By:

ASEC. Augusto P. Quijano

DARAB

1. LEGAL BASIS OF THE DARAB RULES OF

PROCEDURE

1.a. Section 49, RA No. 6657:

Rules and Regulations-The PARC and
the DAR shall have the power to issue rules
and regulations whether substantive or
procedural, to carry out the objects and
purposes of this Act. Said rules shall take
effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2)
national newspapers of several circulation.

1.b. Section 50, Republic Act No. 6657:

Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DARThe DAR is hereby vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving implementation of agrarian reform,
except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture
(DA) and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR): XXX

1.c. Section 34, Executive Order No. 129-A

Implementing Authority
of
the
Secretary.
The Secretary shall issue orders,
rules and regulations and other issuances
as may be necessary to ensure the effective
implementation of the provisions of this
Executive Order.

1.d. Section 17, Executive Order No. 229

Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.
The DAR is hereby vested with quasijudicial powers to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters, and shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving implementation of agrarian
reform, except those falling under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the DENR and DA.

2. Evolution of Jurisdiction on Agrarian

Cases
Rule: The jurisdiction of court is determined by the
statute in force at the time of the commencement of an
action.

2.a. Section 12. Presidential

Decree No. 946 vested the then Court of
Agrarian
Relations
with
original
exclusive jurisdiction over cases
involving rights granted and obligations
imposed
by
presidential
issuance
promulgated in relation to the agrarian
reform program.

2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 - Judiciary

Reorganization Act of 1980. The Courts of Agrarian
Relations were integrated into the Regional Trial
Courts and the jurisdiction of the former was vested in
the latter courts.
3. Section 17, Executive Order No. 229 - QuasiJudicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested
with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters, and shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DENR and the DA.
(Note: Sec 50, RA 6657 substantially reiterates Section
17, EO 229 while Sections 56 and 57 provide for the
designation of at least one branch of the RTC in each
province as a Special Agrarian Court. (Tiongson vs. CA,
214 SCRA 197)

3.QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE DAR.

(DARAB OR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, SEC. 50
RA 6657)3.a. Primary Jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate Agrarian Reform Matters: and
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over all matter
involving the implementation of agrarian
reform; except those falling under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture and Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (Machete vs CA, 250
SCRA 176 (1995)
3.b. DARAB has JURISDICTION over
Agrarian
Disputes:
(Central
Mindanao
University vs. DARAB, 215 SCRA 96)

3.b.1. Agrarian Dispute refers to any

controversy relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or
otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture,
including disputes concerning farmworkers
association or representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
seeking to arrange terms or indications of such
tenurial arrangements. (Par. D, Sec. 3, RA 6657)
(Isidro vs. CA, 228 SCRA 503)

4. DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE:

4.a. DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure
Effectivity February 6, 1989;
4.b.DARAB New Rules of Procedure
Effectivity June 22, 1994
4.c.DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedure
Effectivity- February 8, 2003

5. CASES UNDER THE PRIMARY AND

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF
THE DARAB
Sec. 1, Rule II. 2003 DARAB
of
Procedure. They are as follows:
5.a. Cases involving rights and
obligations of persons, whether natural
or juridical, engaged in the management
cultivation and use of all agricultural
lands (Caballes vs. DAR, 168 SCRA 259
(1988; Oarde vs. CA, 280 SCARA 235
(1997);
5.b.Preliminary
administrative
determination of just compensation;
(Executive Order No. 405.);

5.c.Annulment or cancellation of lease

contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments
involving lands under the administration and
disposition of the DAR or LBP;
5.d.Ejectment and dispossession of
tenants/leaseholders:
5.e.Sale, alienation, pre-emption, and
redemption of agricultural lands;
5.f.Correction, partition, cancellation,
secondary and subsequent issuances of
registered CLOAs and EPs;
5.g.Review of leasehold rentals;
5.h.Collection of amortizations on
payments for lands awarded under PD No. 27,
including payment for residential, commercial and
industrial lots within settlement and resettlement
areas;

5.i.Annulment or rescission of lease

contracts and deeds of sale and the cancellation or
amendments of titles of lands under the administration
of DAR, homestead patents, free patents,
miscellaneous sales patents, to setters in settlement
and resettlement areas;
5.j.Boundary disputes;
5.k.Determination of title of agricultural lands
where the issue is raised in an agrarian dispute;
5.l.Cases previously falling under the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of
Agrarian Relations under Section 12; PD No. 946;
5.m.Such other agrarian cases, disputes,
matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of
DAR.

6. AGRARIAN LAW IMPLEMENTATION CASES

Sec. 3. Rules 11, 2003 DARAB Rules of
Procedure and Administrative Order No. 6, Series of
2000. These cases are exclusively cognizable and
under the exclusive prerogative of the Office of the
Secretary of DAR.
6.a.Classification
and
identification
of
landholdings
for
coverage under the agrarian reform
program and the initial issuance of
CLOAs and EPs, including protests or
oppositions thereto and petitions for
lifting of such coverage;
6.b.Classification, identification,
inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or
disqualification
of
potential/actual
farmer-beneficiaries;

6.c.Subdivision surveys of land under CARP;

6.d.Recall, or cancellation of provisional
lease rentals, Certificates of Land Transfers (CLTs)
and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases
outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No.
816, including the issuance, recall, or cancellation of
EPs or CLOAs not yet registered with Register of
Deeds;
6.e.Exercise of the right of retention by the
landowner;

6.f.Application
for
exemption
coverage under Section 10 of RA 6657;

from

6.g.Application for exemption pursuant to

Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion NO. 44
(1990);
6.h.Exclusion from CARP coverage of
agricultural land used for livestock, swine, and
poultry raising;
6.i.Cases of exemption/exclusion of fish
pond and prawn farms from the coverage of
CARP pursuant to RA 7881;
6.j.Issuance of Certificate of exemption
for land subject Voluntary Officer to Sell (VOS) and
Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for
agricultural purposes;

6.k.Application for conversion of

agricultural land to residential, commercial,
industrial, or other non agricultural uses and
purposes including protests or oppositions
thereto;
6.l.Determination of the rights of agrarian
reform beneficiaries to homelots;
6.m.Disposition of excess area of the
tenants/farmer-beneficiarys landholdings;
6.n.Increase in area of tillage of a
tenant/farmer-beneficiary;
3.o.Conflict of claims in landed estates
administered by DAR and its predecessors; or

6.p.Such other agrarian cases,

disputes, matters or concerns referred to
it by the Secretary of the DAR.
7. SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT (SAC)
The Supreme Court shall designate at least one
(1) branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) within
each province to act as Special Agrarian Court.
Section 56 of R.A. No. 6657 confers special
jurisdiction on Special Agrarian Courts. These
Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian
Courts have, according to Sec. 57 of the same law,
original and exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) all
petitions
for
the
determination
of
just
compensation to landowners,
and (b) the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under the Act.
(Machete vs. CA, 250 SCRA 176)

7.a.Just Compensation is defined as

the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the expropriator. It has been
repeatedly stressed by this Court, that the
measure is not the takers gain but the
owners loss. The word just is used to
intensify
the
meaning
of
the
word
compensation to convey the idea that the
equivalent to be rendered for the property to be
taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.
(Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (1989).

7.b. 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).

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 (ibid).

7.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).

The DAR has original, exclusive,

jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, except on
the aspects of (a) just compensation; and (b)
criminal jurisdiction over which regular courts
have jurisdiction. (Vda. De Tangub vs. CA,
191 SCRA 885)
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).

7.d.Supreme Court Circulars on Jurisdiction Re:

Comprehensive
Agrarian
Reform
Program (CARP)
7.d.1.Office
of
Court
Administrator Circular No. 79-2003,
June 12, 2003 issuance of TROs &
Writs of Preliminary Injunction (P.I.)
Presbetero .J. Velasco;
7.d.2.Office of Court Adm.
Circular No. 23, 2004. Feb.13, 2004
Presbetero J. Velasco - Reiteration of
Circular Regarding TROs, Writs of
Preliminary Injunction (PI), Prohibition
& Mandamus over cases under CARP.

7.d.3. Adm. Circular No. 38, 2002

Chief Justice (CJ) Hilario G. David
Implementation of Sec. 68, RA 6657
Immunity of Govt Agencies from Undue
Interference No injunction, restraining
order, prohibition or mandamus shall be
issued by lower courts, against DAR,
DAR,
DENR
&
DOJ
in
the
implementation of the CARP.
7.d.4. Adm. Circular No. 29-2002
Avoidance of Conflict of Jurisdiction
over cases under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law.

E.2. Elements of Tenancy

The leading cases are the following, to
wit:
8.a. Bernas vs. CA, 225 SCRA 119 -Consent of the lawful possessor creates
tenancy;
8.b. Castillo vs. CA, 205 SCRA 229
(1993) A hollowblock maker or
piggery/poultry owner cannot claim tenancy
on land which is not devoted to agricultural
production;
8.c. Tiongson vs. CA, 214 SCRA 197
Tenancy is created by the consent of the true
and lawful landholder through lawful means
and not by imposition or usurpation

8.d. Zamoras vs. Su, Jr. 184 SCRA

248 (1990) An overseer cannot be a tenant
because of the absence of personal
cultivation. Also in Matienzo vs. Servidad,
107 SCRA 276 (1981). There is no tenancy
because
of
the
absence
sharing
arrangement with an overseer.
8.e. Caballes vs. DAR, 168 SCRA
254 (1988). Agricultural production is not
present. Respondent is only a caretaker
who cannot qualify to be a tenant.
Note: Latay vs. Banog, 16 SCRA 88,
the SC considered a caretaker as a
tenant.

8.f. Teodoro vs. Macaraeg, 27

SCRA 7 (1969). Where there is
sharing of the produce or rental
payment tenancy exist.
9. EJECTMENT OF TENANTS FOR NON-PAYMENT OF
LEASE RENTALS.

9.a. Par.6, Sec. 36, RA 3844

The agricultural lessee does not pay
the lease rental when it falls due,
Provided, x x x
9.b. Presidential Decree No.
816 (October 21, 1976) penalized
any agricultural lessee on rice and
corn lands under PD 27 who
deliberately refuses or continue
to refuse to pay rentals or

amortization when they are due and

remain unpaid within a period of two
years.
9.c. Section 38. Statute of
Limitation - Application to Sec. 36. RA
3844.
9.d. Roxas y Cia vs. Hon. Jose R.
Cabatuando, et. al., 1 SCRA 1106 The
mere failure of a tenant to pay the
landholders share does not necessarily
give the latter right to eject the former
when there is lack of deliberate intent
in the part of the tenant to pay, or there
is failure of crop due to fortuitous event.

10

RIGHT OF REDEMPTIONS:
Spouses Eligio P. Mallari et al.
vs. Ignacio Arcega, et al. [G.R. No.
106615. March 20, 2002]
Ignacio Arcega et. al, vs.
Honorable Norberto C. Ponce et. al.
[G.R. No. 108591. March 20, 2002].
Spouses Eligio P. Mallari et. al.,
vs. Ignacio Arcega et al. [G.R. 109452.
March 20, 2002]
Spouses Eligio P. Mallari et. al.,
vs. Ignacio Arcega et. al., [G.R. No.
109978. March 20, 2002]
Spouses Eligio P. Mallari et. al.,
vs. Ignacio Arcega, et al. [G.R. No.
139379. March 20, 2002]

The appellate court correctly ruled

that it is not necessary for the lessee to
make a tender of payment and/or
consignation of the amount of redemption
price, and that a certification issued by the
Land Bank that it will finance the
redemption of the property in question is
sufficient. . . .

"Section 11 of R.A. No. 3844, as

amended, is a provision on the lessee's right of
pre-emption and provides that: `. . . If the
agricultural lessee agrees with the terms and
condition of the sale . . . [he] must either tender
payment of, or present a certificate from the
Land Bank that it shall make payment . . . on the
price of the landholding to the agricultural lessor.
If the latter refuses to accept such tender or
presentment, he may consign it with the court . .
. ' True, said provision does not appear in
Section 12 thereof, which refers to the lessees'
right of redemption. However, there is no
doubt that within the context of the Code
and in line with this Court's exhortation that
a liberal interpretation of the Code's
provisions is imperative, to give it full
force
and
effect
to
its
clear

intent, the lessee-preemptioner and the

lessee-redemptioner have the same rights
and are in the same footing and category
insofar as the availment of the facilities of
the Land Bank and the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform are concerned. Moreover, it is
explicitly provided in Section 12 that `the
Department of Agrarian Reform shall initiate
while the Land Bank shall finance, said
redemption as in the case of preemption.'
Hence, it is not necessary for tenants
redemptioners to make a tender of payment
and/or consignation of the redemption price. A
certification from the Land Bank to finance
the redemption when presented will suffice. .
..

11.

VALUATION
OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27

LANDS

UNDER

11.a. The value of the land shall

be equivalent to two and one half (2-1/2)
times the AVERAGE HARVEST OF
THREE NORMAL CROP YEARS
IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING
THE
PROMULGATION OF THIS DECREE.
11.b. LBP vs. CA and Jose
Pascual, G.R. No. 128557, Dec. 29,
1990- The Supreme Court decided not
to apply the 6% increment to
the
valuation because the Court of
Appeals
affirmed the PARADs
use

of the 1992 Gross Selling Price in the

valuation of the private respondents
lands following the ruling the Court of
Appeals in the case of Galeon vs.
Pastoral, CA-G.R. No. 23168.
11. c. Rolando Sigre vs. CA
and Lilia Y. Gonzales, 387 SCRA 15 and
LBP vs. CA and Lilia Gonzales, 387 &
SCRA 15.
DOCTRINES
11.c.1. The power of subordinate
legislation allows administrative
bodies to implement the broad
policies laid down in a statute by
filing in the details, and all that is
required is that the regulation
should
be
germane
to the
objects

and purposes of the law and that the

regulation be not in contradiction to but in
conformity with the standards prescribed
by the law.
One such administrative
regulation is DAR Memorandum Circular
No. 6. As emphasized in De Chavez v.
Zobel, emancipation is the goal of P.D.
27, i.e., freedom from the bondage if the
soil by transferring to the tenant-farmers
the ownership of the land theyre tilling.

11.c.2 Since DAR Memorandum

Circular No. 6 essentially sought to
accomplish the noble purpose of P.D. 27 it
is therefore valid and has the force of law.The rationale for the Circular was, in fact,
explicitly recognized by the appellate court
when it stated that "(T)he main purpose of
the circular is to make certain that the
lease rental payments of the tenant-farmer
are applied to his amortizations on the
purchase price of the land x x x. The
circular was meant to remedy the situation
where the tenant-farmer's lease
rentals
to
landowner

were not credited in his favor against the

determined purchase price of the land,
thus making him a perpetual obligor for
said purchase price. "Since the assailed
Circular essentially sought to accomplish
the noble purpose of P.D. 27, it is
therefore valid. Such being the case, it
has the force of law and is entitled to
great respect.

11.c.3. The Court cannot see any

"irreconcilable conflict" between P.D. No.
816 and DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6.
Enacted in 1975, P.D. No. 816 provides that
the tenant-farmer (agricultural lessee) shall
pay lease rentals to the landowner until the
value of the property has been determined
or agreed upon by the landowner and the
DAR. On the other hand, DAR
Memorandum Circular No. 6, implemented
in 1978, mandates that the tenant-farmer
shall pay to LBP the lease rental after the
value of the land has been determined.

11.c.4. Both Memorandum Circular No. 6

and P.D. 816 were issued pursuant to and in
implementation of P.D. 27. These must not be
read in isolation, but rather, in conjunction with
each other. Private respondent, however, split
hairs, so to speak, and contends that the Curso
case is premised on the assumption that the
Circular implements P.D. 816, whereas it is
expressly stated in the Circular that it was
issued in implementation of P.D 27, These must
not be read in isolation, but rather, in conjunction
with each other.
Under P.D. 816, rental
payments shall be made to the landowner. After
the
value
of
the
land
has
been
determined/established, then the tenant-farmers
shall pay their amortizations to the LBP, as
provided in DAR Circular No. 6. Clearly, there
is no
inconsistency between them. Au
contaire, P.D. 816 and DAR Circular No. 6

supplement each other insofar as it sets the

guidelines for the payment of lease rentals on the
agricultural property.
11.c.5. That P.D. 27 does not suffer any
constitutional infirmity is a judicial fact that has been
repeatedly emphasized by this Court in a number of
cases. As early as 1974, in the aforecited case of De
Chavez v. Zobel, 24 P.D. 27 was assumed to be
constitutional, and upheld as part and parcel of the
law of the land, viz.:"There is no doubt then, as set
forth expressly therein, that the goal is
emancipation. What is more, the decree is now part
and parcel of the law of the land according to the
revised Constitution itself. Ejectment therefore of
petitioners is simply out of the question. That would
be to set at naught an express mandate of
the
Constitution. Once
it
has
spoken,
our
duty

is clear; obedience is unavoidable. This is not only so

because
of
the
cardinal
postulate
of
constitutionalism, the supremacy of the fundamental
law. It is also because any other approach would run
the risk of setting at naught this basic aspiration to do
away with all remnants of a feudalistic order at war
with the promise and the hope associated with an
open society. To deprive petitioners of the small
landholdings in the face of a presidential decree
considered ratified by the new Constitution and
precisely in accordance with its avowed objective
could indeed be contributory to perpetuating the
misery that tenancy had spawned in the past as well
as the grave social problems thereby created. There
can be no justification for any other decision then
whether predicated on a juridical norm or on the
traditional role assigned to the judiciary of
implementing and not thwarting fundamental policy
goals.

11.c.6. The determination of just

compensation under P.D. No. 27, like in Section
16 (d) of R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law, is not final
or conclusive. unless both the landowner and
the tenant-farmer accept the valuation of the
property by the Barrrio Committee on Land
Production and the DAR, the parties may bring
dispute to court in order to determine the
appropriate amount of compensation a task
unmistakably within the prerogative of the court.
This is evident from the succeeding paragraph of
Section 2 of E.O. 228:

". . . In the event of dispute with the landowner

regarding the amount of lease rental paid by the
farmer beneficiary, the Department of Agrarian Reform
and the Barangay Committee on Land Production
concerned shall resolve the dispute within thirty (30)
days from its submission pursuant to Department of
Agrarian Reform Memorandum Circular No. 26, series
of 1973, and other pertinent issuances. In the event a
party questions in court the resolution of the dispute,
the landowner's compensation shall still be processed
for payment and the proceeds shall be held in trust by
the Trust Department of the Land Bank in accordance
with the provisions of Section 5 hereof, pending the
resolution of the dispute before the court."

11.c.7. The Court need not belabor the

fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law operates
distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers all
public and private agricultural land including
other lands of the public domain suitable for
agriculture as provided for in Proclamation No.
131 and Executive Order No. 229; 36 while, P.D.
27 covers rice and corn lands.

12. EXECUTION OF THE ADJUDICATORS

DECISION PENDING APPEAL TO THE BOARD.

12.a. Section 2, Rule XX 2003 DARAB

Rules Execution Pending Appeal. Any motion
for execution of the decision of the adjudicator
pending appeal shall be filed before the
Board which may grant the same upon
meritorious grounds, upon the posting of a
sufficient bond in the amount conditioned for
the payment of damages which the aggrieved
party may suffer, in the event that the final
order or decision is reversed on appeal,
provided that the bond requirement shall not
apply if the movant is a farmerbeneficiary/pauper litigant.

12.b. Section 3, Rule XX 2003 DARAB

Rules Execution when issued; Exception. On
Motion of the prevailing party or motu proprio, the
Board or the adjudicator shall order execution of
an order or decision that has already became
final and executory.
Appeal shall not stay the execution of a
decision or order except when the ejectment of a
tenant farmer, agricultural lessee or tiller, settler,
or amortizing owner-cultivator is directed.
When the decision is based on an
amicable settlement or compromise agreement,
the same shall be immediately executory.