FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119357.
July 5, 2000]
LAGUNA ESTATES DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, JUAN B. AMANTE, FRANCISCO L. ANDAL, LUCIA
ANDAL, ANDREA P. AYENDE, ROGELIO AYENDE, LETICIA F. B. BALAT, FELOMINA B.
BATINO, ANICETO A. BURGOS, JAIME A. BURGOS, FLORENCIA CANUBAS, LORESTO A. CANUBAS,
MAXIMO A. CANUBAS, REYNALDO CARINGAL, QUIRINO C. CASALME, BENIGNO A. CRUZAT,
ELINO A. CRUZAT, GREGORIO F. CRUZAT, EUFINO C. CRUZAT, SERGIO CRUZAT, SEVERINO
F. CRUZAT, VICTORIA DE SAGUN, SEVERINO DE SAGUN, ANTONIO B. FERNANDEZ,
FELICISIMO A. GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. GONZALES, GREGORIO A. GONZALES, LEODEGARIO
N. GONZALES, PASCUAL P. GONZALES, ROLANDO A. GONZALES, ZACARIAS R. HERRERA,
FRANCISCO A. JUANGCO, GERVACIO A. JUANGCO, REYNARIO U. LAZO, LOURDES U. LUNA,
ANSELMO M. MANDANAS, CRISANTO MANDANAS, EMILIO M. MANDANAS, GREGORIO M.
MANDANAS, MARIO G. MANDANAS, TEODORO MANDANAS, CONSTANCIO B. MARQUEZ, EUGENIO
B. MARQUEZ, AGAPITO MATIENZO, ARMANDO P. AMTIENZO, DANIEL D. MATIENZO, MAXIMO
MATIENZO, PACENCIA P. MATIENZO, DOROTEA L. PANGANIBAN, JUANTIO T. PEREZ, MARIANITO
T. PEREZ, SEVERO M. PEREZ, INOCENCIA S. PESQUIZA, BIENVENIDO F. PETATE,
DOPMOSOP F. PETATE, IGNACIO F. PETATE, JUANITO PETATE, PABLO A. PLATON,
PRECILLO V. PLATON, LITO G. REYES, AQUILINO B. SUBOL, CLESTINO G. TOPINO,
BONIFACIO G. VILLA, CASIANO T. VILLA, DOMINGO VILLA, JUAN T. VILLA, MARIO C.
VILLA, NATIVIDAD B. VILLA, JACINTA S. ALVARADO, ROSA C. AMANTE, RODOLFO
ANGELES, ROGELIO AYENDE, DOMINGO A. CANUBAS, EDGARDO L. CASALME, SOTERA
CASALME, QUIRINO DE LEON, LEONILO M. ENRIQUEZ, CLAUDIA P. GONZALES, ROLANDO A.
GONZALES, FRANCISCO JUANGCO, FELISA R. LANGUE, QUINTILLANO LANGUE, REYNALDO
LANGUA, ROMEO S. LANGUE, EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, MARIANITO T. PEREZ, INOCENCIA
S. PESQUIZA, PABLO A. PLATON, LITO G.
REYES, REMIGIO M. SILVERIO, JOHN DOES AND MARY DOES, respondents.
[G.R. No. 119375.
July 5, 2000]
CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE, petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD,
JUAN B. AMANTE, FRANCISCO L. ANDAL, LUCIA ANDAL, ANDREA P. AYENDE, ROEGLIO
AYENDE, LETICIA P. BALAT, FELOMINA P. BATINO, ANICETO A. BURGOS, JAIME A.
BURGOS, FLORENCIA CANUBAS, LORETO CANUBAS, MAXIMO A. CANUBAS, REYNALDO
CARINGAL, QUIRINO C. CASALME, BENIGNO A. CRUZAT, ELINO A. CRUZAT, GREGORIO F.
CRUZAT, RUFINO C. CRUZAT, SERGIO CRUZAT, SEVERINO F. CRUZAT, VICTORIA DE SAGUN,
SEVERINO DE SAGUN, ANTONIO B. FERNANDEZ, FELICISIMO A. GONZALES, FRANCISCO GONZALES, GREGORIO A.
GON-GONZALES, LEODEGARIO N. GONZALES,
PASCUAL P. GONZALES, ROLANDO A.
GONZALES, ZACARIAS R. HERRERA,
FRANCISCO A. JUANGCO, GERVASIO A. JUANGCO,
REYNARIO U. LAZO, LOURDES U. LUNA, ANSELMO M. MANDANAS, CRISANTO
MANDANAS, EMILIO M. MANDANAS, GREGORIO MANDANAS, MARIO G. MANDAMAS, TEODORO
MANDAMAS, CONSTANCIO MARQUEZ, EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, AGAPITO MATIENZO, ARMANDO P.
MATIENZO, DANIEL D. MATIENZO, MAXIMINO
MATIENZO, PACENCIA P. MATIENZO, DOROTEA L. PANGANIBAN, JUANTO T. PEREZ,
MARIANITO T. PEREZ, SEVERO M. PEREZ, INOCENCIA S. PESQUIZA, BIENVENIDO F.
PEATE, DIONISIO F. PETATE, IGNACIO F. PETATE, JUANITO PETATE, PABLO
A. PLATON, PRECILLO V. PLATON, LITO G.
REYES, AQUILINO B. SUBOL, CELESTINO G.
TOPINO, BONIFACIO G. VILLA,
CASIANO T. VILLA, DOMINGO VILLA, JUAN T. VILLA, MARIO C. VILLA, NATIVIDAD B.
VILLA, JACINTA S. ALVARADO ROSA C. AMANTE, RODOLFO ANGELES, ROGELIO AYENDE,
DOMINGO A. CANUBAS, EDGARDO L. CASALME, SOTERA CASALME, QUIRINO DE LEON,
LEONILO M. ENRIQUEZ, CLAUDIA P. GONZALES, ROLANDO A. GONZALES, FRANCISCO
JUANGCO, FELISA R. LANGUE, QUINTILLANO LANGUE, REYNALDO LANGUE, ROMEO S.
LANGUE, EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, MRIANITO T. PEREZ, INOCENCIA S. PESQUIZA, PABLO A.
PLATON, LITO G. REYES, REMIGIO M. SILVERIO, JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
These are
consolidated cases[1] and are decided jointly. They are the separate appeals of petitioners
from the same decision of the Court of Appeals[2] in two original petitions
consolidated and jointly decided because they involved the same questions of
law and fact.
The first
petition[3] is an appeal by Laguna Estates
Development Corporation from the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing
its petition to nullify the order of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) ruling that it has jurisdiction to grant private
respondents a right of way over petitioner’s private roads within its
landholdings.
The second
petition[4] is an appeal by Canlubang Sugar
Estate from the same decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing its petition
to prohibit the DARAB from conducting further proceedings in the DARAB case
including petitioner as one of the parties that DARAB ordered to grant a right
of way over private road lots within the property of petitioners and not to
impede the free access thereto under penalty of contempt.
The facts, as
found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
“On 12 December 1989, some 234.76
hectares of agricultural land situated in Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna
belonging to the Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (“SRRDC”, hereafter)
was placed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through its adjudicatory
arm, public respondent DARAB, under the compulsory acquisition scheme of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and subsequently, Certificates of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA’s) numbered 00130422, 00130423 and 00130424 with TCT
Nos. C-168, C-167 and C-169 334 were issued and award to farmers-beneficiaries,
private respondents herein, namely: Rosa T. Amante, et al., Rogelio O. Ayende,
et al. and Juan T. Amante, et al., respectively. The compulsory acquisition and
distribution of the said 234.76 hectares of land in favor of private respondents were effected by virtue
of the Decision dated 19 December 1991 issued by public respondent DARAB in
DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG-0001-00, entitled “Juan T. Amante, et al. vs. Sta.
Rosa Realty Development Corp.”
“It appears that the aforesaid
agricultural lands in Bgy. Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna are isolated and/or
separated from the rest of the municipality of Cabuyao, and the only passage
way or access road leading to said private respondents’ agricultural lands is
the privately owned road network situated within the premises of petitioners
CSE and LEDC. Subject to reasonable
security regulations, the subject road network is open to the public. But after private respondents were awarded
the aforesaid agricultural lands under the CARP Law, petitioners CSE and LEDC
prohibited and denied private respondents from utilizing the subject road
network, thereby preventing the ingress of support services under the CARP Law,
provisions for daily subsistence to, and egress of farm produce from, Bgy. Casile
where the farmlands awarded to private respondent are located.
“On motion by private respondents,
an Order dated 25 May 1993 was issued by public respondent (DARAB) in DARAB
Case No. JC-R-IV-0001-00, directing the unhampered entry and construction of support
services coming from the national government, and other provisions for the use
and benefit of private respondents in Bgy. Casile, and giving private
respondents a right of way over the subject road network owned by petitioners. The decretal portion of the said order
reads:
“Order is given to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) in coordination with the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO) for Cabuyao, Laguna, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO) for Laguna, and the DAR Regional Office to ensure that support
services like farm to market roads and training center for the CARP
beneficiaries of Barangay Casile, Municipality of Cabuyao, Province of Laguna
coming from the National Government are allowed to be constructed unhampered,
agricultural products like pineapple, coconut and papaya fruits, vegetables,
corn and palay of said beneficiaries [private respondents] are given free
access to the markets and construction materials for their homes and provisions
for their daily subsistence are allowed to enter Barangay Casile using the
access roads as herein indicated Annex ‘A’ which forms part of this Order and
that lives of the said beneficiaries are protected from harm especially while
travelling to and from Barangay Casile.”
(Underscoring Ours)
“The implementation of the
aforesaid 25 May 1993 order of public respondent, however, was opposed and
prevented by petitioners CSE and LEDC claiming that the subject road network
belong to petitioners and C. J. Yulo & Sons, Inc. and not to SRRDC, and therefore,
is not covered by the said Order.
“On 22 June 1993, private
respondents filed a “motion to amend order”, praying that petitioners CSE and
LEDC, as well as C. J. Yulo & Sons, Inc., be impleaded in the
above-mentioned Order dated 25 May 1993 of public respondent so that said order
can be properly implemented.
“On 8 July 1993, public respondent
DARAB issued an Order also dated 8 July 1993 requiring petitioners CSE and LEDC
to submit their respective comments on private respondents’ aforesaid motion to
amend the 25 May 1993 order of public respondent in DARAB Case
JC-R-IV-LAG-0001-00. Attached in said
order are copies of public respondent DARAB’s Order dated 25 May 1993 and
private respondents’ said “motion to amend order”.
“Petitioner LEDC responded to
public respondent’s Order dated
8 July 1993 by sending a letter dated 15 July 1993 to public respondent,
while petitioner CSE filed its “Opposition To Amend Order” dated 15 July 1993
to private respondents’ aforesaid “motion to amend order”, to while private
respondents filed a “Consolidated Comment”.
“On 21 September 1993, public
respondent DARAB sent a “Notice of Hearing and Summons” to petitioners CSE and
LEDC, directing them to appear for hearing on 1 October 1993 before public
respondent DARAB.
“Petitioner LEDC nor its counsel
failed to appear at the aforementioned scheduled hearing, but it filed a
“Special Appearance to Quash Summons” and later, an “Amended Special Appearance
to Quash Summons”, for the “sole purpose of objecting to its [public respondent
DARAB] jurisdiction and quashing the summons” in the aforementioned DARAB Case,
allegedly “for having been issued unlawfully, arbitrarily and with grave abuse
of discretion.”
“During the hearing, petitioner CSE
manifested that public respondent DARAB has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, and that it did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of petitioner.
“After hearing the arguments and
manifestation of the parties present thereat, public respondent directed
private respondents to file their final memorandum, and petitioner CSE, to
submit its final reply or comment thereon.
Only private respondents complied.
“On 7 October 1993, petitioner CSE
instead filed the present petition for prohibition praying for the issuance of
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction commanding public
respondent DARAB to desist from conducting further proceedings in the aforesaid
DARAB Case NO. JC-R-IV-0001-00, and a writ of prohibition commanding said
public respondent to permanently desist from conducting
further proceedings in said DARAB
Case. Said petition was docketed as
CA-G. R. SP No. 32257 and raffled to the Fifth Division of this Court.
“On 4 November 1993, petitioner CSE
amended its petition by impleading private respondents herein, in compliance
with this Court’s resolution dated 18 October 1993.
“In the meanwhile, after evaluating
the respective positions of the petitioners and private respondents herein,
public respondent DARAB issued its assailed Order dated 23 November 1993 (pp.
119-135, Rollo) in DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-0001-00, re-affirming the efficacy of
its Order dated 25 May 1993 and directing petitioners not to impede the
complete implementation of the 25 May 1993 Order of the same public respondent
DARAB, thus:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the efficacy of the Order of this Board
dated May 25, 1993, remains valid. Accordingly, the Laguna Estates Development
Corporation and the Canlubang Sugar Estate are hereby ordered not to impede,
under paid of contempt, the complete implementation of the Order of this Board
dated May 25, 1993 and this Order.
“In reiteration, the Philippine
National Police x x x is hereby deputized x x x to implement the Board’s Order
so that Petitioners [private respondents herein] are allowed to transport their
agricultural products and the National government, NGOs and the Church are
allowed to extend life-sustaining support services like credit facilities,
construction of training centers, school buildings, farm-to-market roads and
even chapels and churches using the so-called ‘M-1 Gate or China Gate’ and the
roads outlined in Annex ‘A’ of the Order dated May 25, 1993.
“The board further takes notices of
the efforts of the Department of Agrarian Reform to acquire another right of
way that is less prejudicial to the respondents herein [petitioners herein],
and may upon proper motion disolve (sic) this present order, in the event that
such other right of way should materialize in the future”.
“On 26 November 1993, We issued a resolution
in CA-G. R. SP No. 32257 directing herein respondents to submit their
respective comments on the amended petition of petitioner CSE, and the latter,
to file its reply thereto, and thereafter, the petition shall be deemed
submitted for resolution. In the
meanwhile, a temporary restraining order was issued directed to public
respondent DARAB requiring it to desist from conducting further proceedings in
the aforementioned DARAB Case.
“On even date, petitioner CSE filed
with this Court an “Urgent Motion For Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction” (Rollo, pp. 109-117) to enjoin public respondent DARAB
and/or its representatives or persons acting for and its behalf from conducting
further proceedings in the aforementioned DARAB case, and from enforcing or
implementing the assailed Order dated 23 November 1993 of public respondent
DARAB.
“On 1 December 1993, petitioner
LEDC filed its present petition for certiorari and prohibition which seeks to
annul the aforesaid Order dated 23 November 1993 of public respondent DARAB,
and to prohibit respondents herein or persons acting on their behalf from
implementing or enforcing said order.
The petition was docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 32709 and was originally
raffled to the Sixth Division of this Court.
“On 7 December 1993, the Sixth
Division of this Court issued a resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 32709, directing
the herein respondents, including the Director General of the PNP, to file
their respective comments on the petition, and in the meantime, a temporary
restraining order was issued directing all respondents and all persons and
entities acting on their behalf to cease and desist from enforcing against
petitioner LEDC the Order dated 23 November 1993 of public respondent DARAB in
the aforementioned DARAB Case.
“As heretofore stated, in a
resolution dated 4 February 1994 issued by the Sixth Division of this Court,
both petitions were consolidated and assigned to this Court’s Fifth Division
for decision on the merits.
“The dispute
between the petitioners and private respondents started when the former denied
or prohibited the latter to use the subject road network leading to the
farmlands of private respondents in Bgy. Casile. This spawned the issuance of public respondent DARAB’s order
dated 25 May 1993 which directed the PNP in coordination with the DAR regional,
provincial and municipal offices to ensure the unhampered entry and
construction of support services for the benefit of private respondents free
access to the subject road network to
allow the entry of construction materials, daily subsistence provisions in
their farmlands and the exit of their farm produce going to the markets. This was followed by the assailed order
dated 23 November 1993 reiterating the efficacy of its earlier 25 May 1993
order and directing petitioners not impede the complete implementation of both
orders of public respondent DARAB.”[5]
On the basis of
the foregoing facts, on November 10, 1994, the Court of Appeals rendered its
decision that denied and/or dismissed both petitions.[6]
Hence, the
present recourse.[7]
The issue raised
is whether the DARAB has jurisdiction to grant private respondents who are
beneficiaries of an agrarian reform program or tenants of adjoining
landholdings a right of way over petitioners’ network of private roads intended
for their exclusive use.
We resolve the
issue in favor of petitioners. The DARAB has no jurisdiction over such
issue. “For DARAB to have jurisdiction
over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties.”[8] In Heirs of Herman Rey Santos vs.
Court of Appeals,[9] citing Morta, Sr. vs. Occidental,[10] we held :
“For DARAB to have jurisdiction
over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take
hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable
elements to wit: 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an
agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about
agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of
the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between
the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.”[11]
Obviously, the
issue of a right of way or easement over private property without tenancy
relations is outside the jurisdiction
of the
DARAB. This is not an agrarian issue.
Jurisdiction is vested in a court of general jurisdiction.[12]
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE
the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 32257 & CA-G. R. SP
No. 32709 promulgated on November 10, 1994.
The Court declares NULL and VOID DARAB’s order dated November 23, 1993,
in DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG-0001-00. Respondent DARAB is permanently enjoined
from conducting further proceedings in said case.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Kapunan,
JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago,
J., no
part.
[1] G. R. No. 119375, Resolution adopted on July 31,
1995, Rollo, pp. 140-141.
[2] In CA-G. R. SP Nos. 32257 & 32709, Francisco, C.
J., ponente, Santiago and Salas, JJ., concurring, Petition,
Annex “A” (G. R. No. 119357), Rollo, pp. 19-33, and Petition, Annex “F”
(G. R. No. 119375), Rollo, pp. 94-108.
[3] Docketed as G. R. No. 119357.
[4] Docketed as G. R. No. 119375.
[5] CA Decision, Petition, Annex “A” (G. R. No. 119357), Rollo,
pp. 19-33, and Petition, Annex “F” (G.
R. No. 119375), Rollo, pp. 94-108.
[6] Ibid.
[7] G. R. No. 119357, filed on March 20, 1995, Rollo,
pp. 2-17; G. R. No. 119375, filed on April 20, 1995, pp. 11-56.
[8] Morta, Sr. vs. Occidental, 308 SCRA 167, 172
[1999].
[9] G. R. No. 109992, March 7, 2000.
[10] 308 SCRA 167, supra.
[11] Ibid.
[12] B. P. 129, Section 19 (6); Ignacio vs. Court
of Appeals, 246 SCRA 242 [1995].