Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

HIJO EMPLOYEES AGRARIAN REFORM

BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE- I, C.A. G.R. NO. 49283
Petitioner,

- versus - - For -

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CERTIORARI & PROHIBITION

11TH JUDICIAL REGION, WITH PRAYER FOR TRO & WRIT
BRANCH 31, TAGUM CITY, and OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
HIJO PLANTATION, INC.,
Respondents.

##############################################

SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY

COMES NOW petitioner, through counsel, and to this Honorable Court of

appeals, respectfully states that:

1. In the OPPOSITION etc. filed by private respondent, it stressed

the fact that “the DARAB case does not involve an agrarian dispute
inasmuch as it involves private agricultural lands which are not
subject to the Agrarian Reform Law or other agrarian laws.” (par. 4,
p. 18, Opposition);

2. Private respondent likewise made statement that “(c)learly, the

Petition for the Rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement and the
Tripartite Agreement before the DARAB does not involve an ‘agrarian
dispute’. The rights and obligations of the parties under the MOA
did not pertain to any lands covered by the CARP nor any agrarian
laws. Absent any agrarian dispute between the parties, the
PARAD/DARAB has no jurisdiction or authority in confirming the
rescission of the aforementioned agreements and in granting
injunctive relief to the petitioner HEARBCO-I.” (4th par., p. 20,
Opposition).

1
DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

1. The land or plantation is privately

owned land covered by the CARP.

Admittedly the land or plantation in question is registered in the name of

petitioner and its ARB members, so that, in a manner of speaking, it may be

considered a privately owned land as distinguished from a government land or one

registered in the name of the government or its agencies and instrumentalities.

However, private respondent admitted also that the land in suit was sold by it to

the government under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme of the CARP.

(last par., p. 2, Opposition). Thus, the land in suit is covered by a Certificate of

Title which embraces a DAR Certificate of Land Ownership No. 00407711 (Annex

“A” of Annex “C”, [Petition in DARAB Case No. XI-0976-DN-98] of the petition in

this case). Notably, the VOS is one of the schemes in acquiring lands under the

CARP. (Art. III, A, Sec. 8, (a) DAR Adm. Order No. 9, Series of 1998). This is an

indubitable proof that the land is covered by the CARP. Therefore, the petition

docketed as DARAB Case No. XI-0976-DN-98 which involves an agreement on the

management, cultivation and use of a land covered by the CARP falls under the

primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB specifically Sec. 1, Rule II of the

DARAB New Rules of Procedure (a) which provides:

“(a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether

natural or judicial, engaged in the management,
cultivation and use of all agricultural lands
covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;

x x x”.

2
2. There is an agrarian dispute involved in
DARAB Case No. XI-0976-DN-98.

Besides the foregoing aforecited rule which grants primary and exclusive

jurisdiction to the DARAB over the DARAB case filed by petitioner, DAR

Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1998 which took effect on January 5, 1999

specifically provides in ARTICLE V, Sec. 30 (g) that:

“x x x

Any and all disputes arising from the interpretation or

implementation of agribusiness venture agreements
involving commercial farms shall be considered as an
agrarian dispute within the jurisdiction of the DAR.”
(italics supplied)

It is obvious that the MOA and the Tripartite Agreement involved in the

DARAB Case aforecited are agribusiness venture agreements involving a commercial

farm. In this connection, Article I of DAR AO No. 09, Series of 1998 provides:

“Section 1. Coverage - This Administrative

Order shall apply to all commercial farms as defined
under Section 11 of RA 6657, as amended by Section 3
of RA 7881.” (italics supplied)

The plantation formerly owned by private respondent which was covered by

the CARP is one such commercial farm as defined above.

Since there is a dispute on the interpretation or implementation of the

agreements subject matter of the aforementioned DARAB case, there is,

therefore, an agrarian dispute among the parties. Hence, there is no more room

to dispute that the filing with the DARAB of the petition to confirm the validity of

the rescission of the agribusiness venture agreements was proper and legal

because the DARAB is the court for all agrarian disputes.

3
 The foregoing facts and arguments support the contention of petitioner

that jurisdiction to try the confirmation of the validity of the rescission of the

contract in question primarily and exclusively belongs to the DARAB.

For the convenience of this Honorable Court of Appeals, a copy of the DAR

AO No. 09, Series of 1998 is attached to this Supplemental Reply.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the petition be given due

course, and the prayer therein GRANTED.

Davao City, Philippines, January 25, 1998.

CARIAGA LAW OFFICES

2nd Floor, Cariaga Building
Mt. Apo Street, Davao City

By:

BIENVENIDO D. CARIAGA
Counsel for Petitioner
IBP NO. 13899-Davao City-12/29/98
PTR NO. 3952485-Davao City-01/07/99

Copy furnished by registered mail to:

HERRERA TEEHANKEE & FAYLONA Registry Receipt No. _____________

Counsel for Private Respondent Date: January _____, 1999
5th Floor, SGV II Bldg.
6758 Ayala Avenue
Makati City

HON. ERASTO D. SALCEDO Registry Receipt No. _____________

Regional Trial Court, Br. 31 Date: January _____, 1999
Capitol Site, Mankilam, Tagum City
Davao del Norte 8100

4
 EXPLANATION

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY has been sent
by registered mail to the above parties, due to impracticability of personal service because of the
distance between Davao City and Tagum City as well as Makati City.

BIENVENIDO D. CARIAGA
Counsel for Petitioner

Mdanswer:hijo suppl reply