Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
-Cabral applied with the DAR for the reclassification or conversion of the land
for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. However, it was not acted
upon. Instead, EPs and TCT were issued in favor of private respondents.
-Cabral sought the cancellation of the TCTs on the ground that
(1)she had a pending application for conversion and reclassification,
(2)private respondents did not actually till such lands,
(3)private respondents illegally transferred their rights over the parcels of
land covered by the EPs,
(4)Private respondents are deemed to have abandoned their rights over the
properties,
(5) Subject property was taken away without just compensation.
-Again, Cabral filed, this time, with the DAR another petition for cancellation
of the same EPs and Torrens Title. She was informed by MARO through a
letter that her petition will be forwarded to the legal section for legal action,
for the purpose of due process.
-Her petition for cancellation of EPs was dismissed and motion for
reconsideration was denied by Regional Director Pacis.
-So, Cabral filed a petition for certiorari in the CA questioning the jurisdiction
of the Regional Director and claiming denial of due process.
-CA
dismissed the petition for lack of merit and the motion for
reconsideration was denied.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
WON the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the case
HELD:
Petitioner is correct that whatever jurisdiction the Regional Director may
have had over the cancellation of EPs, it lost with the passage of subsequent
laws.
Sec. 17 of EO No. 229 and Sec. 50 of RA 6657 granted DAR quasi-judicial
powers to adjudicate agrarian reform matters.
EO No. 129-A subsequently provided the functions of Agrarian Reform
Adjudicatory Board and Regional Offices.
The above-mentioned provisions were already in effect when Cabral filed her
petition in the BARC.
It is amply clear from these provisions that the function of the Regional Office
concerns the implementation of agrarian reform laws while that of the
DARAB/RARAD/PARAD is the adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
The first one is EXECUTIVE and the second is JUDICIAL in nature.
The DARAB Rules grant broader powers to the Board and the Adjudicators
and contained more detailed rules on procedure than those provided by the
orders, circulars, memoranda and opinions cited by the CA delegating
jurisdiction to the Regional Director.
This Court held that DAR Regional Office has no jurisdiction over the
subject case.
HEIRS OF SANTOS VS CA
FACTS:
-A parcel of land in Bulacan was levied on execution by the MTC of Bulacan.
The land was sold at public auction with Herman Rey Santos as the sole
bidder.
-Santos registered the Deed of Sale with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan
after Garcia failed to exercise his right of redemption within the reglementary
period.
-Garcia filed a petition for Injunction and Damages with an application for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction with the DARAB, praying that Santos be
enjoined from preventing Garcia from gathering the mango fruits lest they
"over-mature and become useless."
-DARAB allowed the gathering of the mango fruits and directing that the
proceeds thereof be deposited with the Adjudication Board.
-Subsequently, Garcia filed a petition for consignation with the RTC of
Bulacan, in an attempt to redeem his land but it was DISMISSED.
-Meanwhile, Antonio filed a motion to intervene with the DARAB claiming that
he is affected as the party who tended and had the mango trees bear fruits.
-Garcia filed a complaint for annulment/cancellation of sale and document,
redemption with damages and preliminary writ of injuction against Santos.
-Adjudication Board suspended the hearing on Antonio's motion for
intervention.
-Antonio's motion was granted and recognized him as the duly constituted
agri tenant of the land.
-CA affirmed DARAB.
ISSUE:
WON PARAD has jurisdiction over the matters raised by the
intervenor
RULING:
NO. PARAD has no jurisdiction.
Clearly no agrarian dispute is involved in this case. Tenancy relationship is
needed for DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case.
Parties have no tenurial, leasehold or any agrarian relations whatsoever that
could have brought this controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform
laws.
LAGUNA ESTATE VS CA (BOOK)
ALANGILAN VS OP
FACTS:
the landholding as residential-1. If, indeed, the landholding had already been
earmarked for residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there would
have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994 Ordinance.
In order to be exempt from CARP coverage, the subject property must have
been classified as industrial/residential before June 15, 1988. In this case, the
DAR's examination of the zoning ordinances and certifications pertaining to
the subject property, as well as its field investigation, disclosed that the
same remains to be agricultural. The Zoning Certifications to the effect that
the land is within the city's potential growth area for urban expansion are
inconsequential as they do not reflect the present classification of the land
but merely its intended land use.
Not having been converted into, or classified as, residential before June 15,
1988, the Alangilan landholding is, therefore, covered by the CARP. The
subsequent reclassification of the landholding as residential-1 in 1994 cannot
place the property outside the ambit of the CARP, because there is no
showing that the DAR Secretary approved the reclassification.
PETITION DENIED
CONCHA VS RUBIO
FACTS:
The subject landholding was placed under the Compulsory Acquisition
Scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the
government. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Tiaong,
Quezon, named petitioners as beneficiaries.
Respondents filed a complaint for declaration of their tenancy and their
identification as beneficiaries and for disqualification of the petitioners to
become beneficiaries over the subject landholding. They alleged that they
are the tenants thereof and have not relinquished their rights over the same,
as they returned the monetary awards given by the landowners.
Meanwhile, the registered owners of the subject land entered into a joint
project with 1st A.M. Realty Development Corporation, represented by Atty.
Alejandro Macasaet for its development on the condition that the farmerbeneficiary shall be paid disturbance compensation and that the remaining
18.5006 hectares of the land shall be covered by the CARP.
The MARO pursued the coverage of the remaining 18.5006 has. The
petitioners herein were identified as qualified farmer-beneficiaries where
three (3) Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOA) were issued in their
favor.
Respondents, on the other hand, were paid of their disturbance
compensation. They now, however, question the validity and legality of the
institution of the petitioners as beneficiaries over the subject landholding.
They filed a case for annulment of CLOAs.
The PARAD dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the DARAB
set aside the PARAD decision. The DARAB ruled that in order for a voluntary
surrender by an agricultural tenant of his landholding to be valid, the same
must be done due to circumstances more advantageous to him and his
family a consideration, which, the DARAB found, was bereft of any
evidence as shown by the records of the case. Upon denial of their motion for
reconsideration, petitioners appealed to the CA but the same failed. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of
identifying and selecting the qualified farmer- beneficiaries of a land covered
by CARL
HELD: No.
Political Law- identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters
involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter
exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform
In Lercana v. Jalandoni, this Court was categorical in ruling that the
identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving
strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter exclusively
cognizable by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, and
beyond the jurisdiction of the DARAB.
In addition, in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante, this
Court had an occasion to discuss the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary in the
selection of farmer-beneficiaries, to wit:
Suffice it to say that under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6657, the identification of
beneficiaries is a matter involving strictly the administrative implementation
of the CARP, a matter which is exclusively vested in the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, through its authorized offices. Section 15 reads:
SECTION 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. The DAR in coordination with the
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall
register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farm workers who are qualified
to be beneficiaries of the CARP.
The administrative function of the DAR is manifest in Administrative Order
No. 06-00, which provides for the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law
Implementation Cases. Under said Rules of Procedure, the DAR Secretary has
exclusive jurisdiction over identification, qualification or disqualification of
potential farmer-beneficiaries.
Based on the foregoing, the conclusion is certain that the DARAB had no
jurisdiction to identify who between the parties should be recognized as the
beneficiaries of the land in dispute, as it was a purely administrative function
of the DAR. The PARAD was, thus, correct when it declared that it had no
jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.
The finding of the MARO declaring petitioners as beneficiaries of the land in
dispute must, therefore, be accorded respect. It should also be equally
binding on the DARAB for the simple reason that the latter has no appellate
jurisdiction over the former: The DARAB cannot review, much less reverse,
the administrative findings of DAR. Instead, the DARAB would do well to defer
to DARs expertise when it comes to the identification and selection of
beneficiaries, as it did in Lercana where this Court noted with approval that,
in the dispositive portion of its decision, left to the concerned DAR Offices the
determination of who were or should be agrarian reform beneficiaries. In
fact, this course of action available to the DARAB is now embodied in Rule II
of its 2003 Rules of Procedure, thus:
Section 5. Referral to Office of the Secretary (OSEC). In the event that a
case filed before the Adjudicator shall necessitate the determination of a
prejudicial issue involving an agrarian law implementation case, the
Adjudicator shall suspend the case and, for purposes of expediency, refer the
same to the Office of the Secretary or his authorized representative in the
locality.
In the case at bar, the DARAB has overstepped its legal boundaries in taking
cognizance of the controversy between petitioners and respondents in
deciding who should be declared the farmer-beneficiaries over the land in
dispute.
GRANTED.