1.

The arguments of the appellants-plaintiff that this case is not covered

by the agrarian law considering that the subject parcel of land is not
an agricultural land is misplaced. The issuance of the coverage of
the DAR of the subject parcel of land as CARPABLE presumes
regularity. Besides, the arguments of the appellant-s plaintiff points
only to one issue and that is whether or not the subject parcel of land
can be covered by CARP. The issue raised by the appellant-plaintiff
can only be answered not by this Honorable Court but by the DAR
who issued the coverage over the subject parcel of land. The
jurisdiction to hear whether or not the subject parcel of land will be
excluded from coverage of CARP can only be hear and decided by
the DAR as matters pertaining to the implementation of the CARP is
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of CARP.