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

m
Preliminary Injunction directing Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease and

er as
desist from implementing the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from proceeding with the

co
determination of the value of the subject land.
eH w
The DAR thereafter filed before the CA a petition for certiorari assailing the writ of preliminary

o.
injunction issued by respondent Judge on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
rs e
lack of jurisdiction.
ou urc

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
o

had the power to issue writs and processes to enforce or protect the rights of the parties.
aC s
vi re

ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint filed by the private respondent is an agrarian reform and
y

within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not with the trial court.
ed d
ar stu

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,
is

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
Th

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
sh

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.

This study source was downloaded by 100000823168919 from CourseHero.com on 04-09-2021 04:34:13 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/52465111/Agra-digestsdocx/
 AYABAS FARMERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,VS CA

G.R. No. 142359 May 25, 2004

&

DAR VS CA

G.R. No. 142980 May 25, 2004

Facts: Sometime in 1964, Lakeview Development Corporation (LDC) bought a parcel of land)
located at Barrio Kabilang-Baybay, Carmona, Cavite, covered by two Transfer Certificate of
Titles. On September 20, 1977, the aforesaid titles were cancelled and in the name of the LDC’s
successor, the Credito Asiatic, Incorporated (CAI). The property was subsequently subdivided
into two parcels of land. Meanwhile, the LDC/CAI undertook to develop its 75-hectare property
into a residential and industrial estate, where industrial sites and a low cost housing project
inceptually called the Tamanli Housing Project would be established. The LDC applied with the
Municipal Council of Carmona for an ordinance approving the zoning and the subdivision of the

m
er as
property. The subdivision plan was referred by the council to the National Planning Commission.

co
The Commission approved the plan and the Municipal Council of Carmona approved
eH w
Kapasiyahang Bilang 30, granting the application and affirming the project.

o.
rs e
Subsequently, after a consolidated survey was approved by the Bureau of Lands, the lots
ou urc

were subdivided and the aforesaid titles were cancelled. The property was subdivided into 728
residential lots per the consolidation subdivision plan approved by the Bureau of Lands, each
with an average area of 240 square meters. Separate titles for each of the 728 lots were issued by
o

the Register of Deeds of Cavite to and in the name of the CAI. Meanwhile, the CAI secured a
aC s

locational clearance for the project from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission
vi re

(HSRC). Although the Municipal Council of Carmona had already approved the conversion of
the property into a residential area, nevertheless, the CAI filed an application under Republic Act
y

No. 3844 with the Office of the Minister of Agrarian Reform for the conversion of a portion of
ed d

the 75-hectare property consisting of 35.80 hectares located in Barrio Kabilang-Baybay,

ar stu

Carmona, Cavite, from agricultural to residential. The property was to be used for the Hakone
Housing Project. The Minister of Agrarian Reform eventually issued an Order granting the
petition and approved the conversion of the 35.80 hectare portion into a residential subdivision.
is

The grant was, however, subjected to the fulfilment of certain conditions. Failing to comply are
sufficient grounds for the cancellation of the permit-order and this Ministry by reason thereof
Th

may take any or all course of action mentioned.

Later on, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng passed a Resolution No. declaring the midland areas
sh

where the subject property is situated and parts of Imus, as industrial areas. Under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 76, , the resettlement areas under the administration of the NHA were separated
from the said municipality and constituted into a new and independent municipality known as
General Mariano Alvarez (GMA), Cavite. The Asiatic Development Corporation (ADC), a sister
company of CAI, started developing the property located in GMA into a residential housing
project, called the Sunshine Village Phase IV (originally Hakone) with an area of 20.05 hectares.
The CAI also secured clearances, licences (including license to sell) and permits for its Hakone
Housing Project

This study source was downloaded by 100000823168919 from CourseHero.com on 04-09-2021 04:34:13 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/52465111/Agra-digestsdocx/
 The project was however, stymied by a Complaint. The plaintiffs alleged, that while CAI was the
owner of the 75.36-hectare land, they were the actual tillers of the land. The defendant had
surreptitiously applied for the conversion of the 35.8-hectare portion of the aforesaid property
from agricultural to residential and the same was granted by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
According to the plaintiffs, they came to know of the conversion only in January 1987.
Notwithstanding the issuance of the order of conversion, Ramie Cabusbusan, the representative
of the CAI, allowed them to continue cultivating the aforementioned property. They were,
however, required to pay a rental of ₱400 a year per hectare. They paid the rental and continued
to occupy and till the aforesaid property pursuant to the agreement. On October 28, 1986 and
November 11, 1986, the plaintiffs, together with other tillers of the land, met Cabusbusan at the
Municipal Branch of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform and reached an agreement that the
plaintiffs would remain in the peaceful possession of their farmholdings. Notwithstanding such
agreement, the defendant ordered the bulldozing of the property, by reason of which the plaintiffs
suffered actual damages. Furthermore, the plaintiffs alleged that the bulldozing was done without
any permit from the concerned public authorities.

m
Issues: Whether or not the property subject of the suit is covered by RA 6657, the agrarian

er as
reform law.

co
eH w
Ruling: (1) Yes, the property subject of suit is covered by CARL.

o.
rs e
REASON: The contention of the accused that there must approval by the HLURB has no
ou urc

merit according to the Supreme Court. Long before the law took effect, the property subject of
the suit had already been reclassified and converted from agricultural to non agricultural or
residential land by the HSRC which approved and confirmed the reclassification and conversion
o

of the land made by Municipal Council of Carmona and Agrarian reform Minester Estrella. They
aC s

did so in pursuant to RA 3844, as amended, by PD No. 815 and PD No. 946. Thus, there is no
vi re

need for clearance for conversion and making it under the coverage of RA 6657.
y
ed d

(2) Whether the DARAB had original and appellate jurisdiction over the complaint of the
ar stu

petitioner PBFAI against private respondent

Ruling: (2) No, the DARAB has no original and exclusive jurisdiction over the complaint
is

of the petitioner.
Th

Reason: The jurisdiction of a tribunal or quasi judicial body over the subject matter is
determined by the averments of the complaint or petition and the law extant at the time of the
commencement of the complaintnor suit. All proceedings before a tribunal or quasi judicial
sh

bodyagency bereft of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action are null and void. In this
case, there is no allegation in the complaint of the petitioner that its member were tenants of
private respondent CAI. Neither did the petition adduce substantial.evidence that the private
respondent was the landlord of its member from 1961

(3) Whether the petitioner members of the PBFAI have cause of action against private
respondents..

RULING: NO, because they were not tenants of the private respondent CAI.

(4) Whether the dismissal by the RTC of the complaint ia a bar to the complaint of the
petitioner-members of the PBFAI.

This study source was downloaded by 100000823168919 from CourseHero.com on 04-09-2021 04:34:13 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/52465111/Agra-digestsdocx/
 Ruling: Yes. In executing the deeds, the member of the petitioner waivrd their respected
claims over the property. Hence, they have no right whatsoever to still remain in possession of
the same.

m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi re
y
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000823168919 from CourseHero.com on 04-09-2021 04:34:13 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/52465111/Agra-digestsdocx/
 G.R. No. 159089 May 3, 2006

ISLANDERS CARP-FARMERS BENEFICIARIES MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC.,

Petitioner, vs. LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

March 8, 1993

-Ramon Cajegas entered into a Joint Production Agreement for Islanders Carp-Farmer
Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.

-With Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation

April 2, 1996

-petitioner represented by Manuel Asta, filed a complaint [with the RTC] for Declaration of
Nullity, Mandamus, Damages, with prayer for Preliminary Injunction against [respondent]

m
er as
-Subsequently the petitioner filed an amended complaint with leave of court alleging that the
persons, who executed the contract were not authorized by it.

co
eH w
o.
rs e
On april 18, 1996
ou urc

-respondent filed a motion to dismiss

o

stating that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (hereinafter DARAB) has
aC s

primary, exclusive, and original jurisdiction;

vi re
y

On August 21, 1996

ed d

-respondent then filed a case at the DARAB for Breach of Contract, Specific Performance,
ar stu

Injunction with Restraining Order, Damages and Attorney’s Fees.

is

February 25, 1997

Th

- DARAB decided the case in favor of [respondent] declaring the Joint Production Agreement as
valid and binding and ordering [petitioner] to account for the proceeds of the produce and to
sh

comply with the terms of the contract.

Petitioner filed an appeal with the CA that the RTC gravely erred in dismissing the case at bar on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction and not declaring the Joint Production Agreement as null and
void.

Finding the relationship between the parties to be an agricultural leasehold, the CA held that the
issue fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Hence, the appellate court ruled that
the RTC had correctly dismissed the Complaint filed by petitioner. Being in the nature of an
agricultural leasehold and not a shared tenancy, the Joint Production Agreement entered into by

This study source was downloaded by 100000823168919 from CourseHero.com on 04-09-2021 04:34:13 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/52465111/Agra-digestsdocx/
 the parties was deemed valid by the CA. The agreement could not be considered contrary to
public policy, simply because one of the parties was a corporation.

Issue: Which of the various government agencies has jurisdiction over the controversy?

Ruling: The Petition has no merit. Section 50 of Republic Act 6657 and Section 17 of
Executive Order 229 vests in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) the primary and
exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform. Through Executive Order 129-A, the President
of the Philippines created the DARAB and authorized it to assume the powers and functions of
the DAR pertaining to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases.

In question are the rights and obligations of two juridical persons engaged in the management,
cultivation and use of agricultural land acquired through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) of the government. Petitioner contends that, there being no tenancy or

m
leasehold relationship between the parties, this case does not constitute an agrarian dispute that

er as
falls within the DARAB’s jurisdiction.

co
eH w
To prove tenancy or an agricultural leasehold agreement, it is normally necessary to establish the

o.
following elements: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the
rs e
subject matter of the relationship is a piece of agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the
ou urc

parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6)
the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. In the present
o

case, the fifth element of personal cultivation is clearly absent. Petitioner is thus correct in
aC s

claiming that the relationship between the parties is not one of tenancy or agricultural leasehold.
vi re

Nevertheless, we believe that the present controversy still falls within the sphere of agrarian
disputes.
y
ed d

The subject matter of the present controversy falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the
ar stu

DARAB. As the RTC had correctly dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it
was superfluous for the trial court -- and the CA for that matter -- to have ruled further on the
issue of the validity of the agreement. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts
is

from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an
administrative body of special competence.
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000823168919 from CourseHero.com on 04-09-2021 04:34:13 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/52465111/Agra-digestsdocx/
 m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi re
y
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000823168919 from CourseHero.com on 04-09-2021 04:34:13 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/52465111/Agra-digestsdocx/
 m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi re
y
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000823168919 from CourseHero.com on 04-09-2021 04:34:13 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/52465111/Agra-digestsdocx/
 m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi re
y
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000823168919 from CourseHero.com on 04-09-2021 04:34:13 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/52465111/Agra-digestsdocx/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)