JURISPRUDENCE ON JURISDICTION OVER AGRARIAN CASES

1. BETWEEN MTC AND CAR (Now DARAB)

A. AGUSTIN RIVERA VS. NEMESIO DAVID. G.R. NO. 157307; February 27,
2006

Doctrines/Features:

A. Existence of prior AGRICULTURAL TENANCY RELATIONSHIP

characterizes the controversy as an "AGRARIAN DISPUTE";

B.Sec. 21, Republic Act No. 1199 provides that "all cases involving the
dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or the
settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landlord
and tenant. . . . shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Court of Agrarian Relations."

B. In the case of Vda. de Arejola vs. Camarines Sur Reg. Agricultural School,
et al., 110 SCRA 517 (1960), the Supreme Court explained the phrase "by a third
party" in Section 21 of RA 1199 (Ejectment; Violation; Jurisdiction. — "all cases
involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landholder or by a third party —) The
Supreme Court held that when no tenancy relationship between the contending
parties exist, the Court of Agrarian Relations has no jurisdiction", "The law
governing agricultural tenancy, RA 1199 explains that tenancy relationship is a
"juridical tie" which arises between a landholder and a tenant once they agree
expressly or impliedly to undertake jointly the cultivation of land belonging to the
former, etc."

C. The issue of ownership cannot be settled by the DARAB since it is definitely

outside its jurisdiction. Whatever findings made by the DARAB regarding the
ownership of the land are not conclusive to settle the matter. The issue of ownership
shall be resolved in a separate proceedings before the appropriate trial court
between the claimants thereof. (Jaime Morta, Sr., et al., vs. Jaime Occidental, et al.,
G.R. No. 123417, (June 10, 1999) (Note the Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice
Davide Jr.,)

D. Where there are no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever

between the parties that could bring a controversy under the ambit of the agrarian
reform laws, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has no
jurisdiction. (Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. CA, 327 SCRA 293).
2. BETWEEN RTC AND DAR/DARAB

DAR VS. ROBERTO CUENCA, et al., G.R. No. 154112, September 23, 2004.

A. All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), even through they raise questions that are also legal or
constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since
the law has granted it special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian
matter.

B. In view of the foregoing, there is no need to address the other points

pleaded by respondent in relation to the jurisdictional issue. We need only to point
that in case of doubt, the jurisprudential trend is for courts to refrain from resolving
a controversy involving matters that demand the special competence of
administrative agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in
character, as in this case.

C. Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it
follows that the RTC of La Carlota City (Branch 63) was devoid of authority to
issue the assailed Writ of Preliminary Injunction. That Writ must perforce be
stricken down as a nullity. Such nullity is particularly true in the light of the
express prohibitory provisions of the CARP and this Court's Administrative
Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 38-2002. These Circulars enjoin all trial judges to
strictly observe Section 68 of RA 6657, which reads:

"Section 68.  Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference.

— No injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be
issued by the lower courts against the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program."

ALSO:

Supreme Court Circulars on Jurisdiction — Re: Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program (CARP)

1.      Office of Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 79-2003,

June 12, 2003. Utmost Caution, Prudence and Judiciousness in the
issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writs of Preliminary
Injunction by Justice Presbetero J. Velasco;
 2.      Office of Court Administrator Circular (OCA) No. 23, 2004
dated Feb. 13, 2004 by Justice Presbetero J. Velasco — Reiteration
of Circular Regarding Temporary Restraining Order, Writs of
Preliminary Injunction  Prohibition and Mandamus over cases under
CARP.

3.      Adm. Circular No. 38, 2002 by Chief Justice Hilario G.

Davide — Implementation of Sec. 68, RA 6657 on Immunity of
Government  Agencies from Undue Interference — No injunction,
restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by lower
courts, against DAR, DENR and DOJ in the implementation of the
CARP.

4.      Adm. Circular No. 29-2002 — Avoidance of Conflict of

Jurisdiction over cases under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law.

3. BETWEEN DAR AND DARAB

A. ON ORDER OF EXECUTION ERNESTO INGLES, ET. AL. VS. COURT

OF APPEALS, ET. AL., G.R. NO. 125202, JAN. 31, 2006

Doctrines/Features:

A. Thus, the functions of the DAR Regional Director are purely

administrative, that is, to put into operation agrarian laws and fill out the
details necessary for their implementation, and not adjudicatory.

B. On the other hand, when a dispute arises between parties affected by

the operation of agrarian laws, the controversy should be settle in an
adversarial proceeding before the DARAB, the quasi judicial arm of the
DAR function becomes judicial or quasi judicial in nature when the
exercise thereof involves the determination of rights and obligations of
the parties.

C. In issuing the questioned Order of Execution, the DAR Regional

Director overstepped the limits of his office and crossed the realm of
adjudication. While the orders sought to be implemented merely
directed the survey of the areas to be excluded from the CARP, the
Order of Execution, however, included the search for a relocation site
for the benefit of farmers who would be affected by the order of
exemption and the determination of appropriate disturbance
compensation. Thus, the DAR Regional Director turned what was
 supposed to be an administrative process into an adjudicatory
proceeding. The relocation of occupants is normally conducted with the
issuance of a writ of demolition, an act which is within the competence
of the DARAB.

B.ON CANCELLATION OF EPs/CLOAs HEIRS OF JULIAN DE LA CRUZ

VS. OF ALBERTO CRUZ, G.R. NO. 162890, November 22, 2005:

Doctrines/Features:

A. The Court agrees with the petitioner's contention that, under Section
2 (f), Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedures, the DARAB has
jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and
cancellation of CLOAs which were registered with the LRA. However,
for the DARAB to have jurisdiction in such case, they must relate to an
agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to whom CLOAs have
been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance,
correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the
administrative implementation of agrarian laws, rules and regulations to
parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the
jurisdiction of the DAR and not of the DARAB

B. Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an "agrarian dispute" as "any

controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to agricultural,
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.
It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
under this Act and other terms and condition of transfer of ownership
from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
farm operation and beneficiaries, landowner and tenant, or lessor and
lessee."

In Morta, Sr. v. Occidental (G.R. 123417, 10 June 1999, 308 SCRA

167), this Court held that there must be a tenancy relationship between
the parties for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case. It is
essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) that the
parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that
the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that
there is consent between the parties to the relationship (4) that the
purposes of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5)
 that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural
lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee.

C. In Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals, we held that the

jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the
following: a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of
agrarian reform; b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure
related problems; and c) approval and disapproval of the conversion,
restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential,
commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses. (Morta, Sr. vs.
Occidental, 308 SCRA 167).

4. BETWEEN DARAB and SAC

A. "It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, Section II, the
original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide petition for
determination of just compensation has already been transformed into an
appellate jurisdiction. It only means that, in accordance with settled principle
of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an
administrative agency to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable
compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the CARP, but such
determination is subject to challenge in the courts.

"The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original
and exclusive", because the question is first passed upon by the DAR,
as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the
administrative determination. For the matter, the law may provide
that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless,
resort to courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the
guarantors of the legality of administrative action" (Phil. Veterans
Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000).

B.It is the DARAB which has the authority to determine the initial valuation
of lands involving agrarian reform although such valuation may only be
considered preliminary as the final determination of just compensation is
vested in the courts. (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 321
SCRA 629).

C.Nothing contradictory between the provisions of Sec. 50, R.A. 6657

granting the Department of Agrarian Reform primary jurisdiction
(administrative proceeding) to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform
matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the
 implementation of agrarian reform" which includes the determination of
questions of just compensation, and the provisions of Sec. 57, R.A. 6657
granting Regional Trial Courts "original and exclusive jurisdiction" (judicial
proceeding) over (1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation
to landowner, and (2) prosecutions of criminal offenses under Republic Act
No. 6657. (Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322 SCRA 139).

D. It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, Sec. 11, the original
and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide petitions for
determination of just compensation has thereby been transformed into an
appellate jurisdiction. (Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322 SCRA 139).

E.The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and
exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the
judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative
determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the
DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be
foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of
administrative action. (Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322 SCRA 139).

F. We do not agree with petitioner's submission that the SAC erred in

assuming jurisdiction over respondent's petition for determination of just
compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings before
the DARAB. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the
landowner filed an action for the determination of just compensation without
waiting for the completion of the DARAB's re-evaluation of the land. The
court nonetheless held therein that the SAC acquired jurisdiction over the
action for the following reason.

It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has
'original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners'. This 'original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC
would be undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative officials original
jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court of the
review of administrative decision. Thus, although the new rules speak of directly
appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian
Courts, it is clear from Sec. 57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the
Adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate
jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would be void., Thus, direct
resort to the SAC by private respondent is valid.
It would be well to emphasis that the taking of property under R.A. No. 6657 is an
exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or
determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a
judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative
agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of respondent's petition
for determination of just compensation. (LBP vs. LEONILA P. CELADA, G.R.
CASE NO. 164876, January 23, 2006).