[UDK No. 9864. December 3, 1990.

]
RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING
JUDGE of the [CAR] RTC, Branch 4, Iligan City, and SPOUSES DOMINGO and
EUGENIA MARTIL, Respondents.
Dulcesimo P. Tampus for Petitioner. Alan L. Flores for Private Respondents.

FACTS:
Rufina Tangub and her husband Andres (deceased) were tenants from a
landholding owned by Spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil. Rufina Tangub and
her husband filed before the RTC of Lanao del Norte an agrarian case for damages
by reason of their unlawful dispossession which was not clearly justified by facts
and induced the RTC to dismiss the petition by virtue of Executive Order 229,
129-A and RA 6657. The Tangub Spouses filed before the Court a petition for
certiorari discerning no special and important reason, which the Court referred
the same to the Court of Appeals. The CA rendered its decision dismissing the
petition, finding that the jurisdictional question had been correctly resolved by the
RTC. Petitioner Rufina Vda de Tangub, once again before the Court, contending
that the Trial Court’s order of dismissal and the decision of the CA affirming it, are
patently illegal and unconstitutional because they deprive a poor tenant access to
courts and violate RA 6657. The Court find the petition without merit.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing the petition by virtue of Executive
Order No. 229, 129-A and RA 6657, contending that the jurisdiction of the RTC
over agrarian cases had been transferred to the DAR?
RULING:
No. The RTC is correct in dismissing the petition by virtue of the executive orders
and RA 6657. The jurisdiction of the RTC over agrarian cases had been
transferred to the DAR, all cases, disputes, controversies and matters or incidents
involving the implementation of the CARP. However, the RTC was not completely
divested of its authority, but its jurisdiction over agrarian cases was limited to
petitions for determination of just compensation to landowners and the

FENIX, CZYRA JANE A.

prosecution of all criminal offenses. Therefore, the RTC is correct in dismissing the
petition, considering the case involves rights of the plaintiffs as tenants of
agricultural land. Hence, falls under the jurisdiction of the DARAB who serves as
the arm of the Department, established and vested with adjudicatory powers in
settlements of agrarian disputes.

FENIX, CZYRA JANE A.