ADJUDICATION OF AGRARIAN REFORM MATTERS

1. State the jurisdiction of DAR under Sec. 50, RA 657.

Section 50 of RA No. 6657 provides that:

Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian
reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to
hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner,
employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with
justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform
rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination for every
action or proceeding before it.

It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require
submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to
interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum, and enforce its writs
through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers.t shall likewise have the power to punish
direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as
provided in the Rules of Court.

Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow

farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: provided, however,
that when there are two or more representatives for any individual or group, the
representatives should choose only one among themselves to represent such party or
group before any DAR proceedings.

Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be
immediately executory.

2. What are the so-called Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI)

cases under DAR AO 6 (2000)? Who is the officer vested with
jurisdiction over ALI cases?

The following are the covered cases under DAR AO 6 (2000) falling
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary which shall include
the following:
(a)       Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), including protests
or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage;
(b)       Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-
beneficiaries;
(c)       Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP;
(d)       Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer
(CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the
purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall
or cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land
Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with the Register of Deeds;
(e)       Exercise of the right of retention by landowner;
(f)        Application for exemption under Section 10 of RA 6657 as
implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 13 (1990);
(g)       Application for exemption pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ)
Opinion No. 44 (1990) as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No.
6 (1994);
(h)       Application for exemption under DAR Administrative Order No. 9
(1993);
(i)        Application for exemption under Section 1 of RA 7881, as
implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 3 (1995);
(j)        Issuance of certificate of exemption for lands subject of Voluntary
Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for
agricultural purposes pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 34
(1997);
(k)       Application for conversion of agricultural lands to residential,
commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses including protests or
oppositions thereto;
(l)        Right of agrarian reform beneficiaries to homelots;
(m)      Disposition of excess area of the farmer-beneficiary's landholdings;
(n)       Transfer, surrender or abandonment by the farmer-beneficiary of his
farmholding and its disposition;
(o)       Increase of awarded area by the farmer-beneficiary;
(p)       Conflict of claims in landed estates and settlements; and
(q)       Such other matters not mentioned above but strictly involving the
administrative implementation of RA 6657 and other agrarian laws, rules
and regulations as determined by the Secretary.
3. DARAB cases. State the powers and functions of DARAB? (See:
EO 129-A).

Section 5 of EO 129-A provides the following powers and

functions of the DARAB, which are:
Sec. 5. Powers and Functions. Pursuant to the mandate the Department, and in order to
ensure the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program,
the department is hereby authorized to:

a) Advise the President and the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council on the
promulgation of executive/administrative orders, other regulative issuances and
legislative proposals designed to strengthen agrarian reform and protect the
interests of the benefeciaries thereof;

b) Implement all agrarian laws, and for this purpose, punish for contempt and
issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, writs of execution of its decisions,
and other legal processes to ensure successful and expeditious program
implementation; the decisions of the Department may in proper cases, be
appealed to the Regional Trial Courts but shall be immediately executory
notwithstanding such appeal;

c) Establish and promulgate operational policies, rules and regulations and

priorities for agrarian reform implementation;

d) Coordinate program implementation with the Land Bank of the Philippines

and other relevant civilian and military government agencies mandated to
support the agrarian reform program;

e) Acquire, administer, distribute, and develop agricultural lands for agrarian

reform purposes;

f) Undertake surveys of lands covered by agrarian reform;

g) Issue emancipation patents to farmers and farmworkers covered by agrarian

reform for both private and public lands and when necessary make
administrative corrections of the same;

h) Provide free legal services to agrarian reform beneficiaries and resolve

agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems as may be provided for by
law;

i) Promote the organization and development of cooperatives and other

associations of agrarian reform beneficiaries;

j) Conduct continuing education and promotion programs on agrarian reform for

beneficiaries, land-owners, government personnel, and the general public;
 k) Institutionalize the participation of farmers, farmworkers, other beneficiaries,
and agrarian reform advocates in agrarian reform policy formulation, program
implementation, and evaluation;

l) Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural

lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be
provided for by law;

m) Call upon any government agency, including the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to extend full support
and cooperation to program implementation;

n) Exercise such other powers and functions as may be provided for by law or
directed by the President, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the
delivery of public services.

Ualat v. Judge Ramos, 265 SCRA 345;

FACTS:
These are two (2) administrative cases  filed by complainants Quirino Sabio and Modesto
1

Ualat against respondent Judge Jose O. Ramos of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Echague, Isabela, for "knowingly rendering (an) unjust judgment, ignorance of the law and
serious misconduct" relative to his taking cognizance of an action docketed as Civil Case No.
827 and entitled "Leonardo Coma vs. Quirino Sabio and Modesto Ualat", which according to
complainants is an agrarian dispute and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC.

ISSUE: Whether respondent judge properly comported himself in the face of the obvious
matters brought before him. (NO)

RULING:
As can be readily seen from the answer filed by complainants Sabio and Ualat in the civil case,
they alleged the existence of an agrarian tenancy relationship between themselves and the
landowner. Additionally, in the proceedings before respondent judge, complainants were even
represented by a lawyer from the DAR. These matters should have been sufficient to put
respondent Judge on notice that complainants were claiming protection under our agrarian
laws. At that point, he ought to have realized that there existed a genuine issue involving
agricultural tenancy among the parties with respect to the subject property. Knowledge of
existing agrarian legislation and prevailing jurisprudence on the subject, together with
an ordinary degree of prudence, would have prompted respondent Judge to refer the
case to the DAR for preliminary determination of the real nature of the parties'
relationship, as required by law. At the very least, as suggested by the Investigating Judge,
respondent could have himself conducted a clarificatory hearing to determine such
relationship. The last thing he should have done was to proceed to take cognizance of the
case in the absence of such referral. In the face of these established facts, he could not hide
behind the ostrich-inspired defense of his jurisdiction being determined by the allegations in
the complaint. Indeed, the complaint was prepared by Leonardo Coma, who found it to his
interest to hide the possible existence of the tenancy relationship, even while he knew of the
earlier complaint filed against him before the DARAB.
 In the case of Ocier vs. Court of Appeals,   we reiterated the ruling we made in Puertollano in
15

this wise:

Private respondent, in her original complaint before the lower court, alleged that petitioner
violated the Land Reform Code and could be ejected under P.D. 816. Petitioner answered that
he was a tenant of private respondent. There was, at that point in time, no need for referral to
the Department of Agrarian Reform as the landowner-tenant relationship was admitted.

However, when private respondent's amended complaint — where she alleged violation
of a civil law lease agreement — was admitted, the issue of actual tenancy — raised by
petitioner in both his Answer and Amended Answer — had to be referred to the
Department of Agrarian Reform for determination as this was now a genuine issue.

His failure to refer the case to the DAR upon receipt of the answer of complainants, despite the
clear mandate of the two agrarian laws aforementioned and our ruling in Puertollano, can in no
wise be justified by respondent Judge. What is even more embarrassing is his seeming lack of
awareness of the Civil Code provision making a sub-lessee merely subsidiarily liable for
unpaid rentals, to the extent of the rentals due from him under the sub-lease, at the time of the
lessor's extrajudicial demand.

It is a pressing responsibility of judges to keep abreast with the law and changes therein, as
well as with the latest decisions of this Court. One cannot seek refuge in having a mere
cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Ignorance of the law, which everyone
is bound to know, excuses no one — certainly not judges. IGNORANTIA JURIS QUOD
QUISQUE SCIRE TENETUR NON EXCUSAT .  When the law is elementary, so elementary,
not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

Vda. De Tangub vs. CA, 191 SCRA 885;

FACTS:

Rufina Tangub and her husband, Andres, now deceased, filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Lanao del Norte in March, 1988, "an agrarian case for damages by
reason of the(ir) unlawful dispossession . . .was tenants from the landholding"
owned by the Spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil. Several persons were also
impleaded as defendants, including the Philippine National Bank, it being alleged
by the plaintiff spouses that said bank, holder of a mortgage on the land involved,
had caused foreclosure thereof, resulting in the acquisition of the property by the
bank as the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, and in the sale by the latter,
some time later, of portions of the land to the other persons named as its co-
defendants (all employees of the National Steel Corporation), and it being prayed
that mortgage and the transactions thereafter made in relation thereto be annulled
and voided.

In an Order rendered on August 24, 1988, respondent Judge Felipe G. Javier, Jr.
dismissed the complaint. He opined that by virtue of Executive Order No. 229
"providing the mechanisms for the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program approved on July 24, 1987" — Executive No. 129-A approved on
July 26,1987, as well as the Rules of the Adjudication Board of the Department of
Agrarian Reform, jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over agrarian cases had
been transferred to the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Court of Appeals upheld decision of Trial Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City was correct in
dismissing Agrarian Case No. 1094. (YES)

RULING:

RA 6657 echoes the provisions of Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 229,

supra, investing the Department of Agrarian Reform with original jurisdiction,
generally, over all cases involving agrarian laws, although, as shall shortly be
pointed out, it restores to the Regional Trial Court, limited jurisdiction over two
groups of cases. Section 50 reads as follows:

"SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested
with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters
and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture [DA] and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources [DENR].

It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but

shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a
most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain
the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the
merits of the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of
procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of
every action or proceeding before it.

It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take

testimony, require submission of reports, compel the production of books
and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other
duly deputized officers. It shall likewise have the power to punishdirect
and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject to the same
penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.

Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand, confers "special jurisdiction" on

"Special Agrarian Courts," which are Regional Trial Courts designated by the
 Supreme Court — at least one (1) branch within each province — to act as
such. These Regional Trial Courts qua Special Agrarian Courts have,
according to Section 57 of the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction
over:

1) "all petitions for the determination of just compensation to land-owners,"

and
2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under . . [the] Act."

It is relevant to mention in this connection that --

(1) appeals from decisions of the Special Agrarian Courts "may be taken by filing a
petition for review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt or notice
of the decision, . ." [Sec. 60] and
(2) appeals from any "decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute
or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or
interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to
the Court of Appeals by Certiorari* except as otherwise provided . . . within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of a copy thereof," the "findings of fact of the DAR [being] final and
conclusive if based on substantial evidence." [Sec. 54]

Hence, the DAR has original, exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, except on the
aspects of (a) justcompensation; and (b) criminal jurisdiction over which regular courts
have jurisdiction. Here, the case concerns the rights of the plaintiffs as tenants on
agricultural land, not involving the "special jurisdiction" of said Trial Court acting as a
Special Agrarian Court, it clearly came within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform, or more particularly, the Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board, established precisely to wield the adjudicatory powers of the Department.

Machete v. CA, 250 SCRA 176;

FACTS:

Private respondent filed a complaint for collection of back rentals and

damages before the RTC of Tagbilaran City against herein petitioners. The
alleged facts are:

That parties entered into a leasehold agreement regarding private

respondent’s landholdings and herein petitioners shall pay a certain amount
or percentage of their harvest.

That herein petitioners failed to pay their respective rental despite repeated
demands of private respondent.
That petitioner moved to the dismissal of the case on the ground, of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, arguing that the instance case is an
agrarian dispute and therefore within the jurisdiction of Department of
Agrarian and Reform Adjudication Board.

ISSUE: Whether or not are Regional Trial Courts' vested with jurisdiction
over cases for collection of back rentals from leasehold tenants. (NO)

RULING:

Section 17 of E.O. 2298 vested the DAR with quasi-judicial powers to

determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters as well as exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian
reform except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources in accordance with law.

On 15 June 1988 R.A. 6657 was passed containing provisions which evince
and support the intention of the legislature to vest in the DAR exclusive
jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters.15 Section 50 thereof
substantially reiterates Sec. 17 of E.O. 229 thus —

Sec. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby

vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) . . .

Section 3, par. (d), thereof defines the term "agrarian dispute" as referring to
any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture,
including disputes concerning farm workers' associations or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.

However it may be mentioned in passing that the Regional Trial Courts have
not been completely divested of jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters.
Section 56 of R.A. 6657 confers "special jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian
Courts," which are Regional Trial Courts designated by this Court — at least
one (1) branch within each province — to act as such. These Regional Trial
Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts have, according to Sec. 57 of
the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners, and (b) the prosecution of
all criminal offenses under the Act.16

Consequently, there exists an agrarian dispute in the case at bench which is

exclusively cognizable by the DARAB. The failure of petitioners to pay back
rentals pursuant to the leasehold contract with private respondent is an issue
which is clearly beyond the legal competence of the trial court to resolve. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto
itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.17

Thus, respondent appellate court erred in directing the trial court to assume
jurisdiction over this case.

Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB, 215 SCRA 86;

Isidro v. CA, 228 SCRA 503;

De Luna v. CA, 221 SCRA 703; Republic v. CA, 738 SCRA 263.