not mentioned above
coverage or to be part of the landowner’s but strictly involving the administrative
retained area as determined by the Secretary implementation of RA 6657 and other agrarian
or his authorized representative; and laws, rules and regulations as determined by
the Secretary."
10. Other grounds that will circumvent laws
related to the implementation of agrarian Clearly, the cancellation of EPs that are not yet
reform. registered with the Register of Deeds falls within the
authority of the Agrarian Reform Secretary or DAR
A study of the above-enumerated grounds for the officials duly designated by him, in the exercise of
cancellation of registered EPs shows that it requires the his/their administrative functions. x x x
exercise by the DAR of its quasi-judicial power through
its adjudicating arm, DARAB. Thus, rightly so, the xxxx
DARAB New Rules of Procedure provide that DARAB
has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the Second, even if the Court of Appeals ruling were based
cancellation of registered EPs. on the old DARAB rules (the 1989 DARAB Revised
Rules of Procedure) which provided that the DARAB
But what about EPs that are unregistered like the one had primary jurisdiction over "cases involving the
issued to Angelina Rodriguez? issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT),
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and
The answer can be found in Administrative Order No. Emancipation Patent (EP) and the administrative
06-00, issued on August 30, 2000, which provides for correction thereof", we do not agree that the
the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law cancellation by the DARAB of the subject EPs fell within
Implementation (ALI) Cases. These rules were issued the ambit of mere administrative correction.
pursuant to Sections 49 and 50 of RA 6657. In contrast "Administrative correction" refers only to the
to the DARAB Rules of Procedure which govern the rectification of wrong or insufficient information in the
exercise of DAR’s quasi-judicial function, patent and not to something as substantial as the actual
Administrative Order No. 06-00 govern the cancellation thereof. The meaning of "administrative
administrative function of the DAR. correction" is provided in DAR Administrative Order
No. 02, Series of 1994:
Under the said Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law
Implementation (ALI) Cases, the Agrarian Reform C. The administrative corrections may include non-
Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance, identification of spouse, corrections of civil status,
recall or cancellation of EPs/CLOAs that are not yet corrections of technical descriptions and other matters
registered with the Register of Deeds. Thus, Section 2 of related to agrarian reform.37
the said Rules provides:
The above pronouncement was reiterated in this
SECTION 2. Cases Covered. - These Rules shall govern ponente’s ruling in Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo v.
cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Soliman:38 "the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over
DAR Secretary which shall include the following: cases involving the cancellation of registered EPs[;] the
DAR Secretary, on the other hand, has exclusive
(a) Classification and identification of jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of
landholdings for coverage under the [EPs] or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards that
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds."
(CARP), including protests or oppositions
thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage; Thus, since certificates of title have been issued in the
respective names of the respondents as early as in
(b) Identification, qualification or 1990,39 the DAR Region I Director had no jurisdiction to
disqualification of potential farmer- cancel their titles; the same is true with respect to the
beneficiaries; DAR Secretary. Thus, their respective January 30, 1991
and August 22, 1995 Orders are null and void;
(c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP; consequently, respondents’ EPs and titles subsist,
contrary to petitioners’ claim that they have been
cancelled. Void judgments or orders have no legal and
(d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of binding effect, force, or efficacy for any purpose; in
Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP contemplation of law, they are non-existent.40
Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside
the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No.
816, including the issuance, recall or For the above reasons, it necessarily follows that what
cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or petitioners pray for in the instant Petition – i.e. the 1)
Certificates of Land Ownership Awards reinstatement of the January 30, 1991 Order of the DAR
(CLOAs) not yet registeredwith the Register of Region I Director and the August 22, 1995 Order of the
Deeds; DAR Secretary – which have been voided herein, and 2)
issuance of EPs in their favor – are reliefs that this
Court may not grant.
Next, as correctly pointed out by the respondents, a
review of the instant petition under Rule 45 is not a
matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, and will
be granted only when there are special and important
reasons therefor.41 Moreover, a petition for review
under Rule 45 covers questions of law only.42 "[T]he
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought
before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors
of law. This Court is not a trier off acts. In the exercise
of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are
conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our
:function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again."43

This Court finds that no special and important reasons

exist to warrant a thorough review of the assailed CA
Decision.1âwphi1 Quite the contrary, the Court is
satisfied with and can simply rely on the findings of the
DARAB Urdaneta, DARAB Quezon City, and the CA - as
well as the very admissions of the petitioners
themselves - to the effect that respondents fulfilled all
the requirements under the agrarian laws in order to
become entitled to their EPs; that F elicisimo
voluntarily surrendered and abandoned the subject
property in favor of his creditors, who took over the
land and tilled the same until 1987; that Felicisimo
migrated to the U.S.A. and became a naturalized
American citizen; that in 1991, respondents were
illegally dispossessed of their landholdings through
force and intimidation by the petitioners after
Felicisimo returned from abroad; and that as between
petitioners and respondents, the latter are legally
entitled to the subject property. These identical
findings are not only entitled to great respect, but even
finality. For petitioners to question these identical
findings is to raise a question of fact.44

It must be said as well that "[ f]actual findings of

administrative bodies charged with their specific field
of expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts,
and in the absence of substantial showing that such
findings were made from an erroneous estimation of
the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the
interest of stability of the governmental structure,
should not be disturbed. "45

Finally, the Court finds it unnecessary to resolve the

other issues raised by the parties, including petitioners'
claim that it was erroneous and unjust for the CA to
have expunged their Memorandum.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The September

25, 2006 Decision and March 16, 2007 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48681 are
AFFIRMED.
G.R. No. 176838               June 13, 2013 The PARO argued that the properties were agricultural
land yet their sale was effected without DAR Clearance
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, as as required under Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. No.
represented by Fritzi C. Pantoja, in her capacity as 6657), otherwise known as the Comprehensive
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR- Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Allegedly, the PARO
Laguna, Petitioner, came to know of the transactions only after he had
vs. received a directive from the Secretary of Agrarian
PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS EQUITIES, INC., JIMMY Reform to investigate the matter, following the latter’s
CHUA, ROJAS CHUA, BENJAMIN SIM, SANTOS C. TAN, receipt of a letter-request from persons5 who claimed
WILLIAM C. LEE and STEWART C. LIM, Respondents. to be the tenant-farmers of the properties’ previous
owners.6
DECISION
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that
REYES, J.: since the matter involves an administrative
implementation of R.A. No. 6657, the case is cognizable
by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, not the DARAB.
This resolves the Petition for Review1 filed by They also sought the petition’s dismissal on the
petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to grounds of prescription, litis pendentia, res judicata
assail the Decision2 dated Oct8ber 12, 2006 and and forum shopping.
Resolution3 dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89693, which granted
Paramount Holdings Equities, Inc., Jimmy Chua, Rojas The Ruling of the PARAD
Chua, Benjamin Sim, Santos C. Tan, William C. Lee and
Stewart C. Lim's (respondents) appeal from the rulings On October 16, 2002, Provincial Adjudicator Virgilio M.
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Sorita (PA Sorita) issued a Resolution7 dismissing the
Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 12284. petition for lack of jurisdiction. He explained:

The Antecedents Petitioner further argued that the jurisdiction of the

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
The case stems from the petition4 docketed as DARAB includes and is not limited to those involving sale,
Case No. R 0403-0009-02, filed with the Office of the alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, preemption and
Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) by the DAR through redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) Felixberto CARP or other agrarian laws. These provisions were
Q. Kagahastian. The petition sought to nullify the sale to originally lifted from Presidential Decree 946. The
the respondents of several parcels of land, with details emphasis is on the phrase under the coverage of CARP
of the sale as follows: or other agrarian laws which definitely refers to land
already placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program under R.A. 6657, lands already placed
Title Area New under Presidential Decree 27, landed estate acquired
Vendee Vendor
No. Covered Title by Land Bank of the Philippines and administered by
the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to the
Jimmy C. T- 71,517 T- Golden
Provision of R.A. 3844 as amended and lands under the
Chua and 37140 square 196706 Mountain
Settlement and Resettlement Project also administered
Rojas Chua meters Agricultural
by the Department of Agrarian Reform for the simple
Development
reason that disputes and controversies arising from
Corporation
these areas are agrarian reform matters. It does not
Paramount T- 14,634 T- Golden include the sale, disposition or alienation of private
Holdings 37141 sq m 196705 Mountain lands not administered by the DAR to private
Equities, Agricultural individuals such as in this instant case.
Inc. Development
Corporation Petitioner also argued that jurisdiction of the
Adjudication Board also covers violation of the Rules
Paramount T- 17,203 T- Golden and Guidelines in the implementation of the
Holdings 37139 sq m 196704 Mountain Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. This is true
Equities, Agricultural but such violation is only confined to violations
Inc. Development committed by beneficiaries of the program not like in
Corporation the instant case, otherwise, jurisdiction lies on the
William C. T- 68,078 T- Green Regional Trial Court acting as Special Agrarian Court as
Lee and 37137 sq m 196707 Mountain clearly provided by law.8 (Underscoring ours)
Steward C. Agricultural
Lim Development Furthermore, PA Sorita cited the absence of any
Corporation showing that the petition was filed with the knowledge
and authority of the Solicitor General, as the official
Benjamin T- 66,114 T- Green counsel of the government being the aggrieved party in
Sim and 37138 sq m 196708 Mountain the dispute.
Santos C. Agricultural
Tan Development
The DAR’s motion for reconsideration was denied,
Corporation
prompting the filing of an appeal with the DARAB.
 The Ruling of the DARAB the petition upon the CA as required by Section 3, Rule
45 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules of
The DARAB granted the appeal via a Decision9 dated Court; (b) the DAR’s failure to accompany the petition
August 18, 2004. The dispositive portion of the with clearly legible duplicate original or certified true
Decision reads: copies of the assailed CA decision and resolution, in
violation of Sections 4(d) and 5 of Rule 45, in relation
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed to Section 5(d) of Rule 56; (c) the petition was
Decision is hereby REVERSED and/or SET ASIDE. A prepared by the DAR Region IV-Legal Assistance
new judgment is rendered nullifying the Deeds of Sale Division without the concurrence of the Office of the
in question dated September 5, 1989 and ordering the Solicitor General (OSG); and (d) the petition failed to
Register of Deeds of Laguna to cancel the aforesaid sufficiently show that the appellate court committed
Deeds of Sale, as well as the Transfer Certificates of any reversible error in the challenged decision and
Title issued to the respective private respondents resolution as to warrant the exercise by the Court of its
concerned. discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.10 On October 15, 2007,19 the Court resolved to grant

DAR’s motion to reconsider the dismissal, after it filed
its compliance and the OSG, its appearance and
Contrary to the findings of PA Sorita, the DARAB ruled manifestation that it was adopting the petition and
that: first, the failure of the parties to the sale to obtain motion for reconsideration filed by DAR.
the required clearance indicates that their transactions
were fraudulent;11 second, the PARO had the
personality to file the petition even in the absence of On December 10, 2008, the Court again resolved to
the Solicitor General’s assistance, citing Memorandum deny the petition on the ground of the OSG’s failure to
Circular No. 2, series of 2001 (Circular No. 2), and the obey a lawful order of the Court, following its failure to
policy of DAR to "acquire and distribute all lands file the required reply despite the Court’s grant of its
covered by RA 6657, including those subject of illegal several motions for extension.20 On April 20, 2009, the
transfers x x x";12 and third, the DARAB has the Court resolved to grant DAR’s motion for
jurisdiction over the case, since its jurisdiction under reconsideration and accordingly, reinstate the
Circular No. 2 covers the cancellation of deeds of petition.21
conveyance and corresponding transfer certificates of
title over agricultural lands.13 The main issue for the Court’s resolution is: Whether or
not the DARAB has jurisdiction over the dispute that
The denial14 of the respondents’ motion for seeks the nullification of the subject properties’ sale.
reconsideration led to the filing of a petition with the
CA. This Court’s Ruling

The Ruling of the CA The Court answers in the negative.

On October 12, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed The jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited under the law,
Decision,15 the dispositive portion of which reads: as it was created under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 129-
A specifically to assume powers and functions with
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases
appealed Decision (dated August 18, 2004) and under E.O. No. 229 and E.O. No. 129-A.22 Significantly, it
Resolution (dated March 16, 2005) of the Department was organized under the Office of the Secretary of
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board-Central Office, Agrarian Reform. The limitation on the authority of it to
Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City are ANNULLED mere agrarian reform matters is only consistent with
and SET ASIDE. The Petition in DARAB Case No. R- the extent of DAR’s quasi-judicial powers under R.A.
0403-0009-02 is hereby DISMISSED. No No. 6657 and E.O. No. 229, which read:
pronouncement as to costs.
SECTION 50 [of R.A. No. 6657]. Quasi-Judicial Powers of
SO ORDERED. 16 the DAR.—The DAR is hereby vested with the primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have exclusive original
The CA emphasized that the DARAB’s jurisdiction over jurisdiction over all matters involving the
the dispute should be determined by the allegations implementation of agrarian reform except those falling
made in the petition. Since the action was essentially under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
for the nullification of the subject properties’ sale, it did Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment
not involve an agrarian suit that is within the DARAB’s and Natural Resources (DENR).
jurisdiction.
SECTION 17 [of E.O. No. 229]. Quasi-Judicial Powers of
DAR’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a the DAR.—The DAR is hereby vested with quasi-
Resolution17 dated January 10, 2007. Hence, this judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian
petition. reform matters, and shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation
The Present Petition of agrarian reform, except those falling under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the
The Court has issued on June 6, 2007 a Department of Agriculture (DA).
Resolution18 denying the petition on the following
grounds: (a) DAR’s failure to attach proof of service of
Thus, Sections 1 and 2, Rule II of the DARAB New Rules known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of Procedure, which was adopted and promulgated on (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated
May 30, 1994 and came into effect on June 21, 1994, by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of
identify the specific extent of the DARAB’s and PARAD’s and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.
jurisdiction, as they read:
h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or
SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and concerns referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR.
Appellate Jurisdiction.—The Board shall have primary
and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, SECTION 2. Jurisdiction of the Regional and Provincial
to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes Adjudicator.—The RARAD and the PARAD shall have
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive concurrent original jurisdiction with the Board to hear,
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act determine and adjudicate all agrarian cases and
No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, disputes, and incidents in connection therewith, arising
Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. within their assigned territorial jurisdiction. (Emphasis
6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian supplied)
laws and their implementing rules and regulations.
Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be Consistent with the aforequoted legal provisions, we
limited to cases involving the following: emphasized in Heirs of Candido Del Rosario v. Del
Rosario23 that the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the
a) The rights and obligations of persons, DARAB is only limited to cases involving agrarian
whether natural or juridical, engaged in the disputes, including incidents arising from the
management, cultivation and use of all implementation of agrarian laws. Section 3(d) of R.A.
agricultural lands covered by the CARP and No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this manner:
other agrarian laws;
(d) Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating
b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
determination and payment of just stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
compensation, fixing and collection of lease agriculture, including disputes concerning
rentals, disturbance compensation, farmworkers associations or representation of persons
amortization payments, and similar disputes in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking
concerning the functions of the Land Bank of to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
the Philippines (LBP); arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired under R.A. 6657 and
c) The annulment or cancellation of lease other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership
contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other
involving lands under the administration and agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants
disposition of the DAR or LBP; stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and
beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
d) Those cases arising from, or connected with
membership or representation in compact Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction of a tribunal,
farms, farmers’ cooperatives and other including a quasi-judicial office or government agency,
registered farmers’ associations or over the nature and subject matter of a petition or
organizations, related to lands covered by the complaint is determined by the material allegations
CARP and other agrarian laws; therein and the character of the relief prayed for
irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is
e) Those involving the sale, alienation, entitled to any or all such reliefs."24 Upon the Court’s
mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and perusal of the records, it has determined that the
redemption of agricultural lands under the PARO’s petition with the PARAD failed to indicate an
coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws; agrarian dispute.

f) Those involving the issuance, correction and Specifically, the PARO’s petition failed to sufficiently
cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership allege any tenurial or agrarian relations that affect the
Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents subject parcels of land. Although it mentioned a
(EPs) which are registered with the Land pending petition for coverage filed with DAR by
Registration Authority; supposed farmers-tillers, there was neither such claim
as a fact from DAR, nor a categorical statement or
g) Those cases previously falling under the allegation as to a determined tenancy relationship by
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the the PARO or the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The
defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under PARO’s petition merely states:
Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946,
except sub-paragraph (q) thereof and 3.3 That the Provincial Office only came to know very
Presidential Decree No. 815. recently about such transaction when the Office
received on two separate occasions a memorandum
It is understood that the aforementioned cases, directive dated 22 October and 25 April 2002 from the
complaints or petitions were filed with the DARAB Office of the DAR Secretary to investigate and if
after August 29, 1987. warranted file a corresponding petition for nullification
of such transaction anent the petition for coverage of
the actual occupants farmers-tillers led by spouses
Matters involving strictly the administrative Josie and Lourdes Samson who informed the Office of
implementation of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise
the DAR Secretary about such transaction. x x 6. In the event of an adverse decision or a denial of the
x25 (Emphasis ours) petition, file a Notice of Appeal within the 15-day
reglementary period with the DARAB, and, thereafter,
It is also undisputed, that even the petition filed with transmit the records of the case to the Director, Bureau
the PARAD failed to indicate otherwise, that the subject of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), for prosecution of
parcels of land had not been the subject of any notice of the appeal.
coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP). Clearly, the PARO’s cause of action Clearly, not every sale or transfer of agricultural land
was merely founded on the absence of a clearance to would warrant DARAB’s exercise of its jurisdiction. The
cover the sale and registration of the subject parcels of law is specific that the property must be shown to be
land, which were claimed in the petition to be under the coverage of agrarian reform laws. As the CA
agricultural. correctly ruled:

Given the foregoing, the CA correctly ruled that the It is easily discernable x x x that the cause of action of
DARAB had no jurisdiction over the PARO’s petition. the DAR sufficiently established a suit for the
While the Court recognizes the legal requirement for declaration of the sale of the subject landholdings null
clearances in the sale and transfer of agricultural lands, and void (in violation of Administrative Order No. 1,
the DARAB’s jurisdiction over such disputes is limited Series of 1989). Obviously, it does not involve an
by the qualification under Rule II, Section 1, paragraphs agrarian suit, hence, does not fall under the jurisdiction
(c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, of the DARAB. It must be emphasized that, "(t)here
which read: must be a tenancy relationship between the party
litigants for the DARAB to validly take cognizance of a
c) The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or controversy." (Suarez vs. Saul, 473 SCRA 628). Also, it is
deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands necessary that the controversy must relate to "tenurial
under the administration and disposition of the DAR or arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
LBP; stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning
xxxx farmworkers associations or representation of persons
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking
to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, arrangements," (Section 3 (d), Chapter I in relation to
foreclosure, pre emption and redemption of Section 50, Chapter XII, R.A. 6657 and Section 1, Rule II,
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or DARAB Rules of [Procedure]). Here, an allegation to
other agrarian laws. (Emphasis ours) declare null and void a certain sale of a landholding
does not ipso facto make the case an agrarian
Even Circular No. 2 cited in the Decision26 dated August dispute.27 (Emphasis ours)
18, 2004 on the authority of the PARO to file petitions
with the PARAD in case of illegal transfers presupposes Our finding on the DARAB’s lack of jurisdiction over the
the fulfillment of the conditions in the cited Section 1,
PARO’s petition renders it needless for the Court to
paragraphs (c) and (e), Rule II of the DARAB Rules and discuss the other issues that are raised in the petition.
Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657. The pertinent provisions of In any case, the Court finds it worthy to discuss that the
Circular No. 2 read: original petition remains dismissible on the merits.

SECTION 4. Operating Procedures.—The procedures Even during the proceedings before the PARAD, the
for annulment of deeds of conveyance executed in respondents have raised the pendency with the
violation of RA 6657 are as follows: Regional Trial Court of Biñ an, Laguna of Civil Case No.
B-5862, an appeal from the decision of the Municipal
xxxx Trial Court of Santa Rosa, Laguna in Civil Case No.
2478. The records indicate that when the matter was
b) The Chief, Legal Division, of the Provincial Agrarian elevated to the CA via the petition docketed as CA G.R.
Reform Office, shall have the following responsibilities: SP No. 68110, the appellate court declared the subject
properties to have long been reclassified from
xxxx "agricultural" to "industrial". Thus, the CA Decision
dated September 23, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 68110
2. If there was illegal transfer, file a petition for reads in part:
annulment of the deed of conveyance in behalf of the
PARO before the Provincial Agrarian Reform As to the nature of the subject lands, the tax
Adjudicator (PARAD). The petition shall state the declarations of real property, the annual receipts for
material facts constituting the violation and pray for real estate taxes paid, and zoning ordinance, providing
the issuance of an order from the PARAD directing the for the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Sta.
ROD to cancel the deed of conveyance and the TCT Rosa, Laguna, have always classified the lands as
generated as a result thereof. As legal basis therefor, "industrial". Moreover, as certified by the Municipal
the petition shall cite Section 50 of RA 6657 and Rule II, Agrarian Reform Office of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, there is no
Section 1(c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of record of tenancy or written agricultural leasehold
Procedure; contract with respect to the subject lands, nor are the
same covered by Operation Land Transfer pursuant to
xxxx P.D. 27. Thus, for being industrial in nature, the subject
lands are outside the ambit of existing agricultural
tenancy laws.28 (Citations omitted)
An appeal from the CA’s decision was denied by the
Court in a Resolution dated June 18, 2003. 29

The Housing Land Use Regulatory Board has affirmed

through a Certification30 dated May 22, 1991 that the
zoning ordinance referred to was approved on
December 2, 1981. Thus, the respondents correctly
argued that since the subject properties were already
classified as "industrial" long before the effectivity of
the CARL, their sale could not have been covered by the
CARP and the requirement for a clearance.
Significantly, DAR failed to refute said allegation, which
the Court finds duly supported by documents that form
part of the case records.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is

DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 12, 2006 and
Resolution dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89693 are AFFIRMED.
G.R. No. 166664 October 20, 2005 land. While they were identified as potential farmer-
beneficiaries of the land subject of the VOS, they only
DOMINGO C. SUAREZ, Petitioner, have an "inchoate right" to the land since its coverage
vs. under the CARP has yet to be completed.9
LEO B. SAUL, ROGER S. BRILLO, EFRAIN S. BRILLO,
ELENO S. BRILLO and IGNACIO G. On appeal, the DARAB Central Office rendered a
PELAEZ, Respondents. Decision10 reversing the Regional Adjudicator. It
observed that petitioner admitted that respondents
DECISION were his tenants. It further held that:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: ... it is in fact immaterial whether the subject

landholding is covered by the alleged grower’s contract
This petition assails the August 31, 2004 Decision of or not. What is clear in the instant case is the fact that
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71516 affirming herein appellants were illegally ejected from their
in full the December 14, 2000 DARAB Decision in respective tenanted lands. If indeed the subject land is
DARAB Case No. 5468; as well as its January 6, 2005 not covered by the grower’s contract, if there’s any, the
Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for act of defendant-appellee TADI in ejecting the tenants-
reconsideration. appellants was beyond authority, hence, illegal.
Assuming arguendo that the subject landholding is
truly covered in the said contract, the contracting
Petitioner Domingo C. Suarez owns a 23-hectare parties are required under the law to respect the
agricultural land in Sitio Spring, Poblacion T’boli, South tenurial rights of the tenants therein.11
Cotabato registered under OCT No. (P-31540) P-
11967.1 On August 8, 1995, a complaint for
reinstatement with preliminary mandatory injunction, The DARAB thus disposed:
recovery of possession and damages2 was filed against
him and T’boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. WHEREFORE, the appealed Order is hereby SET ASIDE
(TADI) before the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, and a NEW JUDGMENT is rendered:
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board
(DARAB), by respondents Leo B. Saul, Roger S. Brillo, 1. Declaring the plaintiffs-appellants as bona fide
Efrain S. Brillo, Eleno S. Brillo and Ignacio G. Pelaez. tenants of the subject landholding;

Respondents alleged that they were agricultural 2. Ordering the MARO and other concerned DAR
tenants in petitioner’s land on a 25-75 sharing Officers to determine the disturbance compensation
agreement; that after two croppings, petitioner from the time of actual ejectment of herein plaintiffs-
voluntarily offered the land for sale to the government appellants until the time of actual reinstatement, after
under a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) dated February the last harvest of pineapple, to be awarded to herein
20, 1993;3 that they signed the documents for the plaintiffs-appellants; and
transfer of the land under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) as farmer-beneficiaries, and 3. Ordering the reinstatement of herein plaintiff-
petitioner, as landowner; and that the sale was appellants in their respective original landholdings
approved by the local Land Valuation Office of the Land after harvest.
Bank of the Philippines (LBP).
SO ORDERED.12
Respondents claimed that while the VOS was being
processed, they were summarily ejected from the Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals
property by TADI after the latter entered into a Grower which, on August 31, 2004, rendered a Decision
Agreement with Contract to Buy4 with petitioner affirming the DARAB.13 Upon denial of the motion for
thereby depriving them of their landholdings. reconsideration,14 petitioner filed the instant petition.

Petitioner filed an Answer contending that respondents The issues for resolution are: (a) whether respondents
were installed as tenants, not by him, but by are bona fide agricultural tenants under the law; and
Wennie5 Gonzaga of the Department of Agrarian (b) whether petitioner illegally ejected respondents
Reform (DAR) in Koronadal, South Cotabato. He from their landholdings.
admitted that he voluntarily offered his land for sale to
the government under the CARP but denied knowledge
Petitioner contends that there is no basis in holding
of the certification issued by the LBP. He denied the
that respondents were his tenants. He denies having
existence of a grower’s contract between him and TADI
admitted that they were his tenants, and insists that
over the subject land.6
there is no proof to prove the existence of tenancy
relations. He asserts that he did not eject respondents
For its part, TADI claimed that its grower’s contract from their landholdings by entering into a grower’s
with petitioner covered parcels of land different from contract over the subject land with TADI.
those being claimed by respondents.7
Indeed, there is nothing in the records to suggest that
In due course, the Regional Adjudicator issued an respondents were petitioner’s bona fide tenants prior
Order8 dated July 18, 1996 dismissing the complaint for to their designation by the DAR as potential farmer-
lack of merit. The adjudicator found that respondents beneficiaries under the CARP. There is no evidence to
failed to prove their alleged tenancy over petitioner’s prove tenancy arrangement between petitioner and
respondents before the former’s voluntary offer to On the contrary, there is no independent evidence in
convey the land to the government. this case to prove any of the requisites of a tenancy
relationship. The DARAB and the appellate court
In holding that respondents were bona fide tenants of merely relied on petitioner’s alleged admission which
petitioner, the DARAB and the appellate court we have disregarded.
relied solely on the alleged admission in petitioner’s
answer to the complaint, to wit: Even assuming that a tenancy relationship exists
between petitioner and respondents, we find that the
3. Defendant admits the averments in paragraph IV of latter has no cause of action against petitioner. It
the complaint.15 should be noted that the complaint for ejectment was
brought against petitioner based on the grower’s
The fourth paragraph of the complaint states: contract he had executed with TADI.19 Respondents
alleged that petitioner deprived them of their
landholdings by entering into a grower’s contract,
4. That plaintiffs were instituted sometime in 1993 and thereby allowing TADI to plant pineapples in
were given three (3) hectares each respectively, while respondents’ lands. However, an examination of the
for plaintiff Roger Brillo was given 2 hectares; the contract reveals that it pertains to other lands and not
sharing of the parties involved was 25-75 in favor of the land being claimed by respondents.
the tenants; after for two croppings defendant D.
Suarez approached and offered the land by Voluntary
Offer to Sale (VOS) last November 1993 in our favor Petitioner’s application for VOS covers the land that
(plaintiffs-tenants) and the papers for VOS was respondents are claiming as their landholdings and
processed in the office of Department [of] Agrarian measures 13.9269 hectares, and is covered by OCT No.
Reform (DAR) Koronadal, South Cotabato;16 (P-31540) P-11967.20 The tax declaration and sketch
plan describe the lot as Cadastral Lot No. 111-B, Pls-
555, and bounded on the northeast by Lot Nos. 108 and
We find that the above admission was taken out of 105; on the southeast by Lot No. 114; on the southwest
context. While petitioner admitted that respondents by Lot Nos. 112 and 113; and on the northwest by Lot
were tenants in the land, he qualified in paragraph 2 of No. 111-A.21
his answer that it was Wennie Gonzaga of the DAR who
installed them as such. Clearly, it was the DAR who
placed respondents in actual possession of the land On the other hand, the lands subject of the grower’s
upon petitioner’s offer to transfer the same to the contract between petitioner and TADI are Lot No. 117,
government. Other than this supposed admission, there Pls-55522 covered by TCT No. T-26810, Lot No. 119-E,
is no evidence on record to prove the tenancy relations. Psd-01748723 covered by TCT No. T-4146024 and Lot
Respondents did not substantiate their claim with No. 119-F, Psd-11-01748725 covered by TCT No. T-
evidence to show that they were agricultural tenants in 41461.26
petitioner’s land. They did not allege actual cultivation
or specify the crop produced thereby. Neither did they It is clear therefore that the subject matter of the
mention how much of the produce was delivered to grower’s contract did not include the land subject of
petitioner or submit receipts to prove the purported the VOS. Thus, petitioner could not have caused
25-75 sharing of harvests. They did not state, much less respondents’ ejectment from the subject property by
prove, the circumstances of their agreement with virtue of his transactions with TADI, since he never
petitioner as to the alleged tenancy relationship. Thus, authorized the latter to plant on the subject land.
there is no basis to the claim that they are agricultural Respondents’ ejectment from the land was not
tenants on the property. pursuant to the contract petitioner had entered into
with TADI who appears to have entered the land
In VHJ Construction and Development Corporation v. without petitioner’s consent.
Court of Appeals,17 we held that a tenancy relationship
cannot be presumed. There must be evidence to prove Thus, it was error for the appellate court to affirm
the tenancy relations such that all its indispensable DARAB’s conclusion that it is "immaterial whether the
elements must be established, to wit: (1) the parties are subject landholding is covered by the alleged grower’s
the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is contract or not." It is, in every sense, material to the
agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the determination of the case because petitioner is sought
landowner; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; to be held liable for respondents’ ejectment due
(5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is allegedly to the contract. If the disputed land is not the
sharing of the harvests. All these requisites are subject of the contract, as in fact it is not, then
necessary to create tenancy relationship, and the respondents cannot claim that petitioner illegally
absence of one or more requisites will not make the ejected them from the land. Consequently, they have no
alleged tenant a de facto tenant. cause of action against petitioner, since the latter did
not commit any act that resulted in their dispossession.
The DARAB’s reliance on the ruling in Tizon v.
Cabañgon, et al.18 that the landowner’s admission of the Respondents’ cause of action is against TADI as it is the
fact of tenancy relationship is conclusive is misplaced. latter who allegedly planted pineapples in the land
In Tizon, there was actual proof of tenancy relationship occupied by respondents, when it is clear that its
as the landowner therein categorically admitted in the contract with petitioner covered different lots. The
petition that respondents were her tenants. She also DARAB itself observed that "(i)f indeed the subject land
testified in open court that respondents were is not covered by the grower’s contract ..., the act of
"managing" or "in charge" of the lands. Respondents defendant-appellee TADI in ejecting the tenants-
therein proved actual cultivation and there was sharing appellants was beyond authority, hence,
of harvests. illegal."27 Respondents should have thus brought the
action only against TADI who alone caused their
expulsion from the land in question.

In this regard, respondents should have filed the

instant case before the regular courts and not the
DARAB considering that the only act complained of by
respondents is TADI’s alleged intrusion into the subject
land. Thus, respondents’ cause of action is actually one
for forcible entry. The allegation that they were
deprived of their landholdings due to the grower’s
contract will not automatically make the case an
agrarian dispute that would call for the application of
tenancy laws and the assumption of jurisdiction by the
DARAB.28

In order for a dispute to fall under the jurisdiction of

the DARAB, the controversy must relate to "tenurial
arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning
farmworkers associations or representation of persons
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking
to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
arrangements."29 There must be a tenancy relationship
between the party litigants for the DARAB to validly
take cognizance of a controversy.30

In this case, there is no showing that there exists a

tenancy relationship between petitioner and
respondents. Likewise, respondents have no tenancy
relationship with TADI, against whom they principally
have a cause of action. The controversy is civil in nature
since it involves the issue of material possession,
independent of any question pertaining to agricultural
tenancy. Hence, the case falls outside the jurisdiction of
DARAB; it is cognizable by the regular courts.31

Though the parties do not challenge DARAB’s

jurisdiction, the Court may motu proprio  consider the
issue of jurisdiction. The Court has discretion to
determine whether DARAB validly acquired
jurisdiction over the case since jurisdiction over the
subject matter is conferred only by law.32 Jurisdiction
over the subject matter cannot be acquired through, or
waived by, any act or omission of the parties. Neither
would the active participation of the parties
nor estoppel operate to confer jurisdiction on the
DARAB where the latter has none over a cause of
action.33

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The

DARAB Decision dated December 14, 2000 in DARAB
Case No. 5468 and the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated
August 31, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 71516, as well as its
Resolution dated January 6, 2005, are ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE. The complaint in DARAB Case No. XI-249-
SC-95 is hereby DISMISSED.