HEIRS OF MELCHOR AGCAOILI DARAB CASE NO.

19737-
NAMELY: MARIA AGCAOILI, 19737A
MELMAR AGCAOILI, MARIMEL Reg. Case No. 0202-1645-
AGCAOILI,
1646-2018
Petitioners-Appellees

-versus-

MARCIAL DALIPE AND

CHARITO DALIPE,
Defendants-Appellants
x------------------------x

DECISION
This is an Appeal1 from the Decision2 dated December 17 2018
rendered by Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Cagayan,
Ralph D. Pua, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

“WHEREFORE JUDGMENT is rendered if favor of the

plaintiffs against defendants, and ordering them to VACATE
AND SURRENDER the peaceful possession of Lot 410-C,
Pls-73 embraced by collective Certificate of Land Ownership
Award (CLOA) No. 00514807 under Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-10772 consisting of 53, 339 square meter
issued to Melchor Agcaoili and Marmiel Agcaoili.

Claims and counterclaims are likewise ordered DISMISSED

No pronouncement as to csosts.

SO ORDERED.”

Marcial Dalipe and Charito Dalipe herein referred to as defendants

are tenants of Gregorio Agcaoili. Heirs of Melchor Agcaoili herein referred
to as petitioners are the children of Melchor Agcaoili.

1
Pp. 70-78, Rollo.
2
Pp. 59-62, Rollo.
 DECISION DCN 19737-19737A
Page 2 of 5
Melchor Agcaoili and Marimel Agacaoili are agrarian reform
beneficiaries. They were awarded a parcel of land, LOT 410-C covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10772, through the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.

The land involves a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-107723

located at Cagayan with a total land area of 53,339 square meters
registered in the name of Melchor Agcaoili and Marimel Agcaoili.

On June 23, 2000, Melchor Agcaoili died and is survived by his

surviving spouse Maria Agcaoili and their two children Melmar and Marimel
Agcaoili.

On July 31 2000, Petitioners mortgaged their property in order to

obtain a PHP 240,000 loan from defendants because they were in need of
money for the renovation of their ancestral house. In lieu of the loan
agreement, the parties agreed on the following: 1. Petitioners will repay the
loan amount in an installment basis; 2. During the subsistence of the loan
agreement, petitioners would allow defendants to cultivate on the property.

On May 28 2016, Petitioners fully paid4 defendants their loan of PHP

240,000. Petitioner then asked the defendants to return possession of the
mortgaged property. Months passed without any feedback from
defendants, petitioner then verbally demanded defendants to return
possession of the mortgaged property however defendants refused to do
so despite repeated verbal demands.

On July 7 2017, The parties went to the barangay for a mediation

proceeding5 however both parties failed to reached an amicable settlement.

On March 12 2018, Petitioners filed their complaint 6 against

defendants. They claim defendants are unlawfully withholding from them
the possession of their mortgaged property despite the former’s full
payment of their loan.

3
Pp. 23, Rollo.
4
Pp. 17-18, Rollo.
5
Pp. 20, Rollo.
6
Pp. 1-23, Rollo.
 DECISION DCN 19737-19737A
Page 3 of 5

On April 18 2018, Defendants filed their answer7 claiming petitioners’

title was a sham because they did not possess the necessary qualifications
to be awarded lands as a farmer beneficiary.

On December 17 2018, DARAB Cagayan rendered a decision8 in

favor of petitioners ruling that petitioners being the registered owners on
the property they certainly had the right possess their property.

The issue in this case is whether DARAB has jurisdiction.

The BOARD rules it has no jurisdiction in the case because it does

not involve an agrarian dispute.

2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure9 states it has jurisdiction in all

cases involving an agrarian dispute.

“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.10”

R.A. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute as follows:

“(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.11

It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired

under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership
7
Pp. 27-32, Rollo.
8
Pp. 59-62, Rollo.
9
2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure, Rule II, Section I
10
Id.
11
R.A. 6657, Sec. 3
 DECISION DCN 19737-19737A
Page 4 of 5
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.12”

Jurisprudence dictates that in order for the DARAB to acquire

jurisdiction over a case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the
parties.13

The 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure requires the case must involve
agrarian dispute before DARAB has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
case. The issue here is that even after the mortgagor’s full payment of the
loaned amount, the mortgagee still refuses to give back the mortgaged
property to the mortgagor. In this case, the parties stand not as agricultural
lessor and agricultural lessee but as mortgagor and mortgagee. There
being no agrarian dispute therefore DARAB has no jurisdiction over the
case.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated December

17 2018 is SET ASIDE for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORERED.
Diliman, Quezon City.

JOHN R. CASTRICIONES
Chairman

ANNABELLE O. MADAYAG-OANDASAN JIM G. COLETO

Member Member

12
Id.
13
Morta Sr. v. Occidental, 308 SCRA 167; Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. De Jesus, 474 SCRA 628; Arzaga v. Copias, 400
SCRA 148
 DECISION DCN 19737-19737A
Page 5 of 5
MARIA CELESTINA M. TAM ROLANDO S. CUA
Member Member

LUIS MEINRADO C. PAÑGULAYAN EMILY O. PADILLA

Member Member