You are on page 1of 1

Bandonil, Israel LLB 2-B (Sat: 4:30-6:30)

Biado, Jefferson Agrarian Law and Social Legislation

Daniel, Brylle


G.R. No. 198751, August 19, 2015


Flor and her sister, Salome Cañas (Petitioners) are identified farmer-beneficiaries of 3,895 sq.m land
located in Leyte that was originally owned by her parents. She had been cultivating the land and paying the taxes
due on the property ever since.
Egano (Respondent) alleged that the land was mistakenly issued to Salome because a portion of the land
covered by the issuance of Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) was previously sold to him by Cañas’s
father and the petitioners were not the actual tillers of land.
Andres and Tarcelita Egano filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office (DARRO),
Tacloban City, a "Petition for Nullification of Coverage and Disqualification of Farmer-Beneficiary."
DAR Regional Director Tiburcio A. Morales, Jr granted the petition and declared the award in favour of
Cañas void. He also ordered Cañas to coordinate with the Legal Division of DARPO to file the proper petition with
the Adjudication Board for the Cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138.
Cañas filed a motion to reconsider Dir. Morales's order but was denied. The decision became final and
executory as no appeal was filed within the remainder of the fifteen (15)-day filing period.
On January 24, 2005, Egano filed a "Petition for Cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138" with the DARAB.
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Wilfredo M. Navarra ordered the cancellation of CLOA No.
00091138 and its corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 3324 based on Dir. Morales's October 28,
2004 order. Cañas moved to reconsider PARAD Navarra's decision but her motion was denied in a resolution[ dated
May 8, 2006. The petitioner filed an appeal with the DARAB but dismissed the petitioner's appeal
Cañas appealed her case to the CA through a Petition for Review and the CA affirmed in toto the DARAB's
decision . Hence, the petition for review on certiorari.


Whether the PARAD correctly considered the respondent's case as an agrarian law implementation case
cognizable by the DAR.


NO. The court NULLIFY the PARAD decision because of lack of authority and jurisdiction.
Under Section 1of the 2003 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of
Procedure, the Rules applicable to the petition for cancellation of CLOA filed by the respondent, the DARAB and its
Adjudicators have jurisdiction over cases involving the correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent
issuances of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered
with the Land Registration Authority.
Although it appears that the CLOA subject of this case is registered with the Registry of Deeds, Egano’s
petition for cancellation of Cañas CLOA does not fall within the DARAB's jurisdiction due to the absence of an
agrarian dispute or tenancy relationship between the respondent and the petitioner.
For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case there must be an agrarian dispute or tenancy relationship
existing between the parties.
The petition for cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138 filed by the respondent is dismissed