Republic of the
Supreme Court
Manila
first DIVISION
Department
of agrarian G.R. No. 163285
reform,
rep. by regional
director
naser M. musali,
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
- versus
- SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA,
and
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, JJ.
Hon. hakim s. abdulwahid,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
and yupangco cotton
mills,
inc.,
Respondents. February 27, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E
C I S I O N
PUNO, C.J.:
The Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) is vested with primary and exclusive jurisdiction
to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, including all matters
involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program. 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 with the regular
courts.
This
is a petition for review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of Court of a Decision dated November 21, 2003, and the Resolution dated April
21, 2004, both of the Court of Appeals (CA) 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.,”
on pure question of law. Particularly, the issue concerns the jurisdiction of
the trial court below over the complaint in Civil Case No. 5113 vis-à-vis
the original, primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) and the DARAB over agrarian disputes and/or agrarian reform implementation
as provided for under Section 50 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657.
On
December 28, 2000, Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. (Yupangco) filed a complaint for
“Recovery
of Ownership and 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 Mandatory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order” against Buenavista Yupangco Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association, Inc. (BYARBAI), the DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5113
and raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12 of Zamboanga City.[1]
On
On
On
The appellate court sustained the RTC, finding that the
action falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts and not the DARAB
because Yupangco primarily sought the recovery and possession of the subject
parcel of land.
Hence the petition at bar. In its lone assignment of error, petitioner
submits that the CA erred “when it upheld the jurisdiction of the [RTC] purely
on the ground that [Yupangco] primarily seeks the recovery of ownership and
possession of subject parcel of land, jurisdiction over which is lodged with
regional trial courts, not the DARAB.” [7]
We
grant the petition.
It is the rule that the jurisdiction of a tribunal,
including a quasi-judicial 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, irrespective of
whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all of such
reliefs.[8] It is also settled that jurisdiction should
be determined by considering not only the status or relationship of the parties
but also the nature of the issues or questions that is the subject of the
controversy.[9] Thus, if the issues between the parties are
intertwined with the resolution of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the DARAB, such dispute must be addressed and resolved by the DARAB.[10]
In the case at bar, the complaint filed by Yupangco
seems at first blush to be within the jurisdiction of the RTC, as it has been
denominated as “Recovery of
Ownership and 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 Mandatory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order.” [11] 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 complaint filed by Yupangco
alleged, inter alia, the following:
(a)
[Yupangco] was
the registered owner of certain parcels of land[13]
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 provisions of Republic Act No.
6657, and four (4) Transfer Certificate Titles over the subject land were
subsequently issued in favor of BYARBAI;[15]
(c)
[Yupangco]
vehemently objected to the coverage of the subject parcels of land by the DAR
and the valuation made by LBP, by filing protest and objection with DAR and
LBP;[16]
(d)
DAR, through the
DAR Regional Director, Zamboanga City, issued the four questioned Transfer
Certificates of Title (or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards-- CLOAs) to
BYARBAI pursuant to R.A. No. 6657, without LBP paying [Yupangco] the just
compensation of the subject parcels of land which valuation was then being
contested before the DAR Adjudication Board;[17]
(e)
Majority of the
members of BYARBAI are not employees nor hired workers of [Yupangco], hence,
[Yupangco] alleged that they should not have been given preference nor be
entitled as allocatees in the subject parcels of land;[18]
(f)
Soon after
the CLOAs were issued to BYARBAI, the
latter took possession of the subject parcels of land to the prejudice and
damage of [Yupangco];[19]
(g)
BYARBAI’s 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
coconut trees. This conversion was
illegal and in gross violation of Republic Act No. 6657 and Republic Act No.
3844, as amended, and other existing laws and Administrative Issuances.[20]
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 the acquisition by or
distribution to [BYARBAI] as the tenant-tillers of the land null and void, and thus
reverting back the ownership and possession thereof to [Yupangco].” [21]
These
allegations clearly show that Yupangco sought the recovery of the subject property
by disputing its inclusion in the CARP, and imputing errors in the enforcement
of the law pertaining to the agrarian reform. The primal issues raised in the
complaint, viz.: protest against the
CARP coverage, alleged breach of conditions of the DAR award under the CARP by
the farmer beneficiaries resulting to forfeiture of their right as such;
nonpayment of rentals by the farmers to the petitioner under R.A. No. 3844
(Agricultural Land Reform Code), gravitate on the alleged manner the
implementation of the CARP under R.A. No. 6657 was carried out.
Under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657, “all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform” are within the DAR’s primary, exclusive and original jurisdiction, and at the first instance, only the DARAB—as the DAR’s quasi-judicial body, can “determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R.A. No. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.”[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 Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) issued pursuant thereto. These
are reliefs which the RTC cannot grant, since the complaint essentially
prays for the annulment of the coverage 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 transfer of ownership from landlord to agrarian reform
beneficiaries over which DARAB has primary and exclusive original jurisdiction, pursuant to
Section 1(f), Rule II, DARAB New Rules of Procedure.
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
attempt to circumvent the jurisdiction of the DARAB by filing a complaint for
recovery of possession with the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal. When the RTC dismissed
the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the SSS came to this court for recourse. We ruled:
Irrefragably, the titles sought to be annulled by the
SSS, namely, TCTs No. 1259 No. 1260 and No. 1261 originated from the CLOAs
issued by the DAR in pursuance of, and in accordance with, the provisions of
Rep. Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Specifically, the SSS in its Complaint implored the trial
court "to restrain the DAR from implementing Rep. Act No. 6657 and the
defendants, farmers-beneficiaries from occupying/tilling, cultivating/disposing
the properties."
Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure
provides that:
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 Republic Act No. 6657,
Executive Order Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by
Republic Act 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:
a) The
rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical engaged in the
management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP
and other agrarian laws.
xxx xxx xxx
Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but
not limited to the following:
xxx xxx xxx
f) Cases
involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), Certificate of
landownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the administrative
correction thereof;
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, and went on further:
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
agrarian reform program. The rule is that the DARAB has jurisdiction to try and
decide any agrarian dispute or any incident involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Section 1, Rule II of the Revised Rules of Procedure
of the DARAB provides:
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, and matters or
incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Orders Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A,
Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree
No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.
In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario, this Court cited Section 1, Rule II, 2002
DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that:
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 Reform Law.
Again in David
v. Rivera, this Court pointed out that the jurisdiction over agrarian
reform matters is now expressly vested in the DAR through the DARAB.
Indeed, Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 confers on the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate
agrarian reform matters. In the process of reorganizing the DAR, Executive
Order No. 129-A created 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
exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB.
In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,
reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental and Heirs
of the late Herman Rey
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, all public and private agricultural land as
provided in Proclamation No. 131 dated
Section 17 thereof
1) vested
the Department of Agrarian Reform with "quasi-judicial powers to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform matters," and
2) granted
it "jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian
reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
DENR and the Department of Agriculture (DA), as well as 'powers to punish for
contempt and to issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum and writs to enforce its
orders or decisions.'"
In Nuesa v.
Court of Appeals the Court, in addition to re-echoing the jurisdiction of
the DARAB, puts emphasis on the extent of the coverage of the term
"agrarian dispute," thus:
As held by this Court in Centeno v. Centeno [343 SCRA 153], "the DAR is vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and
shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of the agrarian reform program." The DARAB has primary,
original and appellate jurisdiction "to determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R.A. No. 6657,
E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as amended by R.A. No. 6389, P.D.
No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations."
Under Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 (CARP Law),
"agrarian dispute" is defined to include "(d) . . . 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. It includes any controversy relating
to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions
of transfer of ownership 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." (citations and underscoring omitted)[24]
IN
VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED.
The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated November 21, 2003, and the
Resolution dated April 21, 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.
SO
ORDERED.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice Associate
Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Respondent’s
Complaint, CA rollo, pp.11-26.
[2] Petitioner’s
Motion to Dismiss, id. at 27-32.
[3] RTC
Order, id. at 33-34. Parenthetically, the RTC mistakenly referred to the
complaint as a cause of action. The two
are not the same.
[4] Dated
[5] Dated
[6] DAR’s
Petition with the CA, id. at 1-10.
[7] Rollo, p. 13.
[8] Heirs of Julian dela Cruz v. Heirs of
Alberto Cruz, G.R. No. 162890,
[9] Id. citing
Vesagas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
142924, 5 December 2001, 371 SCRA 508. See
Viray v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
92481,
[10] Monsanto v. Zerna, G.R. No. 142501,
[11] Supra note 1.
[12] Rollo, p. 15.
[13] Par. 3,
Respondent’s Complaint, CA rollo,
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] Centeno v. Centeno, G.R. No. 140825,
[23] G.R.
No. 139254,
[24]