You are on page 1of 19


Presented by:
Social Legislation
February 17, 2015




G.R. No. 180013
June 20, 2012

Pedro G. Lazaro was the former owner of the 9,536
square meters parcel of land subject of the dispute.
Spouses del Rosario tenanted the land
Spouses had 3 children Monica, Candido and Gil, all
surnamed del Rosario.
Petitioners claimed that when the spouses died, they
continued to become tenants and tilled the land.

Sometime February 1991, Monica and Gil entered into an

Gil to facilitate the application for Emancipation
patent in the name of Monica.
In exchange, Monica will cede to Gil 1/3 of the said
land after the Emancipation patent has been issued to
After 7 years, DAR issued the EP to Monica and
subsequent TCT was issued too in the name of Monica
however the agreement failed to materialize.

Petitioners filed with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian

Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in Malolos, Bulacan a complaint
against Monica for amendment of TCT and partition of the
subject land.
The PARADs Decision
Cancel TCT issued under Monicas name
partition the lot amongst the heir of the late spouses
del Rosario.
comply with the agreement to cede 1/3 of the land to
the heirs of Gil del Rosario.

Monica appealed from the foregoing disposition of PA Ilao to

the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
The DARABs Decision
Reversed and set aside PARADs decision
o Monica and siblings are not co-heirs of landholding in
o Agreement between Monica and Gil is contrary to PD
No. 27 - prohibits the transfer of parcels of land given

Petition for Review was filed by Monica with the CA

PARAD and the DARAB had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the petitioners complaint for
amendment of the Emancipation Patent and partition of
the subject land, there being no agrarian dispute or
tenancy relations between the parties.
petitioners are bound by the decision of the DARAB
declaring Monica as thebona fideholder of TCT No. EP257-M since they participated in the proceedings before
the PARAD and the DARAB without raising any objection

1. Do PARAD and DARAB have jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the petitioners complaint foramendment and

2. Are the petitioners bound by their respective

dispositions if PARAD and DARAB have no jurisdiction over the
complaint foramendment and partition?

1.No. The jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is limited
only to allagrarian disputesand matters or incidents involving
the implementation of the CARP. The petitioners complaint for
amendment and Partition is beyond the jurisdiction of the PARAD
and the DARAB.

Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an AGRARIAN DISPUTE in

this wise:

(d) AGRARIAN DISPUTErefers 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.It includes any controversy
relating to compensation of lands acquired under R.A. 6657 and other
terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to
farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether
the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and

Complaint for amendment and partition does not involve any

agrarian dispute, nor does it involve any incident arising from
the implementation of agrarian laws.The petitioners and
Monica have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian
relationswhatsoever that will bring this controversy within the
jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB.Since the PARAD and
the DARAB have no jurisdiction over the present controversy,
they should not have taken cognizance of the petitioners
complaint for amendment of the Emancipation Patent and

2. No. In a long line of decisions, this Court has consistently

held that an order or decision rendered by a tribunal or agency
without jurisdiction is a total nullity.Accordingly, we rule that
the decision of the DARAB in the instant case is null and
void.Consequently, the decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the decision of the DARAB is likewise invalid.

G.R. No. 139285
December 21, 2007

Archbishop is the registered owner of several properties in
Camarines Sur, with a total area of 268.5668 hectares planted
with rice, corn (249.02 hectares) and coconut trees (19.5432

In 1985, Archbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform

District Office NagaCity, Camarines Sur several petitions for
exemption of certain properties located in various towns of
Camarines Sur from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer
(OLT) under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 but 2 of the petitions

Archbishop appealed from the order and sought exemption

from OLT coverage of all lands planted with rice and corn but
was denied, too.

The appeal was elevated to CA but was dismissed and motion

for reconsideration subsequently denied.


1.Does the Archbishop only holds a naked title to the subject

properties on behalf of the beneficiaries?


Can the Archbishop be considered as landowner?


Should the properties be exempt from OLT?

1. No. Archbishop was found to be the registered owner of the

lands in question, and does not contest that fact.For the
purposes of the law, this makes him the landowner, without
the necessity of going beyond the registered titles.
2. Yes. The laws simply speak of the landowner without
qualification as to under what title the land is held or what
rights to the land the landowner may exercise.There is no
distinction made whether the landowner holds naked title
only or can exercise all the rights of ownership.

3. NO. Archbishops contention that he is merely an

administrator of the donated properties will not serve to
remove these lands from the coverage of agrarian
reform.Under PD 27, the coverage is lands devoted to rice
and corn. Section 4 of RA 6657 states, The Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of
tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and
private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131
and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the
public domain suitable for agriculture.The lands in
Archbishops name are agricultural lands that fall within the

Archbishop cannot claim exemption in behalf of the millions of

Filipino faithful, as the lands are clearly not exempt under the
law. He should not fear that his followers are simply being
deprived of land, as under both PD 27 and RA 6657, he is
entitled to just compensation, which he may then use for the
benefit of his followers. His situation is no different from other
landowners affected by agrarian reformthey are somewhat
deprived of their land, but it is all for a greater good.