JURISDICTIONS

SEC to RTC

Under Section 5.2 of the Securities Regulation Code, the Commissions jurisdiction over
all cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A has been transferred to the Courts
of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court. The Commission shall
retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for
final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of the
Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of
payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed.

Considering that only Sections 2, 4, and 8 of PD 902-A, as amended, have been

expressly repealed by the Securities Regulation Code, the Commission retains the
powers enumerated in Section 6 of said Decree, unless these are inconsistent with any
provision of the Code.

HLURB (G.R. 129822)

Section 1 of P.D. 1344 vests in the HLURB the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide the following cases:

(a) unsound real estate business practices;

(b) claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker, or
salesman; and

(c) cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations

filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman.

Unlike paragraphs (b) and (c) above, paragraph (a) does not state which party
can file a claim against an unsound real estate business practice. But, in the context of
the evident objective of Section 1, it is implicit that the unsound real estate business
practice would, like the offended party in paragraphs (b) and (c), be the buyers of lands
involved in development. The policy of the law is to curb unscrupulous practices in real
estate trade and business that prejudice buyers.
DAR 1

RULE II

JURISDICTION OF THE ADJUDICATION BOARD

SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate

Jurisdiction. The Board shall have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under
Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 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. Specifically, such jurisdiction
shall include but not be limited to cases involving the following:

a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether

natural or juridical, engaged in the management,
cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by
the CARP and other agrarian laws;

b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary

determination and payment of just compensation,
fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance
compensation, amortization payments, and similar
disputes concerning the functions of the Land Bank of
the Philippines (LBP);

c) The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts

or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands
under the administration and disposition of the DAR
or LBP;

d) Those case arising from, or connected with

membership or representation in compact farms,
farmers cooperatives and other registered farmers
associations or organizations, related to lands
covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
 e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage,
foreclosure, pre-emption and redemption of
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or
other agrarian laws;

f) Those involving the issuance, correction and

cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award
(CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are
registered with the Land Registration Authority;

g) Those cases previously falling under the original

and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of
Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential
No. 946, except sub-paragraph (Q) thereof and
Presidential Decree No. 815.

It is understood that the aforementioned cases,

complaints or petitions were filed with the DARAB
after August 29, 1987.

Matters involving strictly the administrative

implementation of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARP) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as
enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive
prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the
DAR.

h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes,

matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of
the DAR.

SECTION 2. Jurisdiction of the Regional and Provincial

Adjudicator. The RARAD and the PARAD shall have concurrent
original jurisdiction with the Board to hear, determine and
adjudicate all agrarian cases and disputes, and incidents in
connection therewith, arising within their assigned territorial
jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied.)
 Specifically, the PARAD and the DARAB have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as
amended by R.A. No. 9700, E.O. Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844
as amended by R.A. No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and
their Implementing Rules and Regulations.[11]

Thus, the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to
cases involving agrarian disputes, including incidents arising from the
implementation of agrarian laws. Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an
agrarian dispute in this wise:

(d) Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to

tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship
or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, 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 R.A.
6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from
landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant,
or lessor and lessee.

DAR 2

Under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657, all matters involving the

implementation of agrarian reform are within the DARs primary,
exclusive and original jurisdiction, and at the first instance, only
the DARABas the DARs quasi-judicial body, can determine and adjudicate
all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program under R.A. No. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. No.
3844 as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and
their implementing rules and regulations.[22]

Ultimately, the complaint in the petition at bar seeks for the RTC to
cancel Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) issued to the
beneficiaries and the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) issued pursuant
thereto. These are reliefs which the RTC cannot grant, since the complaint
essentially prays for the annulment of the coverage of the disputed property
within the CARP, which is but an incident involving the implementation of
the CARP. These are matters relating to terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership from landlord to agrarian reform beneficiaries over which
DARAB has primary and exclusive original jurisdiction, pursuant to Section
1(f), Rule II, DARAB New Rules of Procedure.

The ruling in Social Security System (SSS) v. Department of

Agrarian Reform[23] is apropos. In this case, the former landowner,
the SSS, made a similar attempt to circumvent the jurisdiction of the
DARAB by filing a complaint for recovery of possession with the RTC of
San Mateo, Rizal. When the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, the SSS came to this court for recourse. We ruled:
Irrefragably, the titles sought to be annulled by the SSS, namely, TCTs
No. 1259 No. 1260 and No. 1261 originated from the CLOAs issued by
the DAR in pursuance of, and in accordance with, the provisions of Rep.
Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

Specifically, the SSS in its Complaint implored the trial court "to restrain
the DAR from implementing Rep. Act No. 6657 and the defendants,
farmers-beneficiaries from occupying/tilling, cultivating/disposing the
properties."

Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides that:

Section 1. Primary And Exclusive Original and Appellate
Jurisdiction. The board shall have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation
 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229,
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.
Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited
to cases involving the following:
a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or
juridical engaged in the management, cultivation and use of
all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian
laws.
xxx xxx xxx

Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not limited to the
following:
xxx xxx xxx
f) Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer
(CLT), Certificate of landownership Award (CLOA) and
Emancipation Patent (EP) and the administrative correction
thereof;

Thus, taking its bearings from the above provision, Centeno v.

Centeno explicitly and compellingly validated the jurisdiction of the
DARAB over cases involving issuance of CLOAs, and went on further:
xxx under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), the DAR is vested with
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over
all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian
reform program. The rule is that the DARAB has jurisdiction
to try and decide any agrarian dispute or any incident
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program.

Section 1, Rule II of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DARAB

provides:
Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The
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 Orders 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.

In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario, this Court cited
Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that:
The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases
involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the
management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands
covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

Again in David v. Rivera, this Court pointed out that the jurisdiction over
agrarian reform matters is now expressly vested in the DAR through the
DARAB.
Indeed, Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 confers on the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) quasi-judicial powers
to adjudicate agrarian reform matters. In the process of
reorganizing the DAR, Executive Order No. 129-A created the
DARAB to assume the powers and functions with respect to
the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Section 1, Rule II of
the DARAB Rules of Procedure enumerates the cases falling
within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB.

In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of

Appeals, reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental and Heirs of the late
Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals, this Court decreed:
Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it
states that the program
"xxx shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produce, all public and private agricultural land as
provided in Proclamation No. 131 dated July 22, 1987,
including whenever applicable in accordance with law, other
lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture."
Section 17 thereof
1) vested the Department of Agrarian Reform with "quasi-
judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters," and
 2) granted it "jurisdiction over all matters involving
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the
Department of Agriculture (DA), as well as 'powers to punish
for contempt and to issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum
and writs to enforce its orders or decisions.'"

In Nuesa v. Court of Appeals the Court, in addition to re-echoing the

jurisdiction of the DARAB, puts emphasis on the extent of the coverage of
the term "agrarian dispute," thus:
As held by this Court in Centeno v. Centeno [343 SCRA 153],
"the DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the
exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of the agrarian reform program." The DARAB
has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction "to determine
and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies,
and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R.A. No.
6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as
amended by R.A. No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian
laws and their implementing rules and regulations."

Under Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 (CARP Law), "agrarian

dispute" is defined to include "(d) . . . any controversy relating
to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to agriculture,
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 conditions of transfer of ownership from
landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and
tenant, or lessor and lessee." (citations and underscoring
omitted)
NLRC

2012 Case

There is a view that despite Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as

amended by RA 7730, there is still a threshold amount set by
Arts. 129 and 217 of the Labor Code when money claims are
involved, i.e., that if it is for PhP 5,000 and below, the
jurisdiction is with the regional director of the DOLE, under
Art. 129, and if the amount involved exceeds PhP 5,000, the
jurisdiction is with the labor arbiter, under Art. 217. The view
states that despite the wording of Art. 128(b), this would only
apply in the course of regular inspections undertaken by the
DOLE, as differentiated from cases under Arts. 129 and 217,
which originate from complaints. There are several cases,
however, where the Court has ruled that Art. 128(b) has been
amended to expand the powers of the DOLE Secretary and
his duly authorized representatives by RA 7730. In these cases,
the Court resolved that the DOLE had the jurisdiction, despite
the amount of the money claims involved. Furthermore, in
these cases, the inspection held by the DOLE regional director
was prompted specifically by a complaint. Therefore, the
initiation of a case through a complaint does not divest the
DOLE Secretary or his duly authorized representative of
jurisdiction under Art. 128(b).

To recapitulate, if a complaint is brought before the DOLE to

give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Labor Code
or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE that
there is an existing employer-employee relationship, the DOLE
exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of the NLRC. If the DOLE
finds that there is no employer-employee relationship, the
jurisdiction is properly with the NLRC. If a complaint is filed with
the DOLE, and it is accompanied by a claim for reinstatement,
the jurisdiction is properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art.
217(3) of the Labor Code, which provides that the Labor Arbiter
has original and exclusive jurisdiction over those cases
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other
terms and conditions of employment, if accompanied by a
claim for reinstatement. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC,
and there is still an existing employer-employee
relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the DOLE. The
findings of the DOLE, however, may still be questioned through
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

2014 Case
The jurisdiction of the LA and the NLRC is outlined in Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6715, to wit:

ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission-- (a) Except as otherwise provided
under this Code the Labor Arbiter shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without
extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers,
whether agricultural or nonagricultural:

1. Unfair labor practice cases;

2. Termination disputes;

3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving
wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;

4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-
employee relations;

5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code including questions involving
the legality of strikes and lockouts; and

6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity
benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of
persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.