Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
MANILA

FOURTEENTH DIVISION

GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., CA G.R. SP No. 165527

Petitioner,

- versus -

FROILAN S. FLORES, Members:

GERARDO SP. CRUZ, FELINO
R. SALAZAR, ALEXANDER PAREDES, V.I.A., CHAIRPERSON,
CRUZ, EFEPANIO ANGELIO, MAMAUAG, JR., F.M., AND
LEONILO S. SANTOS, JOSE HERNANDEZ-AZURA, M.C.V., J.J.
MANALO, SESINANDO CRUZ,
ORLANDO D. SARMIENTO,
PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN
REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF
BULACAN, MUNICIPAL
AGRARIAN REFORM
OFFICER (MARO) OF SAN
JOSE DEL MONTE CITY, Promulgated:
BULACAN, AND THE REGISTRY
OF DEEDS OF BULACAN August 16, 2022
(MEYCAUAYAN BRANCH), _____________________________
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
HERNANDEZ-AZURA, J.:

This is a verified petition1 for review filed under Rule 43 of the

Amended Rules on Civil Procedure seeking the nullification and setting aside
of the Assailed Decision dated October 21, 20192 and Resolution dated
February 26, 20203 that were issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 16748.

The Antecedents

The disputed property subject of this controversy consists of a parcel of

land located at Barrio Gaya-Gaya, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan, with an

1
Rollo, pp. 13-38.
2
Id., pp. 43-47.
3
Id., pp. 51-52.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 2 of 8
Decision

approximate area of one hundred twenty-nine thousand six hundred and fifty-
nine square meters (129,659 sqm.) which was previously covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2941104 in the name of petitioner, a domestic
corporation. The disputed property was later placed under the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for the benefit of the
private respondents.

Petitioner discovered that public respondents Provincial Agrarian

Reform Officer (PARO) of Bulacan and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
(MARO) of San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan placed the disputed property
under the compulsory acquisition scheme of the CARP and caused the
cancellation of TCT No. T-294110. In lieu thereof, a new title denominated
as TCT No. T-510030 was issued in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines.5

Upon the cancellation of petitioner's title, the public respondents PARO

and MARO caused the issuance of two (2) Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs), to wit:
1. CLOA T-9666 in favor of private respondents Froilan S. Flores,
Gerardo SP. Cruz, and Felino R. Salazar; and
2. CLOA T-9687 in favor of private respondents Alexander Cruz,
Efepanio Angelio, Leonilo S. Santos, Jose Manalo, Sesinando Cruz,
and Orlando D. Sarmiento.

Subsequently, the private respondents registered the above CLOAs

with the public respondent Registry of Deeds (RD) of Meycauayan, Bulacan.

On July 9, 2009, petitioner filed a Petition before the Provincial

Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Malolos City.8

On July 28, 2009, petitioner received a copy of private respondents'

Motion to Dismiss.9 Petitioner filed an Opposition thereto on August 4,
2009.10 The PARAD denied private respondents' Motion to Dismiss in its
Order dated September 2, 2009.11

4
It is more particularly described as follows:
"A parcel of land (Lot 381-C the subd. Plan Psd-03 085663 being a portion of lot 381, Csc 352, San
Jose del Monte Csd, LRD Rec. No. situated in the Bo. Of Gaya-gaya Mun. of San Jose del Monte,
Prov. Of Bulacan x xx containing an area of One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred
Fifty Nine (129,659) sq. meters."
5
Rollo, p. 243.
6
Id., p. 246.
7
Id., p. 248.
8
Id., pp. 156-162.
9
Id., pp. 173-175.
10
Id., pp. 176-178.
11
Id., pp. 179-181.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 3 of 8
Decision

On October 7, 2009, private respondents filed their Answer to the

Petition before the PARAD.12 Thereafter, the parties, as directed by the
PARAD, filed their respective Position Papers.13

The PARAD Ruling

On December 18, 2009, the PARAD of Malolos City promulgated

judgment in favor of petitioner and directed the public respondent RD of
Meycauayan, Bulacan to cancel the TCTs issued in favor of private
respondents and restore the TCT of petitioner. The PARAD also ordered the
private respondents to vacate the premises of the disputed property.14

On February 9, 2010, private respondents filed with the DARAB their

Notice of Appeal contesting the PARAD’s Decision.15 The parties, as required
by the DARAB, submitted their respective Memoranda.16

The DARAB Ruling

The DARAB issued the Assailed Decision setting aside the PARAD’s
Decision and dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the
cancellation of the CLOAs is a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary pursuant to the last
paragraph of Section 9 of R.A. No. 9700, viz:

“All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents,

certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any
agrarian reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction
of the Secretary of the DAR.”

The DARAB added that the issue on whether the disputed property
should be under the coverage of the CARP renders it as a purely agrarian law
implementation case that is within the jurisdiction of either the Regional
Director or the DAR Secretary, as prescribed by DAR Administrative Order
(A.O.) No. 3, series of 2003 and its amended version, DAR A.O. No. 1, series
of 2017.

On December 13, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration

of the Decision of the DARAB.17

12
Id., pp. 182-185.
13
Id., pp. 191-201, 205-207.
14
Id., pp. 209-218.
15
Supra Note 2.
16
Id., pp. 219-228, 230-234.
17
Id., pp. 236-241.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 4 of 8
Decision

The DARAB issued the Assailed Resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner for the latter’s failure to raise any
compelling reason to warrant the reversal of the Board’s Decision.

Hence, this petition.

The Assigned Errors

Petitioner ascribed the following errors in the Assailed Decision and

Resolution:

1. The DARAB seriously erred in ruling that it has no jurisdiction over

petitioner’s case.
2. The DARAB seriously erred in ruling that the DAR Secretary has
jurisdiction over petitioner’s case.
3. The DARAB seriously erred in failing to rule that private
respondents’ appeal was defective.
4. The DARAB seriously erred in failing to rule on the issue of just
compensation.

Petitioner’s Arguments18

Petitioner stressed that Section 50 of R.A. No. (RA) 6657 bestowed

quasi-judicial powers to the DARAB. Petitioner subscribed to the view that
the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case in accordance with the 2003 and
2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure. It cited six (6) out of ten (10) specific
matters in which the DARAB can properly exercise original and appellate
jurisdiction over the case, as follows:
a. Subletter (a) of the DARAB Rules since petitioner questioned the
qualifications of the individual private respondents to become
CARP beneficiaries.
b. Subletters (b) and (h) since petitioner raised the issue of propriety of
transferring the title over the disputed property to the Republic of
the Philippines without payment of just compensation to petitioner.
c. Subletter (d) since this case involves ejectment and dispossession.
d. Subletters (e) and (f) since petitioner prayed for the cancellation of
CLOAs issued to the private respondents and already registered with
the RD of Bulacan.

In support of the above assertions, petitioner invoked the doctrine that

jurisdiction is determined by the material allegations of the initial pleading
and not affected by the defenses set up by the adverse party in the Answer or
Motion to Dismiss.

18
Supra Note 1.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 5 of 8
Decision

Petitioner then proceeded to emphasize that the taking away of the

disputed property for CARP coverage was null and void because it was done
without the required notices in violation of procedural due process and
without payment of just compensation.

Private Respondents’ Arguments19

Private respondents’ counsel averred that neither the PARAD nor the
DARAB has jurisdiction over the case by express provision of Section 3 of
the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, which states that the “Adjudicator or
the Board shall have no jurisdiction over matters involving the administrative
implementation of RA No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated
by pertinent rules and administrative orders, which shall be under the
exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Office of the Secretary of
DAR…”

The Issues

The issues are essentially whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction
over the petition filed by private respondents; and should DARAB have
jurisdiction over the case, whether or not the PARAD Decision is in
accordance with law and evidence, and hence, must be reinstated.

Our Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

It must be stated at the outset that it is the law that confers jurisdiction
and not the rules of procedure. Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred
by the Constitution or the law, and rules of procedure yield to substantive law.
Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law.20 Applying this
well-established principle, We must therefore refer to the law, rather than any
version of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, in determining the jurisdiction of
the DARAB and the DAR Secretary.

Here, the PARAD, acting on the petition and prayer of the petitioner,
ordered the cancellation of CLOAs issued to private respondents. As correctly
pointed out by the DARAB in its Assailed Decision, the cancellation of
CLOAs falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary as
embodied in Section 24 of RA 6657, as amended by Section 9 of RA 9700,
quoted as follows:

19
Id., pp. 277-279, 282-283.
20
Papunan v. DARAB and Rodriguez, G.R. No. 132163, January 28, 2003, citing People v. Casiano, G.R.
No. L-15309, 111 Phil 73, February 16, 1961.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 6 of 8
Decision

Section 9. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby

further amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. - The rights and responsibilities of

the beneficiaries shall commence from their receipt of a duly registered
emancipation patent or certificate of land ownership award and their
actual physical possession of the awarded land. Such award shall be
completed in not more than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date
of registration of the title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines:
Provided, That the emancipation patents, the certificates of land
ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform
program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one (1) year
from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to
the conditions, limitations and qualifications of this Act, the property
registration decree, and other pertinent laws. The emancipation patents
or the certificates of land ownership award being titles brought under
the operation of the torrens system, are conferred with the same
indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said system,
as provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by
Republic Act No. 6732.

"It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to register the title of
the land in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, after the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the necessary deposit in
the name of the landowner constituting full payment in cash or in bond
with due notice to the landowner and the registration of the certificate
of land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries, and to cancel
previous titles pertaining thereto.

"Identified and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, based on Section

22 of Republic Act No. 6657, as, amended, shall have usufructuary
rights over the awarded land as soon as the DAR takes possession of
such land, and such right shall not be diminished even pending the
awarding of the emancipation patent or the certificate of land ownership
award.

"All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation

patents, certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued
under any agrarian reform program are within the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR." [Emphasis Ours.]

In other words, with the passage of RA 9700 on July 1, 2009, further

amending RA 6657, cases involving cancellation of titles issued under any
agrarian program, whether or not registered with the Land Registration
Authority, are now within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the DAR
Secretary.21

This is consistent with the ruling in Malabanan v. Heirs of Maronilla22,

in which the Supreme Court did not agree with the contentions that registered

21
Footnote 63 in Malabanan v. Heirs of Maronilla, G.R. No. 229983, July 29, 2019.
22
G.R. No. 229983, July 29, 2019.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 7 of 8
Decision

EPs and CLOAs may only be corrected or cancelled by order of the

(Provincial or Regional) Adjudicator of the DARAB; and that the DAR
Secretary has no jurisdiction to cancel their respective EP and CLOA titles.
The Supreme Court explained as follows:23

“The fact that respondents sought the cancellation of petitioners' EPs

and CLOAs does not necessarily mean that the application for CARP
exemption falls under the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Verily, for the
DARAB Adjudicator to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to
an agrarian dispute between the landowners and tenants in whose favor the
EPs and CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary, which is not
extant here, An agrarian dispute, as defined by Section 3 (d) of RA 6657, as
amended, refers "to 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."

In this case, the consequent cancellation of the affected tenants'

EP and CLOA titles does not arise from a controversy relating to any
tenurial arrangement between petitioners and respondents in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms
or conditions of such tenurial arrangement, but from the fact that the
lands involved are not covered by the CARP in the first place,
rendering the issuance of said titles unwarranted. Thus, there exists no
agrarian dispute nor any agrarian reform matter so as to situate the
jurisdiction with the DARAB Adjudicator. Indisputably, the controversy
between the parties herein is not agrarian in nature but merely involves the
administrative implementation of the agrarian reform program which is
cognizable by the DAR Secretary.” [Emphasis Ours; citations omitted.]

The facts and issues of the above case fall squarely upon the present
case before Us. In praying for the cancellation of private respondents’
registered CLOAs, petitioner in this case assailed the qualifications of private
respondents as farmers-beneficiaries and the coverage of the disputed
property in the CARP. From the foregoing, it is clear that the DAR Secretary
has jurisdiction over the case.

Considering that the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the case, We do

not see the need to delve into the merits which should be deferred to the
judgment of the Office of the DAR Secretary (after the filing of the
appropriate case by the petitioner) for it pertains to their subject of expertise
and primary jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is

DENIED. The Decision dated October 21, 2019 and Resolution dated
February 26, 2020 promulgated by the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 16748 are AFFIRMED.

23
Ibid.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 8 of 8
Decision

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED

MARY CHARLENE V. HERNANDEZ-AZURA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
FLORENCIO M. MAMAUAG, JR.
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES
Chairperson, Fourteenth Division