Jurisprudence on Jurisdiction Over Agrarian Cases

7/27/2019 Jurisprudence on Jurisdiction Over Agrarian Cases

1/7

JURISPRUDENCE ON JURISDICTION OVER AGRARIAN CASES

1. BETWEEN MTC AND CAR (Now DARAB)

A. AGUSTIN RIVERA VS. NEMESIO DAVID. G.R. NO. 157307; February 27,

2006

Doctrines/Features:

A. Existence of priorAGRICULTURAL TENANCY

RELATIONSHIP characterizes the controversy as an "AGRARIAN

DISPUTE";

B. Sec. 21, Republic Act No. 1199 provides that "all cases involvingthe dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or the

settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landlord

and tenant. . . . shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the

Court of Agrarian Relations."

B. In the case ofVda. de Arejola vs. Camarines Sur Reg. Agricultural School,

et al., 110 SCRA 517 (1960), the Supreme Court explained the phrase "by a third

party"in Section 21 of RA 1199 (Ejectment; Violation; Jurisdiction. "all cases

involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landholder orby a third party ) The

Supreme Court held that when no tenancy relationshipbetween the contending

parties exist, the Court of Agrarian Relations has no jurisdiction", "The

law governing agricultural tenancy, RA 1199 explains that tenancy relationship is a

"juridical tie" which arises between a landholder and a tenantonce they

agree expressly or impliedly to undertake jointly the cultivation of land belonging

to the former, etc."

C. The issue of ownership cannot be settled by the DARAB since it is definitely

outside its jurisdiction. Whatever findings made by the DARAB regarding the

ownership of the land are not conclusive to settle the matter. The issue of

ownership shall be resolved in a separate proceedings before the appropriate trial

courtbetween the claimants thereof. (Jaime Morta, Sr., et al., vs. Jaime Occidental,et al., G.R. No. 123417, (June 10, 1999) (Note the Dissenting Opinion of Chief

Justice Davide Jr.,)

D. Where there are no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever

between the parties that could bring a controversy under the ambit of the agrarian
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941


2/7

reform laws, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has no

jurisdiction.(Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. CA, 327 SCRA 293).

2. BETWEEN RTC AND DAR/DARAB

DAR VS. ROBERTO CUENCA, et al., G.R. No. 154112, September 23, 2004.

A. All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian

Reform (DAR), even through they raise questions that are also legal or

constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since

the law has granted it special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian

matter.

B. In view of the foregoing, there is no need to address the other points pleaded

by respondent in relation to the jurisdictional issue. We need only to point that incase of doubt, the jurisprudential trend is for courts to refrain from resolving a

controversy involving matters that demand the special competence of

administrative agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in

character, as in this case.

C. Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it

follows that the RTC of La Carlota City (Branch 63) was devoid of authority to

issue the assailed Writ of Preliminary Injunction. That Writ must perforce be

stricken down as a nullity. Such nullity is particularly true in the light of the

express prohibitory provisions of the CARP and this Court's Administrative

Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 38-2002. These Circulars enjoin all trial judges to

strictly observe Section 68 of RA 6657, which reads:

"Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from

Undue Interference. No injunction, restraining

order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the

lower courts against the Department of Agrarian

Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their

implementation of the program."

ALSO:
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3802http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3802http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3802http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3802http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4311http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4311http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4311http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4311http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3802


3/7

Supreme Court Circulars on Jurisdiction Re:

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

1. Office of Court Administrator (OCA) Circular

No. 79-2003, June 12, 2003. Utmost Caution,Prudence and Judiciousness in the issuance of

Temporary Restraining Order and Writs of

Preliminary Injunction by Justice Presbetero J.

Velasco;

2. Office of Court Administrator Circular (OCA)

No. 23, 2004 dated Feb. 13, 2004 by JusticePresbetero J. Velasco Reiteration of Circular

Regarding Temporary Restraining Order, Writs of

Preliminary Injunction Prohibition and Mandamus

over cases under CARP.

3. Adm. Circular No. 38, 2002 by Chief Justice

Hilario G. Davide Implementation of Sec. 68, RA

6657 on Immunity of Government Agencies fromUndue Interference No injunction, restraining

order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by

lower courts, against DAR, DENR and DOJ in the

implementation of the CARP.

4. Adm. Circular No. 29-2002 Avoidance of

Conflict of Jurisdiction over cases under the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

3. BETWEEN DAR AND DARAB

A. ON ORDER OF EXECUTION ERNESTO INGLES, ET. AL. VS. COURT

OF APPEALS, ET. AL., G.R. NO. 125202, JAN. 31, 2006


4/7

Doctrines/Features:

A. Thus, the functions of the DAR Regional Director are

purely administrative, that is, to put into operation agrarian laws and fill

out the details necessary for their implementation, and not adjudicatory.

B. On the other hand, when a dispute arises between parties

affected by the operation of agrarian laws, the controversy should be

settle in an adversarial proceeding before the DARAB, the quasi judicial

arm of the DAR function becomes judicial or quasi judicial in nature

when the exercise thereof involves the determination of rights and

obligations of the parties.

C. In issuing the questioned Order of Execution, the DAR Regional

Director overstepped the limits of his office and crossed the realm of

adjudication. While the orders sought to be implemented merelydirected the survey of the areas to be excluded from the CARP, the

Order of Execution, however, included the search for a relocation site

for the benefit of farmers who would be affected by the order of

exemption and the determination of appropriate disturbance

compensation. Thus, the DAR Regional Director turned what was

supposed to be an administrative process into an adjudicatory

proceeding. The relocation of occupants is normally conducted with the

issuance of a writ of demolition, an act which is within the competence

of the DARAB.

B. ON CANCELLATION OF EPs/CLOAsHEIRS OF JULIAN DE LA

CRUZ VS. OF ALBERTO CRUZ, G.R. NO. 162890, November 22, 2005:

Doctrines/Features:

A. The Court agrees with the petitioner's contention that, under

Section 2 (f), Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedures, 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 case, they must relate to

an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to whom CLOAshave been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the

issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in

the administrativeimplementation of agrarian 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
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4390http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4390http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4390http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4390http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4390http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4390http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4390http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4390


5/7

B. 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 agricultural,

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.It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired

under this Act and other terms and condition of transfer of ownership

from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform

beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of

farm operation and beneficiaries, landowner and tenant, or lessor and

lessee."

InMorta, Sr. v. Occidental (G.R. 123417, 10 June 1999, 308

SCRA 167), this Court held that there must be a tenancy relationship

between the parties for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case. It isessential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) that the

parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that

the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that

there is consent between the parties to the relationship (4) that the

purposes of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5)

that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural

lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the

tenant or agricultural lessee.

C. InVda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals, we held that thejurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the

following: a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of

agrarian reform; b)resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure

related problems; and c) approval and disapproval of the conversion,

restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential,

commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses. (Morta, Sr. vs.

Occidental, 308 SCRA 167).

4. BETWEEN DARAB and SAC

A. "It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, Section II, the originaland exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide petition for

determination of just compensation has already been transformed into an

appellate jurisdiction. It only means that, in accordance with settled principle

of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an

administrative agency to determine in a preliminary mannerthe reasonable
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3437http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3437http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3437http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3437http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3941


6/7

compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the CARP, but such

determination is subject to challenge in the courts.

"The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not

any less "original and exclusive", because thequestion is first passed upon by the DAR, as the

judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the

administrative determination. For the matter, the

law may provide that the decision of the DAR is

final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to

courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts

are the guarantors of the legality of administrative

action" (Phil. Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000).

B. It is the DARAB which has the authority to determine the initial

valuation of lands involving agrarian reform although such valuation may

only be consideredpreliminary as the final determination of just

compensation is vested in the courts. (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court

of Appeals, 321 SCRA 629).

C. Nothing contradictory between the provisions of Sec. 50, R.A. 6657granting the Department of Agrarian Reformprimary jurisdiction

(administrative proceeding) to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform

matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the

implementation of agrarian reform" which includes the determination of

questions of just compensation, and the provisions of Sec. 57, R.A. 6657

granting Regional Trial Courts "original and exclusive jurisdiction" (judicial

proceeding) over (1) all petitions for the determination of just

compensation to landowner, and (2) prosecutions of criminal offenses

underRepublic Act No. 6657.(Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322 SCRA

139).

D. It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, Sec. 11, the original and

exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide petitions for determination

of just compensation has thereby been transformed into an appellate

jurisdiction. (Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322 SCRA 139).
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/226http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/226http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/226http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/226http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054


7/7

E. The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original

and exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the

judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative

determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the

DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be

foreclosedon the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality ofadministrative action.(Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322 SCRA 139).

F. We do not agree with petitioner's submission that the SAC erred in

assuming jurisdiction over respondent's petition for determination of just

compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings before

the DARAB. InLand Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the

landowner filed an action for the determination of just compensation without

waiting for the completion of the DARAB's re-evaluation of the land. The

court nonetheless held therein that the SAC acquired jurisdiction over the

action for the following reason.

It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has

'original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just

compensation to landowners'. This 'original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC

would be undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative officials original

jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court of the

review of administrative decision. Thus, although the new rules speak of directly

appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian

Courts, it is clear from Sec. 57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to

determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the

Adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate

jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would be void., Thus, direct

resort to the SAC by private respondent is valid.

It would be well to emphasis that the taking of property under R.A. No. 6657 is an

exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or

determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a

judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative

agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of respondent's petition

for determination of just compensation. (LBP vs. LEONILA P. CELADA, G.R.

CASE NO. 164876, January 23, 2006).
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/3992http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/4054

Documents

Jurisprudence on Jurisdiction Over Agrarian Cases