Posted by: Michelle M. Bacarra on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
The government sold to Julian dela Cruz acquired a certain lot by virtue of an Agreement to Sell, as a qualified land allocatee of siad landholding, subsequently, DAR issued in hisfavor a Certificate of Land Transfer. Julian toiled the land and made substantial payment in monthly installment for 20 years. Julian died, survived by his wife and their 10 children. Later, because Leonora got too sickly, and could not anymore toil the land herself, she sold the land in favor of Alberto Cruz. They executed an Agreement to Sell, then Alberto obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award over the land, which was issued by DAR. One of their children, Maximo discovered the sale and the registration of said landholding under Alberto's name. With the assistance of DAR, Maximo and other children filed a petition with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, praying to nullify the Order of PARO, CLOA, and Transfer Certificate of Title issued in favor of Alberto. Contending that the sale was made without their knowledge and consent as being lawful heirs of Julian, they stressed that it cannot bind them, and that they are unlawfully deprived of their rights as heirs of the beneficiary without due process of law.
On the other hand, Alberto claimed that he has acquired ownership of the landholding, because he has purchased it already from Leonora, and then took possession of which.
PARAD, after due proceedings granted the petition and declared that the DELA Cruz are the rightful allocates. It ordered MARO And the Registry of Deeds to cancel the CLOA and Deed of Sale issued yo Alberto, and to issue a new one in favor of the dela Cruz. Alberto appealed the decision to the DARAB, which further affirmed the ruling of PARAD. Alberto file a petition for review in the CA, raising among others, that DARAB has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
the CA granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the petition of the Heirs of Julian dela Cruz in the PARAD for lack of jurisdiction. The CA declared that there was no tenancy relationship between respondent Alberto and the said heirs; hence, the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the petition. It declared that the issue before the DARAB was the rightful ownership over the landholding.
ISSUE:
Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction over the case because the implementation of agrarian reform laws and rules and regulations was administrative in nature.
HELD:
The DAR is vested with quasi-judicial power and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, as well as other matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform laws, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of Agriculture. The President of the Philippines created the DARAB and authorized it to assume the power and functions pertaining to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases, which may be delegated to the regional offices of the DAR in accordance with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the DARAB.
Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute as any controversy relating 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 arrangement.
The petitioners contention that, under Section 2(f), Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs which were registered with the LRA. However, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction in such cases, they must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to whom CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not of the DARAB.
In the case at bar, petitioner and private respondent had no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that could have brought this controversy between them within the ambit of the above-cited provision. Consequently, the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the controversy and should not have taken cognizance of private respondents petition in the first place.
FACTS:
The government sold to Julian dela Cruz acquired a certain lot by virtue of an Agreement to Sell, as a qualified land allocatee of siad landholding, subsequently, DAR issued in hisfavor a Certificate of Land Transfer. Julian toiled the land and made substantial payment in monthly installment for 20 years. Julian died, survived by his wife and their 10 children. Later, because Leonora got too sickly, and could not anymore toil the land herself, she sold the land in favor of Alberto Cruz. They executed an Agreement to Sell, then Alberto obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award over the land, which was issued by DAR. One of their children, Maximo discovered the sale and the registration of said landholding under Alberto's name. With the assistance of DAR, Maximo and other children filed a petition with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, praying to nullify the Order of PARO, CLOA, and Transfer Certificate of Title issued in favor of Alberto. Contending that the sale was made without their knowledge and consent as being lawful heirs of Julian, they stressed that it cannot bind them, and that they are unlawfully deprived of their rights as heirs of the beneficiary without due process of law.
On the other hand, Alberto claimed that he has acquired ownership of the landholding, because he has purchased it already from Leonora, and then took possession of which.
PARAD, after due proceedings granted the petition and declared that the DELA Cruz are the rightful allocates. It ordered MARO And the Registry of Deeds to cancel the CLOA and Deed of Sale issued yo Alberto, and to issue a new one in favor of the dela Cruz. Alberto appealed the decision to the DARAB, which further affirmed the ruling of PARAD. Alberto file a petition for review in the CA, raising among others, that DARAB has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
the CA granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the petition of the Heirs of Julian dela Cruz in the PARAD for lack of jurisdiction. The CA declared that there was no tenancy relationship between respondent Alberto and the said heirs; hence, the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the petition. It declared that the issue before the DARAB was the rightful ownership over the landholding.
ISSUE:
Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction over the case because the implementation of agrarian reform laws and rules and regulations was administrative in nature.
HELD:
The DAR is vested with quasi-judicial power and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, as well as other matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform laws, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of Agriculture. The President of the Philippines created the DARAB and authorized it to assume the power and functions pertaining to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases, which may be delegated to the regional offices of the DAR in accordance with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the DARAB.
Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute as any controversy relating 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 arrangement.
The petitioners contention that, under Section 2(f), Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs which were registered with the LRA. However, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction in such cases, they must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to whom CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not of the DARAB.
In the case at bar, petitioner and private respondent had no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that could have brought this controversy between them within the ambit of the above-cited provision. Consequently, the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the controversy and should not have taken cognizance of private respondents petition in the first place.
