DAR vs.

Cuenca
G.R. No. 154112. September 23, 2004

FACTS:
Private respondent Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in La Carlota City
and devoted principally to the planting of sugar cane. The MARO of La Carlota City issued and
sent a Notice of Coverage to private respondent Cuenca placing the landholding under the
compulsory coverage of R.A. 6657. The Notice of Coverage also stated that the Land Bank of
the Philippines (LBP) will determine the value of the subject land pursuant to Executive Order
No. 405.
Private respondent Cuenca filed with the RTC for Annulment of Notice of Coverage and
Declaration of Unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 405. Cuenca alleged that the implementation of
CARP in his landholding is no longer with authority of law considering that, if at all, the
implementation should have commenced and should have been completed between June 1988 to
June 1992; that Executive Order No. 405 amends, modifies and/or repeals CARL and, therefore,
it is unconstitutional considering that then President Corazon Aquino no longer had law-making
powers; and that the Notice of Coverage is a gross violation of PD 399. Private
respondent Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be declared null and void ab initio.
The respondent Judge denied MARO Noe Fortunado’s motion to dismiss and issued a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction directing Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease and
desist from implementing the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from proceeding with the
determination of the value of the subject land.
The DAR thereafter filed before the CA a petition for certiorari assailing the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by respondent Judge on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction.
Stressing that the issue was not simply the improper issuance of the Notice of Coverage, but was
mainly the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 405, the CA ruled that the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) had jurisdiction over the case. Consonant with that authority, the court a quo also
had the power to issue writs and processes to enforce or protect the rights of the parties.

ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint filed by the private respondent is an agrarian reform and
within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not with the trial court.

RULING:
Yes. A careful perusal of respondent’s complaint shows that the principal averments and reliefs
prayed for refer -- not to the pure question of law spawned by the alleged unconstitutionality of
EO 405 -- but to the annulment of the DARs Notice of Coverage. Clearly, the main thrust of the
allegations is the propriety of the Notice of Coverage, as may be gleaned from the following
averments. The main subject matter raised by private respondent before the trial court was not
the issue of compensation. Note that no amount had yet been determined nor proposed by the
DAR. Hence, there was no occasion to invoke the courts function of determining just
compensation. To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of Coverage constitutes the first necessary
step towards the acquisition of private land under the CARP. Plainly then, the propriety of the
Notice relates to the implementation of the CARP, which is under the quasi-judicial jurisdiction
of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not be ousted from its authority by the simple expediency of
appending an allegedly constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian.