4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

DEPARTMENTOFAGRARIANG.R.No.163285
REFORM,rep.byREGIONAL
DIRECTORNASERM.MUSALI,
Petitioner,

Present:

PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
versusSANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA,and
LEONARDODECASTRO,JJ.

HON.HAKIMS.ABDULWAHID,
PresidingJudge,RegionalTrial
Court,Br.XIIofZamboangaCity,Promulgated:
andYUPANGCOCOTTON
MILLS,INC.,
Respondents.February27,2008
xx

DECISION

PUNO,C.J.:

TheDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard(DARAB)isvestedwith
primary and exclusive jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

1/11

4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

includingallmattersinvolvingtheimplementationoftheagrarianreformprogram.Thus,
when a case is merely an incident involving the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), then jurisdiction remains with the DARAB, and not
withtheregularcourts.
ThisisapetitionforreviewbycertiorariunderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCourt
ofaDecisiondatedNovember21,2003,andtheResolutiondatedApril21,2004,bothof
the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.G.R. SP No. 69699, entitled Department of
AgrarianReform(DAR)vs.Hon.HakimS.Abdulwahid,asRTCJudge&Yupangco
Cotton Mills, Inc., on pure question of law. Particularly, the issue concerns the
jurisdictionofthetrialcourtbelowoverthecomplaintinCivilCaseNo.5113visvisthe
original,primaryandexclusivejurisdictionoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR)
andtheDARABoveragrariandisputesand/oragrarianreformimplementationasprovided
forunderSection50ofRepublicAct(R.A.)No.6657.
OnDecember28,2000,YupangcoCottonMills,Inc.(Yupangco)filedacomplaint
forRecoveryofOwnershipandPossession,ViolationsofR.A.Nos.6657and3844[,]
asamended,CancellationofTitle,Reconveyanceand[D]amageswithPrayerforthe
Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order against Buenavista Yupangco Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc.
(BYARBAI),theDARandtheLandBankofthePhilippines.Thecasewasdocketedas
Civil Case No. 5113 and raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12 of
[1]
ZamboangaCity.
OnJanuary26,2001,theDARfiledaMotiontoDismissonthefollowinggrounds:
(a) Yupangcos causes of action were not within the jurisdiction of the RTC, (b) forum
[2]
shopping,and(c)litispendentia.

On November 6, 2001, the RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss, ruling that
YupangcosactionwaswithinthejurisdictionoftheRTCpursuanttoSection19,Chapter
II of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

[3]

DAR and BYARBAI filed a motion for

2/11

4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

[4]
[5]
whichwasdeniedforlackofmerit.

reconsideration,

OnMarch20,2002,DARfiledaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65of
the1997RulesofCourtwiththeCA,allegingthatthetrialcourtactedwithgraveabuseof
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when DARs motion to dismiss was denied.
[6]

The appellate court sustained the RTC, finding that the action falls within the
jurisdictionoftheregularcourtsandnottheDARABbecauseYupangcoprimarilysought
therecoveryandpossessionofthesubjectparcelofland.
Hencethepetitionatbar.Initsloneassignmentoferror,petitionersubmitsthatthe
CA erred when it upheld the jurisdiction of the [RTC] purely on the ground that
[Yupangco]primarilyseekstherecoveryofownershipandpossessionofsubjectparcelof
[7]
land,jurisdictionoverwhichislodgedwithregionaltrialcourts,nottheDARAB.
Wegrantthepetition.
It is the rule that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasijudicial office or
government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is
determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for,
irrespectiveofwhetherthepetitionerorcomplainantisentitledtoanyorallofsuchreliefs.
[8]
It is also settled that jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the
statusorrelationshipofthepartiesbutalsothenatureoftheissuesorquestionsthatisthe
[9]
subjectofthecontroversy. Thus,iftheissuesbetweenthepartiesareintertwinedwith
the resolution of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB, such dispute
mustbeaddressedandresolvedbytheDARAB.

[10]

Inthecaseatbar,thecomplaintfiledbyYupangcoseemsatfirstblushtobewithin
thejurisdictionoftheRTC,asithasbeendenominatedasRecoveryofOwnershipand
Possession, Violations of R.A. Nos. 6657 and 3844[,] as amended, Cancellation of
Title, Reconveyance and [D]amages with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

3/11

4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

[11]
Mandatory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order.
But as correctly
pointed out by the DAR, the allegations of the complaint actually impugn the CARP
coverage of the landholding involved and its redistribution to farmer beneficiaries, and
seek to effect a reversion thereof to the original owner, Yupangco.

[12]
Thus, the

complaintfiledbyYupangcoalleged,interalia,thefollowing:
[13]
(a) [Yupangco]wastheregisteredownerofcertainparcelsofland
primarily
devoted to coconut plantation, under the administration and supervision of
plaintiff corporation with several employees and other persons hired as laborers
[14]

(b) Sometime in 1993, the DAR placed the subject parcels of land under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government pursuant to the
provisionsofRepublicActNo.6657,andfour(4)TransferCertificateTitlesover
[15]
thesubjectlandweresubsequentlyissuedinfavorofBYARBAI

(c)[Yupangco]vehementlyobjectedtothecoverageofthesubjectparcelsoflandby
the DAR and the valuation made by LBP, by filing protest and objection with
[16]
DARandLBP

(d) DAR,throughtheDARRegionalDirector,ZamboangaCity,issuedthefour
questioned Transfer Certificates of Title (or Certificates of Land Ownership
AwardsCLOAs)toBYARBAIpursuanttoR.A.No.6657,withoutLBPpaying
[Yupangco]thejustcompensationofthesubjectparcelsoflandwhichvaluation
[17]
wasthenbeingcontestedbeforetheDARAdjudicationBoard

(e)MajorityofthemembersofBYARBAIarenotemployeesnorhiredworkersof
[Yupangco], hence, [Yupangco] alleged that they should not have been given
[18]
preferencenorbeentitledasallocateesinthesubjectparcelsofland

(f)SoonaftertheCLOAswereissuedtoBYARBAI,thelattertookpossessionofthe
[19]
subjectparcelsoflandtotheprejudiceanddamageof[Yupangco]

(g) BYARBAIs real motive in having the land distributed to them (pending
resolution of all protests with the DAR and the contested valuation made by the
LBP) was to convert the land into rice production resulting in the destruction of
coffee plantations and other crops, including the cutting of several hundreds of
coconuttrees.ThisconversionwasillegalandingrossviolationofRepublicAct
No. 6657 and Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, and other existing laws and
[20]
AdministrativeIssuances.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

4/11

4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

Yupangco also alleged in its complaint that other acts were committed with the
purpose of land speculation, for business or industrial purpose, for immediate sale
thereof for business profits and not for planting, care and tending of the coconut
plantation, which would defeat the purposes and policies of the Agrarian Reform
Laws and [breached] the conditions of the questioned award of the land, rendering
theacquisitionbyordistributionto[BYARBAI]asthetenanttillersofthelandnull
and void, and thus reverting back the ownership and possession thereof to
[21]
[Yupangco].
These allegations clearly show that Yupangco sought the recovery of the subject
propertybydisputingitsinclusionintheCARP,andimputingerrorsintheenforcementof
thelawpertainingtotheagrarianreform.Theprimalissuesraisedinthecomplaint,viz.:
protestagainsttheCARPcoverage,allegedbreachofconditionsoftheDARawardunder
the CARP by the farmer beneficiaries resulting to forfeiture of their right as such
nonpaymentofrentalsbythefarmerstothepetitionerunderR.A.No.3844(Agricultural
Land Reform Code), gravitate on the alleged manner the implementation of the CARP
underR.A.No.6657wascarriedout.
UnderSection50ofR.A.No.6657,allmattersinvolvingtheimplementationof
agrarianreformarewithintheDARsprimary,exclusiveandoriginaljurisdiction,and
atthefirstinstance,onlytheDARABastheDARsquasijudicialbody,candetermine
and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents
involvingtheimplementationoftheComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgramunderR.A.
No.6657,E.O.Nos.229,228and129A,R.A.No.3844asamendedbyR.A.6389,P.D.
No.27andotheragrarianlawsandtheirimplementingrulesandregulations.

[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
TransferCertificatesofTitle(TCTs)issuedpursuantthereto.Thesearereliefswhichthe
RTCcannotgrant,sincethecomplaintessentiallypraysfortheannulmentofthecoverage
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
transferofownershipfromlandlordtoagrarianreformbeneficiariesoverwhichDARAB
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

5/11

4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

hasprimaryandexclusiveoriginaljurisdiction,pursuanttoSection1(f),RuleII,DARAB
NewRulesofProcedure.
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

attempttocircumventthejurisdictionoftheDARABbyfilingacomplaintforrecoveryof
possessionwiththeRTCofSanMateo,Rizal.WhentheRTCdismissedthecomplaintfor
lackofjurisdiction,theSSScametothiscourtforrecourse.Weruled:
Irrefragably, the titles sought to be annulled by the SSS, namely, TCTs No. 1259 No.
1260andNo.1261originatedfromtheCLOAsissuedbytheDARinpursuanceof,andin
accordance with, the provisions of Rep. Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian
ReformProgram.
Specifically,theSSSinitsComplaintimploredthetrialcourt"torestraintheDARfrom
implementing Rep. Act No. 6657 and the defendants, farmersbeneficiaries from
occupying/tilling,cultivating/disposingtheproperties."

Section1,RuleII,2002DARABRulesofProcedureprovidesthat:
Section1.PrimaryAndExclusiveOriginalandAppellateJurisdiction.
Theboardshallhaveprimaryandexclusivejurisdiction,bothoriginaland
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 129A,
RepublicActNo.3844asamendedbyRepublicActNo.6389,Presidential
Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations.Specifically,suchjurisdictionshallincludebutnotbelimitedto
casesinvolvingthefollowing:
a)Therightsandobligationsofpersons,whethernaturalorjuridical
engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands
coveredbytheCARPandotheragrarianlaws.
xxxxxxxxx

Specifically,suchjurisdictionshallextendoverbutnotlimitedtothefollowing:
xxxxxxxxx
f)CasesinvolvingtheissuanceofCertificateofLandTransfer(CLT),
CertificateoflandownershipAward(CLOA)andEmancipationPatent(EP)
andtheadministrativecorrectionthereof

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,andwentonfurther:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

6/11

4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

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
agrarianreformprogram.TheruleisthattheDARABhasjurisdictiontotry
and decide any agrarian dispute or any incident involving the
implementationoftheComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgram.

Section1,RuleIIoftheRevisedRulesofProcedureoftheDARABprovides:
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,andmattersorincidentsinvolvingtheimplementation
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No.
6657,ExecutiveOrdersNos.229,228and129A,RepublicActNo.3844as
amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other
agrarianlawsandtheirimplementingrulesandregulations.

IntherelativelyrecentcaseofRiverav.DelRosario,thisCourtcitedSection1,RuleII,
2002DARABRulesofProcedureandreiteratedthat:
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
ReformLaw.

AgaininDavidv.Rivera,thisCourtpointedoutthatthejurisdictionoveragrarianreform
mattersisnowexpresslyvestedintheDARthroughtheDARAB.
Indeed,Section50ofR.A.No.6657confersontheDepartmentofAgrarian
Reform (DAR) quasijudicial powers to adjudicate agrarian reform matters.
IntheprocessofreorganizingtheDAR,ExecutiveOrderNo.129Acreated
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
exclusivejurisdictionoftheDARAB.

InanearlierrulingrenderedinthecaseofVda.deTangubv.CourtofAppeals,reiterated
inMorta,Sr.v.OccidentalandHeirsofthelateHermanReySantosv.CourtofAppeals,
thisCourtdecreed:
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,allpublicandprivateagriculturallandasprovidedinProclamation
No. 131 dated July22,1987,includingwhenever applicable inaccordance
withlaw,otherlandsofthepublicdomainsuitabletoagriculture."
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

7/11

4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

Section17thereof
1) vested the Department of Agrarian Reform with "quasijudicial
powerstodetermineandadjudicateagrarianreformmatters,"and
2)grantedit"jurisdictionoverallmattersinvolvingimplementationof
agrarianreform,exceptthosefallingundertheexclusiveoriginaljurisdiction
oftheDENRandtheDepartmentofAgriculture(DA),aswellas'powersto
punishforcontemptandtoissuesubpoena,subpoenaducestecumandwrits
toenforceitsordersordecisions.'"

InNuesav.CourtofAppeals the Court, in addition to reechoing the jurisdiction of the

DARAB,putsemphasisontheextentofthecoverageoftheterm"agrariandispute,"thus:
AsheldbythisCourtinCentenov.Centeno[343SCRA153],"theDARis
vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters
involvingtheimplementationoftheagrarianreformprogram."TheDARAB
hasprimary,originalandappellatejurisdiction"todetermineandadjudicate
allagrariandisputes,cases,controversies,andmattersorincidentsinvolving
theimplementationoftheComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgramunder
R.A.No.6657,E.O.Nos.229,228and129A,R.A.No.3844asamended
by R.A. No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their
implementingrulesandregulations."

Under Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 (CARP Law), "agrarian dispute" is
definedtoinclude"(d)...anycontroversyrelatingtotenurialarrangements,
whetherleasehold,tenancy,stewardshiporotherwiseoverlandsdevotedto
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
landownerstofarmworkers,tenantsandotheragrarianreformbeneficiaries,
whetherthedisputantsstandintheproximaterelationoffarmoperatorand
beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee." (citations and
[24]
underscoringomitted)

INVIEWWHEREOF,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheassailedDecisionofthe
CourtofAppeals,datedNovember21,2003,andtheResolutiondatedApril21,2004,in
C.A.G.R. SP No. 69699, entitled Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) vs. Hon.
Hakim S. Abdulwahid, as RTC Judge & Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc., are
REVERSED. Civil Case No. 5113, entitled Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Buenavista
Yupangco Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc. (BYARBAI), et al. is
DISMISSED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

8/11

4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

SOORDERED.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

WECONCUR:

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice

RENATOC.CORONAADOLFOS.
AZCUNA
AssociateJusticeAssociate
Justice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusions
intheabovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

9/11

4/7/2015

G.R.No.163285

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

RespondentsComplaint,CArollo,pp.1126.
PetitionersMotiontoDismiss,id.at2732.
RTCOrder,id.at3334.Parenthetically,theRTCmistakenlyreferredtothecomplaintasacauseof
action.Thetwoarenotthesame.
DatedNovember19,2001,id.at3539.
DatedFebruary8,2002,id.at4041.
DARsPetitionwiththeCA,id.at110.
Rollo,p.13.
HeirsofJuliandelaCruzv.HeirsofAlbertoCruz,G.R.No.162890,Nov.22,2005,475SCRA743.

[9]

Id.citingVesagasv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.142924,5December2001,371SCRA508.SeeViray
v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.92481,November9,1990,191SCRA308.
[10]
Monsantov.Zerna,G.R.No.142501,7December2001,371SCRA664.
[11]
Supranote1.
[12]
Rollo,p.15.
[13]
Par.3,RespondentsComplaint,CArollo,p.12.
[14]
Par.4,id.
[15]
Par.5,id.
[16]
Par.6,id.
[17]
Par.7,id.
[18]
Par.8,id.
[19]
Par.8,id.
[20]
Par.9&15,id.
[21]
Par.11&15,id.
[22]
Centenov.Centeno,G.R.No.140825,Oct.13,2000,343SCRA153.
[23]
G.R.No.139254,March18,2005,453SCRA659.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

10/11

4/7/2015

[24]

G.R.No.163285

Id.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/163285.htm

11/11