MEMORANDUM

FOR : ECM
RE :
1. RTC HAS JURISDICTION TO OVER PETITIONS
FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW OWNER’S DUPLICATE
COPY OF TITLE WHOSE TITLE EMANATED FROM
CLOA: DAVID PATUNGAN vs. THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN ; GR
NO. 235520 (28 JUNE 2021)

2. PETITION FOR REVOCATION OF CONVERSION ORDER

SHOULD BE TIMELY FILED AND LAND DECLARED AS NON-
AGRICULTURAL PRIOR TO EFFECTIVITY OF CARP LAW
CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO CAT
AGRARIAN REFORM:
REALTY CORPORATION VS DEPT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, CENTER FOR AGRARIAN REFORM
EMPOWERMENT & TRANSFORMATION, INC.
ALTERNATIVE COMMUNITY-CENTERED
ORGANIZATION FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(ACCORD) BENJAMIN DE VERA JR AND TENORIO
GARCIA, GR NO. 208399, (23 JUNE 2021)

DATE : 10 JANUARY 2023

PREPARED BY : JRT

CASE DIGEST

I. GR NO. 235520- DAVID PATUNGAN vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS

OF THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN

FACTS:

Petitioner David Patungan filed a Petition for Issuance of New Owner’s

Duplicate Copy of Title of his original certificate of title (OCT) arising from a
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) in lieu of the lost one. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction, ruling
that it is the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) that
has jurisdiction over cases which involve the correction, partition, secondary and
subsequent issuances such as reissuance of lost/destroyed owner’s duplicate
copy and reconstitution of CLOA and Emancipation Patents (EP) which are
registered with the Land Registration Authority. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration (MR) but was denied. Petitioner elevated the issue to the
Supreme Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Certiorari).

ISSUE:

1
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over petitions for issuance of an owner’s
duplicate copy of an OCT which was issued pursuant to a CLOA.

RULING:

YES. Petition is granted. The RTC erred in dismissing the Petition and denying
the MR. The case is remanded to the RTC to resolve the petition.

Sec. 2 of PD 1529 vests the RTC with the exclusive jurisdiction in land
registration cases. Section 2 specifically provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of
the RTC not only over all applications for original registration of title to lands,
including improvements and interests therein but also over all petitions filed after
original registration of title with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon
such applications or petitions. Notably, Section 2 does not make any qualification as
to the source of the title, e.g., whether it emanated from a CLOA, in order for the
RTC to exercise its jurisdiction.

On the other hand, Section 1(f), Rule II 1 of the 2009 DARAB Rules provides that
the DARAB has jurisdiction over the reissuance of a lost or destroyed owner's
duplicate copy of CLOAs and EPs which are registered with the LRA.

Thus, there appears to be an overlapping of jurisdiction between the RTC and the
DARAB as to the petition or issuance filed by petitioner. However, guided by
jurisprudence as to the limits of the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the DARAB, the
Court finds that the jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of a lost/destroyed
owner's duplicate copy of a title which emanated from a CLOA rests with the
RTC and not the DARAB.

It must be emphasized that the DARAB has jurisdiction to try and decide any
agrarian dispute or any incident involving the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The DARAB also has jurisdiction over agrarian
reform matters referred to it by the Secretary of DAR.

In granting the Petition, the Court finds that the petition for issuance does not
involve an agrarian dispute as it does not relate to "any controversy relating to
tenurial arrangements." It does not relate to the compensation of the land
acquired by petitioner under RA 6657 or the terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership. Petitioner is simply praying for the issuance of a new duplicate
owner's copy of his OCT which emanated from a CLOA.

To be clear, the jurisdiction of the RTC over all petitions for the issuance of a new
duplicate certificate of title is exclusive. The fact that the title emanated from a
CLOA will not negate the RTC's jurisdiction in favor of the DARAB simply
because the matter of issuance of a new duplicate certificate of title in lieu of a
lost or destroyed copy does not constitute an agrarian dispute or an agrarian
reform matter. It does not involve an implementation of the CARP.

1
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 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, 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:
f. Those involving the correction, partition, secondary and subsequent issuances such as reissuance of lost/destroyed owner's
duplicate copy and reconstitution of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs)
which are registered with the Land Registration Authority; (Emphasis supplied.)

2
II. CAT REALTY CORPORATION VS DEPT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
CENTER FOR AGRARIAN REFORM EMPOWERMENT &
TRANSFORMATION, INC. ALTERNATIVE COMMUNITY-CENTERED
ORGANIZATION FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT (ACCORD) BENJAMIN DE
VERA JR AND TENORIO GARCIA, GR NO. 208399, (23 JUNE 2021)

FACTS:
Central Azucarera de Tarlac, the predecessor in interest of petitioner CAT Realty
Corporation (“CAT Realty”), filed a petition for conversion of 23 parcels of
agricultural land with an area of 386.7992 hectares located in Bayambang,
Pangasinan (subject property). Then DAR Secretary Estrella (“Sec. Estrella”)
issued the Order dated 04 September 1975 (“Conversion Order”) granting the
conversion and declaring the subject property as suitable for residential,
commercial, industrial and other urban purposes.

On 15 December 2004, Respondents filed a petition for revocation of the

conversion order on the ground that CAR Realty and its predecessor in interest
failed to develop the subject property and remains agricultural in use.

Then DAR Sec. Pangandamanan issued an Order dated 02 August 2006 partially
revoking the Conversion order and directed the municipal agrarian reform
officer to proceed with the acquisition of the portions of the subject property that
were still agriculturally viable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. CAT Realty moved for reconsideration of the partial revocation order
which was granted. DAR Secretary reinstated the Conversion Order on the
ground that CAT Realty was able to comply with the condition to pay
disturbance compensation by giving the tenants a subdivision. It also found that
there was no specific period for CAR Realty to develop the subject property.

Private respondents moved to reconsider which was again granted and

reinstated the partial revocation of the Conversion Order. DAR Secretary
reiterated that CAT Realty did not substantially carry out its purpose to convert
the land to commercial, industrial and residential uses.

CAT Realty sought reconsideration but was denied. DAR Secretary ruled that
majority of the subject property was still agricultural and no substantial
improvement was introduced by the petitioner. Thereafter it filed a petition for
review before the Court of Appeals (‘CA”) under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

The CA denied CAT Realty’s petition and adopted DAR’s factual findings that
there was no substantial development on the subject property and that the same
was still used for agricultural purposes. Thus, there was no compliance with the
conversion order. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied.
Hence, the instant Petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the DAR’s partial revocation of the
conversion order, effectively allowing DAR to put the undeveloped areas of the
subject property under the coverage of agrarian reform.

RULING:

3
Yes. The Petition is granted. The Resolution of the CA is reversed and set aside.
The Order dated 04 September 1975 of the Sec of DAR is reinstated.

The Order dated 04 Sept.

1975 declaring the subject
property as suitable for
non-agricultural purposes
has long attained finality

Under Sec. 46 of Art. VIII of the 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use
Conversion, a petition for revocation must be filed within ninety (90) days from
discovery of the facts which warrant the revocation or withdrawal, but not more
than one (1) year from issuance of the conversion order. In Berboso v CA, the
Supreme Court (“SC”) held that once final and executory, an order for land
conversion can no longer be questioned. In Berboso, the conversion order was
sustained considering that it was only after 17 years from the issuance of the
conversion order that the parties decided to assail it.

In this case, private respondents are barred by estoppel from seeking the
revocation of the final conversion order since it was almost 30 years when they
assailed the order.

CAT Realty complied with

the conditions under the
Conversion Order

There was no valid cause for revocation as Petitioners sufficiently complied with
the conditions stated therein, such as, payment of the disturbance compensation
to the tenants and it was also observed that partial development was made on
one third of the subject property. Moreover, the conversion order as well as the
prevailing law at the time of issuance, did not set a period within which the
owner should completely develop the subject property.

The subject property

cannot be subject to
agrarian reform after
being declared that it is
suitable for non-
agricultural use prior to
the effectivity of RA 6657
on 15 June 1988

For lands converted prior to 15 June 1988 or the date when CARL took effect,
DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the
undeveloped portions of the subject property within the coverage of the CARL.
The subject property is beyond the coverage of the CARL having been converted
before the effectivity of RA 6657.