38. Padua vs. CA GR 153456, Mar.

2, 2007 517 SCRA 232

Facts:

Private respondents Pepito Dela Cruz, et al. were tenants of Lots which was donated said to the
municipality on the condition that these be used as school sites. The project did not materialize
and, Dela Cruz, et al. asked that the properties be returned to them. However, they found out
that Mayor Cruz had distributed the Lots who were each issued a Certificate of Land Transfer).
Upon Petition for Cancellation of CLT filed by Dela Cruz, et al., DAR Secretary issued an Order
cancelling the CLT issued to Labagnoy and Cruz. The latter filed a Petition for Relief from
Judgment for lack of due process but the same was denied which was subsequently appealed to
the Office of the President (OP) which was dismissed. However, during the pendency of the
appeal before the OP, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Waiver over his interest in Lot No. 90 on the
basis of which DAR Regional Office III issued an Order cancelling the CLT of Cruz and declaring
Lot No. 90 open for disposition. Then DAR Secretary Santiago issued an Order awarding Lot No.
90 to herein petitioner Padua who had been occupying said property and paying the amortization
thereon to the LBP. Aggrieved, Dela Cruz, et al., filed with the DAR Secretary a Letter-Petition for
Cancellation (Letter-Petition) of the DAR Regional Office III Orders. DAR Secretary Garilao
granted the Letter-Petition in an Garilao Order cancelling the Order of Award issued in favor of
Roberto Padua and directing the Regional Director to cause the restoration of possession of said
lot in favor of the Dela Cruz, et al. All payments made by Roberto Padua on account of said lot
as rentals for the use thereof are forfeited in favor of the government. Accordingly, DAR Regional
Director Acosta issued a Memorandum directing herein public respondent PARO Inocencio to
implement the Garilao Order. In turn, PARO Inocencio instructed Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer Lino Mabborang (MARO Mabborang) to issue the necessary documents to award Lot No.
90 to Dela Cruz, et al. Upon being informed by MARO Mabborang of the implementation of the
Garilao Order, Padua filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of a Final and Executory Order of
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction. The CA issued the herein assailed Decision, dismissing the Petition for Annulment for
being the wrong mode of questioning the Garilao Order. The CA also affirmed the Garilao Order,
holding that then DAR Secretary Garilao had authority to resolve the Letter-Petition as it involved
an agrarian dispute. The CA also rejected the contention of Padua that he was not accorded due
process in view of evidence on record that he was notified of the proceedings on the Letter-
Petition but he chose not to participate therein. Padua filed a Motion for Reconsideration was
subsequently denied by CA. Hence, the present Petition.

Issue: Whether the DAR has no jurisdiction in Hearing the land dispute on the said case?

Held: No, The statutory mechanism for the acquisition of land through agrarian reform requires
full payment of amortization before a farmer-beneficiary may be issued a CLOA or EP, which, in
turn, can become the basis for issuance in his name of an original or a transfer certificate of title.
As Padua himself admitted that he is still paying amortization on Lot to LBP, his status in relation
to said property remains that of a mere potential farmer-beneficiary whose eligibilities DAR may
either confirm or reject. In fact, under DAR Administrative Order, DAR has authority to issue,
recall, or cancel a CLT, CBC, EP, or CLOA issued to potential farmer-beneficiaries but not yet
registered with the Register of Deeds.

39. JESUS PASCO et al. v. PISON-ARCEO AGRICULTURAL AND

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

485 SCRA 514 (2006)

FACTS:

Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation, is the registered owner of a parcel of land
in Negros Occidental. Constructed on the said land are houses occupied by the corporation‘s
workers. Jesus Pasco et al. are former workers of the corporation. When their
employment contracts were terminated, they were asked to vacate the house but they refused
to do so. The corporation thereafter filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the
Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities in Bacolod City. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of
Pasco et al. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision. Pasco et al. appealed the
decision contending that the court has no jurisdiction over the case on the ground of a pending
agrarian reform dispute between them and the corporation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not one who has been identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as
potential agrarian reform beneficiary may be ejected from the land where he is identified as such,
by the landowner, who has already been notified by the DAR of the coverage of his land by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government

HELD:

The issuance during the pendency of the case of a Notice of Coverage to Pison-Arceo Agricultural
and Developmevnt Corporation does not, however, automatically make the ejectment case
an agrarian dispute over which the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
has jurisdiction. The issuance of a Notice of Coverage is merely a preliminary step for the State‘s
acquisition of the land for agrarian reform purposes and it does not automatically vest title or
transfer the ownership of the land to the government.

Since during a field investigation the DAR and Land Bank of the Philippines would make a
determination as to whether, among other things, “the land will be placed under agrarian reform,
the land‘s suitability to agriculture,” a Notice of Coverage does not ipso facto render the land
subject thereof a land reform area. The owner retains its right to eject unlawful possessors of his
land, as what respondent Pison- Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation did in the
present case.

Nothing in the records of the case shows that the DAR has made an award in favor of Spouses
Pasco et al. Hence, no rights over the land they occupy can be considered to have vested in their
favor in accordance with Section 24 of the CARL which provides that the rights and responsibilities
of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him,
which award shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days from the time the DAR
takes actual possession of the land.

40. ESTATE OF LATE ENCARNACION VS. DIZON

[G.R. No. 148777. October 18, 2007.]

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J p:

The Facts
Encarnacion Vda. De Panlilio is the owner of the disputed landholdings over a vast tract of
land, with an aggregate area of 115.41 hectares called Hacienda Masamat located in Masamat,
Mexico, Pampanga covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 3510, 3513, 3514, 3515,
3522, 3523, 3524, 3525, 3526, 3528, 3530, 3531, 3532, 3533, RT-499 (9191), and RT-500
(11670), 13 all of the Pampanga Registry of Deeds. In 1973, pursuant to the OLT under PD 27,
the (DAR) issued thirty eight (38) Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) to Panlilio's tenants. The
tenant-awardees were made defendants in the instant consolidated complaints filed by petitioner
Lizares.
On November 26, 1973, lessee Paulina Mercado filed a letter-complaint with the DAR
questioning the issuance of CLTs to Panlilio's tenants, alleging, among others, that the DAR should
not have issued the CLTs since the land involved was principally being planted with sugar and
was outside the coverage of PD 27. She claimed that respondents surreptitiously
planted palay (rice plant) instead of sugar in order to bring the land within the purview of the
law. After proper investigation, the DAR concluded that the CLTs were "properly and regularly
issued." The tenants petitioned the DAR to cause the reversion of their sugarland to riceland so
that it may be covered by the Agrarian Reform Law. The petition was with the conformity of
Panlilio.
Thus, on January 12, 1977, Panlilio executed an Affidavit statting among others that: “ That
it is my desire that my entire subject property which is referred to as Hacienda Masamat be placed
under the coverage of P.D. 27 without exception and that thereafter the same be sold to tenant-
petitioners.” By virtue of the said Affidavit, the DAR Secretary, ordered "to distribute all land
transfer certificates, in view of the desire of Encarnacion Vda. de Panlilio to place her property
under the Land Transfer Program of the government."
Subsequently, Lizares, filed for annulment of coverage of landholdings under PD 27 and
ejectment against Reynaldo Villanueva, et al. All the four (4) consolidated cases were against 37
defendants.

The Issues

Whether or not forum-shopping or a false certification of non-forum shopping [is present] here;
and
Whether or not the February 3, 1977 affidavit of the lot owner, the late Encarnacion Vda. de
Panlilio, is genuine or authentic.
 Was the sale or transfer valid?

The Court's Ruling

Private respondents failed to furnish us copies of portions of the relevant records of the
other civil cases instituted by petitioner Lizares needed to determine the existence of forum
shopping. Absent such necessary pleadings, the court is constrained to take petitioner's assertion
at face value that the other cases, particularly Civil Case Nos. 11342, 11344, 11345, 11346 and
11347, filed before the RTC differ from the instant case as to the issues raised, the reliefs prayed
for, and the parties impleaded.
We rule in the negative. the principle is firmly entrenched that this Court is not a trier of facts.
In this case, there is coalescence in the findings of the appellate court with that of the two quasi-
judicial agencies below — the PARAD and DARAB — on the issue of the authenticity of the second
Panlilio Affidavit. Hence, there is no reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the court a
quo holding that the challenged February 3, 1977 Panlilio Affidavit is not an authentic document.
The sales or transfers are void ab initio, being contrary to law and public policy under Art.
5 of the Civil Code that "acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibiting laws
shall be void . . . ." In this regard, the DAR is duty-bound to take appropriate measures to annul
the illegal transfers and recover the land unlawfully conveyed to non-qualified persons for
disposition to qualified beneficiaries. In the case at bar, the alleged transfers made by some if
not all of respondents Gonzalo Dizon, et al. (G.R. No. 148777) of lands covered by PD 27 to non-
qualified persons are illegal and null and void.

43 CABRAL VS. CA

Facts: Petitioner alleged that she was the registered owner of several parcels of land covered by
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 01670 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan among which is
a parcel of land described therein as Lot 4 of Plan Psu164390. As early as July 1973, petitioner
had already purportedly applied for the reclassification or conversion of the land for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). The application
for conversion, however, was not acted upon. Instead, on April 25, 1988, Emancipation Patents
and thereafter, Transfer Certificates of Title were issued in favor of private respondents. Petitioner
sought the cancellation of the TCTs with the BARC on January 16, 1990 and onJanuary 19, 1990,
filed another petition for the cancellation of the said Emancipation Patents and Torrens Title. The
said petition was dismissed in an Order dated February 11, 1990 by then Regional Director Eligio
Pacis. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. Consequently, petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional
Director and claiming denial of due process. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied prompting the petitioner to turn
to the Supreme Court for relief. Also, onApril 21, 1993, petitioner fi led with the Court an urgent
Motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order alleging that respondent Gregoria Adolfo
had already conveyed the land awarded to her to the Aqualand Development Corporation and
the Sta. Rita Steel Resources Corporation for the conversion of the land from agricultural to
commercial and industrial purposes. In a Resolution dated May 17, 1993, the Court issued the
temporary restraining order prayed for.
Issue

Who has jurisdiction over the instant controversy, the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) as contended by the Petitioner or the Regional Director?

Held

Petitioner is correct. Whatever jurisdiction the Regional Director may have had over the
cancellation of emancipation patents is lost with the passage of subsequent laws.Section 17 of
Executive Order No. 229 (Providing for the Mechanism for the Implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) granted DAR quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate
agrarian reform matters, to wit: "SECTION 17.Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.—The DAR is
hereby vested with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters,
and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian
reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA)
and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)." Executive Order No. 129-A
(Modifying Executive Order No. 129 Reorganizing and Strengthening the Department of Agrarian
Reform and for other purposes) subsequently provided for the creation of the Agrarian Reform
Adjudicatory Board, granting it the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of
agrarian reform cases: "SECTION 13.Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.—There is hereby
created an Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board under the Office of the Secretary. The Board shall
be composed of the Secretary as Chairman, two (2) Undersecretaries as may be designated by
the Secretary, theAssistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, and three (3) others to be appointed by
the President upon recommendation of the Secretary as members. A Secretariat shall be
constituted to support the Board. The Board shall assume the powers and functions with respect
to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases under Executive Order No. 229 and this Executive
Order. These powers and functions may be delegated to the regional office of the Department in
accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board."

44. G.R. No. L-105586 December 15, 1993

REMIGIO ISIDRO, petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SEVENTH DIVISION) AND NATIVIDAD
GUTIERREZ, respondents.

PADILLA, J.:

Private respondent Natividad Gutierrez is the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 4.5
hectares located in Barrio Sta. Cruz, Gapan, Nueva Ecija. In 1985, Aniceta Garcia, sister of
private respondent and also the overseer of the latter, allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to
occupy the swampy portion of the abovementioned land, consisting of one (1) hectare, in order
to augment his (petitioner's) income to meet his family's needs. The occupancy of a portion of
said land was subject top the condition that petitioner would vacate the land upon demand.
Petitioner occupied the land without paying any rental and converted the same into a fishpond.

Private respondent stated that she is the owner of a parcel of land situated in Barrio Sta. Cruz,
Gapan, Nueva Ecija, which petitioner is illegally occupying; that petitioner has taken advantage
of the tolerance of her (private respondent's) sister in allowing him to occupy the land on the
condition that he (petitioner) would vacate the land upon demand. Because of petitioner's
refusal to vacate the land, private respondent's remedy, as owner of said land, was to file an
action for unlawful detainer with the Municipal Trial Court.

In his answer to the complainant, petitioner alleged that the land involved in the dispute is an
agricultural land and hence, the case must be filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations (not the
MTC). Moreover, petitioner contended that it was his refusal to increase his lease rental
(implying tenancy) that prompted the private respondent to sue him in court.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE MUNICIPAL COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE AND
WHETHER THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COULD LEGALLY EJECT THE PETITIONER CONSIDERING
THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT THE SUBJECT IS A FISHPOND AND UNDER THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
FISHPONDS ARE CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS;

2. THAT BEING AN AGRICULTURAL LAND THE SAME IS GOVERNED BY OUR TENANCY LAWS
WHERE RULE 70 OF THE RULES OF COURT CANNOT BE SIMPLY APPLIED

HELD:

The petition is devoid of merit. We hold for the private respondent.

It is basic whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is
determined from the allegations of the complaint. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall
have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian
disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos.
229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential
Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.

The subject land which used to be an idle, swampy land was converted by the petitioner into a
fishpond. And it is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land. The fact remains that the
existence of all the requisites of a tenancy relationship was not proven by the petitioner. And in
the absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for unlawful detainer is properly within the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, as provided in Sec. 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Having established that the occupancy and possession by petitioner of the land in question is by
mere tolerance, private respondent had the legal right to demand upon petitioner to vacate the
land.