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 prior AGRICULTURAL TENANCY RELATIONSHIP characterizes the controversy as an "AGRARIAN DISPUTE"; B. Sec. 21, Republic Act No. 1199 provides that "all cases involving the 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 of Vda. 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 or by a third party ) The Supreme Court held that when no tenancy relationship between 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 court between 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

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 in case 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:

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 Justice Presbetero 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 from Undue 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

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 merely directed 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/CLOAs HEIRS 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 CLOAs have 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

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." In Morta, 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 is essential 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. In Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals, we held that the jurisdiction 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 original and 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 manner the reasonable

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 the question 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 considered preliminary 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. 6657 granting 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 under Republic 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).

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 foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of administrative 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).