About the Department

Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) is the lead implementing agency of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP). It undertakes land tenure improvement, development of program beneficiaries, and
agrarian justice delivery. Virgilio de los Reyes is the current secretary of DAR.


Vision

"A nation where there is equitable land ownership with empowered agrarian reform beneficiaries
who are effectively managing their economic and social development for a better quality of life".


Mission

"To lead in the implementation of agrarian reform and sustainable rural development in the
country through land tenure improvement, the provision of integrated development services to
landless farmers, farm workers, small landowner and landowner-cultivators, and the delivery of
agrarian justice, as key to long lasting peace and development in the countryside".


DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 03-11

SUBJECT : Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 19 of R.A. No.
9700 (Jurisdiction on and Referral of Cases that Are Agrarian in
Nature)

SECTION 1. Prefatory Statement. Section 19 of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9700 provides:
"SEC. 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended, is hereby further amended by adding Section 50-A to read
as follows:
"SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian
Dispute. No court or prosecutor's office shall take
cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of
the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of
Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an
allegation from any of the parties that the case is
agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer,
farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically
referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR
which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15)
days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists:
Provided, That from the determination of the DAR, an
aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases
referred by the municipal trial court and the prosecutor's
office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial
court and in cases referred by the regional trial court,
the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.
"In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial
bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform
beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their
associations shall have legal standing and interest to
intervene concerning their individual or collective rights
and/or interests under the CARP. IASCTD
"The fact of non-registration of such associations
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned
government agency shall not be used against them to
deny the existence of their legal standing and interest in
a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial
bodies.""
Whether or not a case is agrarian in nature is discussed in the case of DAR vs.
Roberto Cuenca, et al., (G.R. No. 154112, 23 September 2004) where the Supreme
Court held that: "All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though 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
matters."
From the foregoing, it is therefore declared that the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) shall have exclusive jurisdiction on all cases that are agrarian in
nature.
SECTION 2. Cases Covered. These guidelines shall apply to the
procedure on the referral of cases which are agrarian in nature to the DAR by the
Prosecutor's Office, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court (MCTC, MTC, MeTC, and
RTC, respectively), whether it be criminal or civil in nature, except those involving
issues of just compensation or the prosecution of criminal offenses as provided for by
Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700.
SECTION 3. When Automatic Referral Shall Be Made. The referral to
the DAR of a case by the Prosecutor's Office, MCTC, MTC, MeTC, or RTC, shall be
made in accordance with Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 40, dated 10 June
2010, Supreme Court Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 62-2010,
dated 28 April 2010, and other related circulars and issuances.
DOJ Circular No. 40 states:
"When a complaint for a felony or a criminal offense is filed
before the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, the
investigating prosecutor shall refer the case to the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who has jurisdiction over the place
of the incident when:
(a) there is an allegation by any of the parties
(e.g., allegation in the complaint, affidavit or counter-
affidavit, etc.) that the case is agrarian in nature or an
agrarian dispute and one of the parties is a tenant,
lessee, farmer-beneficiary, farmer, or farmworker; or
(b) the case pertains to the implementation of
the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of
Republic Act No. 6657, as amended."
"When the case is subject of inquest and there is an allegation
by any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature or an agrarian
dispute and one of them is a farmer, farmworker or tenant, or
involves the implementation of the CARP, the inquest prosecutor
shall immediately refer the case to the PARO and release the
respondent for further preliminary investigation. The above
allegations must be written, made under oath, and the party making
such allegations signs the Minutes of the Inquest."
OCA Circular No. 62-2010, on the other hand, directs all courts and judges
concerned to "refer all cases before it alleged to involve an agrarian dispute to the
DAR".
For easy reference, copies of DOJ Circular No. 40 dated 10 June 2010 and
OCA Circular No. 62-2010 shall be attached hereto.
SECTION 4. To Whom Shall Referral Be Made. If the case to be
referred to the DAR by the Prosecutor's Office, MCTC, MTC, MeTC, or RTC is not
directly referred to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of the place where
the agricultural land subject of the case is located, the receiving DAR Office shall
transmit it to him within twenty-four (24) hours from its receipt of the referral.
SECTION 5. Issues to Be Determined. Upon referral, the PARO may
only give a ruling as to two issues:
(1) Whether or not the cause of action of the pending case with the
referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor is agrarian in nature,
the jurisdiction of which is lodged exclusively with the DAR; or
(2) Whether or not a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
DAR is a prejudicial question to the issue pending with the referring
Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor.
No other issue may be adjudicated or determined by the PARO.
SECTION 6. Procedures.
1. Upon receipt of the records of the case, the PARO shall, on the
same day, immediately assign the said case to the Chief of the Legal
Division of the DAR Provincial Office concerned for the conduct of a
summary investigation proceedings for the sole purpose of determining
whether or not an agrarian dispute exists or if the case is agrarian in
nature. The Chief of the DAR Legal Division concerned may assign the
case to a DAR lawyer or legal officer for the purpose of conducting the
said summary proceeding or fact-finding investigation.
2. The Chief of the DAR Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal
officer assigned shall, within three (3) days from receipt of the case
referred from the PARO, personally or in such a manner that will ensure
the receipt thereof (e.g., commercial couriers, fax, electronic mail,
phone call, etc.), serve upon each party to the case a notice stating
therein the hour, date, and place of the proceedings. The summary
proceedings shall be held, as far as practicable, in the municipality or
barangay where the agricultural landholding is located or where the
biggest portion of the landholding is located if the land overlaps two (2)
or more municipalities or barangays. The parties shall be required to
present their witnesses, documentary evidence, or any object evidence
to support their respective positions as to the existence of an agrarian
dispute on whether the case is agrarian in nature. The Chief of the DAR
Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned shall
require the Agrarian Reform Program Technologist (ARPT) of the place
where the subject agricultural landholding is located to submit his
comments thereto.
3. The said notice shall likewise require the parties to submit their
respective verified position papers, attaching thereto all their evidence,
within five (5) non-extendible days from receipt of such notice.
4. After the conclusion of the summary proceedings and the
submission of all position papers, or upon the expiration of the five (5)
day period as provided herein, the matter or issue shall be deemed
submitted for resolution. No other pleading or motion shall thereafter be
received or given due course.
5. Within three (3) days from the time the matter or issue is deemed
to be submitted for resolution, the Chief of the DAR Legal Division, or
the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned, shall, after a thorough
examination of the testimonies of the parties and his/her witnesses, the
respective verified position papers, and the documentary evidence thus
submitted, submit his/her report to the PARO. The report shall indicate
his/her initial findings of the facts and circumstances of the case and as
to whether an agrarian dispute exists or not or on whether the case is
agrarian in nature. The position papers, transcript of stenographic notes,
and the entire records of the case shall be attached to the report.
The determination by the DAR as to whether an agrarian dispute exists or not,
or on whether the case is agrarian in nature, shall be done through a summary
proceeding involving a strictly factual investigation. No motion for extension of time
or any similar pleading of a dilatory character shall be entertained nor given due
course. To this end, the Chief of the Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal
officer assigned, shall exert all reasonable means to ascertain the facts based on the
testimonies and evidence presented. They may verify the position papers submitted by
the parties, ascertaining that the concerned party is the one causing the preparation
thereof, and that the allegations therein are true based on personal knowledge or
authentic records and documents.
To preclude conflict of interest, in no case should the DAR lawyer serving as
counsel for the farmer-beneficiary be assigned as the hearing officer. Moreover, no
hearing officer should handle a case involving a relative within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity who is a party thereto.
SECTION 8. Prima Facie Presumption of an Existence of Agrarian
Dispute or that the Case is Agrarian in Nature. The presence of any of the
following facts or circumstances shall automatically give rise to a prima facie
presumption that an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in nature:
(a) A previous determination by the DAR that an agrarian dispute
exists or that the case is agrarian in nature, or the existence of a pending
action with the DAR, whether an Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI)
case or a case before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), which
involves the same landholding;
(b) A previous determination by the National Labor Relations
Commission or its Labor Arbiters that the farmworker is/was an
employee of the complainant;
(c) A notice of coverage was issued or a petition for coverage under
any agrarian reform program was filed on the subject landholding; or
(d) Other analogous circumstances.
If there is a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists or that the
case is agrarian in nature, the burden of proving the contrary shall be on the party
alleging the same.
SECTION 9. Facts Tending to Prove that a Case is Agrarian in Nature.
In addition to the instances mentioned in Section 7 hereof, the Chief of the Legal
Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned, in determining whether the
case is agrarian in nature, shall be guided by the following facts and circumstances:
1. Existence of a tenancy relationship;
2. The land subject of the case is agricultural;
3. Cause of action involves ejectment or removal of a farmer,
farmworker, or tenant;
4. The crime alleged arose out of or is in connection with an agrarian
dispute (i.e., theft or qualified theft of farm produce, estafa, malicious
mischief, illegal trespass, etc.), Provided, that the prosecution of
criminal offenses penalized by R.A. No. 6657, as amended, shall be
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian
Courts;
5. The land subject of the case is covered by a Certificate of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA), Emancipation Patent (EP), or other title
issued under the agrarian reform program, and that the case involves the
right of possession, use, and ownership thereof; or
6. The civil case filed before the court of origin concerns the
ejectment of farmers/tenants/farmworkers, enforcement or rescission of
contracts arising from, connected with, or pertaining to an Agribusiness
Ventures Agreement (AVA), and the like.
The existence of one or more of the foregoing circumstances may be sufficient
to justify a conclusion that the case is agrarian in nature. The Chief of the Legal
Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned, shall accordingly conclude that
the case is agrarian in nature cognizable by the DAR, and thus recommend that the
referred case is not proper for trial.
SECTION 10. DAR Certification. The PARO shall issue the
Certification within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt of the report of the Chief of
the Legal Division, DAR lawyer, or legal officer concerned. Such Certification shall
state whether or not the referred case is agrarian in nature, as follows:
(a) Where the case is NOT PROPER for trial for lack of jurisdiction:
After a preliminary determination of the relationship between the
parties pursuant to Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, this
Office hereby certifies that the case is agrarian in nature within the
primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR. It is therefore
recommended to the referring (court/prosecutor) that the case be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
(b) Where the case is NOT YET PROPER for trial due to a prejudicial
question:
After a preliminary determination of the relationship between the
parties pursuant to Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, this
Office hereby certifies that a prejudicial question exists the
determination of which is agrarian in nature and thus within the primary
and exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR. It is therefore recommended to
the referring (court/prosecutor) that the case be archived until the
determination of the DAR of the prejudicial question.
(c) Where the case is PROPER for trial:
This Office hereby certifies that the case is not agrarian in nature.
It is therefore recommended to the referring (court/prosecutor) to
conduct further proceedings.
The Certification shall state the findings of fact upon which the determination
by the PARO was based.
SECTION 11. Return of Referred Case. The PARO shall transmit the
Certification, together with the complete records of the case and pertinent
documentation, to the referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor within
twenty-four (24) hours from its issuance.
SECTION 12. Recommendation of the PARO is Final. The
recommendation of the PARO is final and non-appealable. Any party who may
disagree with the recommendation of the PARO has judicial recourse by submitting
his/her/its position to the referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor in
accordance with the latter's rules.
SECTION 13. Separability Clause. Any judicial pronouncement
declaring unconstitutional any provision of these Rules shall have no effect on the
validity of the other provisions not affected thereby.
SECTION 14. Repealing Clause. A.O. No. 4, Series of 2009 is hereby
repealed.
SECTION 15. Transitory Provision. This A.O. shall apply to all cases
pending with all Prosecutor's Office, MCTCs, MTCs, MeTCs, and RTCs at the time
of the effectivity of this A.O.
SECTION 16. Effectivity. This A.O. shall take effect upon its
publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.








FIRST DIVISION


DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN G.R. No. 163285
REFORM, rep. by REGIONAL
DIRECTOR NASER M. MUSALI,
Petitioner,

Present:


PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA, and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.


HON. HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Br. XII of Zamboanga City, Promulgated:
and YUPANGCO COTTON
MILLS, INC.,
Respondents. February 27, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

PUNO,

The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) is vested with
primary and exclusive jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, including
all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program. Thus, when a case is
merely an incident involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP), then jurisdiction remains with the DARAB, and not with the regular courts.
This is a petition for review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court of a
Decision dated November 21, 2003, and the Resolution dated April 21, 2004, both of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 69699, entitled Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) vs. Hon. Hakim S. Abdulwahid, as RTC Judge & Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc., on
pure question of law. Particularly, the issue concerns the jurisdiction of the trial court below over
the complaint in Civil Case No. 5113 vis--vis the original, primary and exclusive jurisdiction of
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the DARAB over agrarian disputes and/or
agrarian reform implementation as provided for under Section 50 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
6657.
On December 28, 2000, Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. (Yupangco) filed a complaint for
Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Violations of R.A. Nos. 6657 and 3844[,] as
amended, Cancellation of Title, Reconveyance and [D]amages with Prayer for the Issuance
of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order against
Buenavista Yupangco Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc. (BYARBAI), the DAR
and the Land Bank of the Philippines. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5113 and raffled
to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12 of Zamboanga City.1[1]
On January 26, 2001, the DAR filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds: (a)
Yupangcos causes of action were not within the jurisdiction of the RTC, (b) forum shopping,
and (c) litis pendentia.2[2]

On November 6, 2001, the RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss, ruling that Yupangcos
action was within the jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19, Chapter II of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129.3[3] DAR and BYARBAI filed a motion for reconsideration,4[4] which
was denied for lack of merit.5[5]
On March 20, 2002, DAR filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Court with the CA, alleging that the trial court acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when DARs motion to dismiss was denied. 6[6]
The appellate court sustained the RTC, finding that the action falls within the jurisdiction
of the regular courts and not the DARAB because Yupangco primarily sought the recovery and
possession of the subject parcel of land.

1[1] Respondents Complaint, CA rollo, pp.11-26.
2[2] Petitioners Motion to Dismiss, id. at 27-32.
3[3] RTC Order, id. at 33-34. Parenthetically, the RTC mistakenly referred to the complaint as a
cause of action. The two are not the same.
4[4] Dated November 19, 2001, id. at 35-39.
5[5] Dated February 8, 2002, id. at 40-41.
6[6] DARs Petition with the CA, id. at 1-10.
Hence the petition at bar. In its lone assignment of error, petitioner submits that the CA
erred when it upheld the jurisdiction of the [RTC] purely on the ground that [Yupangco]
primarily seeks the recovery of ownership and possession of subject parcel of land, jurisdiction
over which is lodged with regional trial courts, not the DARAB. 7[7]
We grant the petition.
It is the rule that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or
government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined
by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of
whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all of such reliefs.8[8] It is also settled
that jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the status or relationship of the
parties but also the nature of the issues or questions that is the subject of the controversy.9[9]
Thus, if the issues between the parties are intertwined with the resolution of an issue within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB, such dispute must be addressed and resolved by the
DARAB.10[10]

In the case at bar, the complaint filed by Yupangco seems at first blush to be within the
jurisdiction of the RTC, as it has been denominated as Recovery of Ownership and
Possession, Violations of R.A. Nos. 6657 and 3844[,] as amended, Cancellation of Title,
Reconveyance and [D]amages with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. 11[11] But as correctly pointed out by

7[7] Rollo, p. 13.
8[8] Heirs of Julian dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz, G.R. No. 162890, Nov. 22, 2005, 475 SCRA 743.
9[9] Id. citing Vesagas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142924, 5 December 2001, 371 SCRA 508. See
Viray v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92481, November 9, 1990, 191 SCRA 308.
10[10] Monsanto v. Zerna, G.R. No. 142501, 7 December 2001, 371 SCRA 664.
11[11] Supra note 1.
the DAR, the allegations of the complaint actually impugn the CARP coverage of the
landholding involved and its redistribution to farmer beneficiaries, and seek to effect a reversion
thereof to the original owner, Yupangco.12[12] Thus, the complaint filed by Yupangco alleged,
inter alia, the following:
(a) [Yupangco] was the registered owner of certain parcels of land13[13]
primarily devoted to coconut plantation, under the administration and
supervision of plaintiff corporation with several employees and other
persons hired as laborers;14[14]

(b) Sometime in 1993, the DAR placed the subject parcels of land under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government pursuant to
the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, and four (4) Transfer Certificate
Titles over the subject land were subsequently issued in favor of
BYARBAI;15[15]

(c) [Yupangco] vehemently objected to the coverage of the subject parcels
of land by the DAR and the valuation made by LBP, by filing protest and
objection with DAR and LBP;16[16]

(d) DAR, through the DAR Regional Director, Zamboanga City, issued the
four questioned Transfer Certificates of Title (or Certificates of Land
Ownership Awards-- CLOAs) to BYARBAI pursuant to R.A. No. 6657,
without LBP paying [Yupangco] the just compensation of the subject
parcels of land which valuation was then being contested before the DAR
Adjudication Board;17[17]


12[12] Rollo, p. 15.
13[13] Par. 3, Respondents Complaint, CA rollo, p.12.
14[14] Par. 4, id.
15[15] Par. 5, id.
16[16] Par. 6, id.
17[17] Par. 7, id.
(e) Majority of the members of BYARBAI are not employees nor hired
workers of [Yupangco], hence, [Yupangco] alleged that they should not
have been given preference nor be entitled as allocatees in the subject
parcels of land;18[18]

(f) Soon after the CLOAs were issued to BYARBAI, the latter took
possession of the subject parcels of land to the prejudice and damage of
[Yupangco];19[19]

(g) BYARBAIs real motive in having the land distributed to them
(pending resolution of all protests with the DAR and the contested
valuation made by the LBP) was to convert the land into rice production
resulting in the destruction of coffee plantations and other crops,
including the cutting of several hundreds of coconut trees. This
conversion was illegal and in gross violation of Republic Act No. 6657
and Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, and other existing laws and
Administrative Issuances.20[20]

Yupangco also alleged in its complaint that other acts were committed with the purpose
of land speculation, for business or industrial purpose, for immediate sale thereof for
business profits and not for planting, care and tending of the coconut plantation, which
would defeat the purposes and policies of the Agrarian Reform Laws and [breached] the
conditions of the questioned award of the land, rendering the acquisition by or distribution
to [BYARBAI] as the tenant-tillers of the land null and void, and thus reverting back the
ownership and possession thereof to [Yupangco]. 21[21]

18[18] Par. 8, id.
19[19] Par. 8, id.
20[20] Par. 9 & 15, id.
21[21] Par. 11 & 15, id.
These allegations clearly show that Yupangco sought the recovery of the subject property
by disputing its inclusion in the CARP, and imputing errors in the enforcement of the law
pertaining to the agrarian reform. The primal issues raised in the complaint, viz.: protest against
the CARP coverage, alleged breach of conditions of the DAR award under the CARP by the
farmer beneficiaries resulting to forfeiture of their right as such; nonpayment of rentals by the
farmers to the petitioner under R.A. No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), gravitate on the
alleged manner the implementation of the CARP under R.A. No. 6657 was carried out.
Under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657, all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform are within the DARs primary, exclusive and original jurisdiction, and at the
first instance, only the DARABas the DARs quasi-judicial body, can determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R.A. No. 6657, E.O.
Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.22[22]
Ultimately, the complaint in the petition at bar seeks for the RTC to cancel Certificates of
Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) issued to the beneficiaries and the Transfer Certificates of
Title (TCTs) issued pursuant thereto. These are reliefs which the RTC cannot grant, since the
complaint essentially prays for the annulment of the coverage of the disputed property within the
CARP, which is but an incident involving the implementation of the CARP. These are matters
relating to terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landlord to agrarian reform
beneficiaries over which DARAB has primary and exclusive original jurisdiction, pursuant to
Section 1(f), Rule II, DARAB New Rules of Procedure.
The ruling in Social Security System (SSS) v. Department of Agrarian Reform23[23]
is apropos. In this case, the former landowner, the SSS, made a similar attempt to circumvent
the jurisdiction of the DARAB by filing a complaint for recovery of possession with the RTC of

22[22] Centeno v. Centeno, G.R. No. 140825, Oct. 13, 2000, 343 SCRA 153.
23[23] G.R. No. 139254, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 659.
San Mateo, Rizal. When the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the SSS came
to this court for recourse. We ruled:
Irrefragably, the titles sought to be annulled by the SSS, namely, TCTs No. 1259
No. 1260 and No. 1261 originated from the CLOAs issued by the DAR in
pursuance of, and in accordance with, the provisions of Rep. Act No. 6657, the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Specifically, the SSS in its Complaint implored the trial court "to restrain the
DAR from implementing Rep. Act No. 6657 and the defendants, farmers-
beneficiaries from occupying/tilling, cultivating/disposing the properties."

Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides that:
Section 1. Primary And Exclusive Original and Appellate
Jurisdiction. The board shall have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate
all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic
Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, Republic
Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential
Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules
and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not
be limited to cases involving the following:
a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or
juridical engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all
agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws.
xxx xxx xxx

Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not limited to the following:
xxx xxx xxx
f) Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer
(CLT), Certificate of landownership Award (CLOA) and
Emancipation Patent (EP) and the administrative correction thereof;

Thus, taking its bearings from the above provision, Centeno v. Centeno explicitly
and compellingly validated the jurisdiction of the DARAB over cases involving
issuance of CLOAs, and went on further:
xxx under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), the DAR is vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and
shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of the agrarian reform program. The rule is that the
DARAB has jurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian dispute or
any incident involving the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.

Section 1, Rule II of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DARAB provides:
Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate
all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Orders
Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by
Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.

In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario, this Court cited Section 1,
Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that:
The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases
involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the
management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered
by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

Again in David v. Rivera, this Court pointed out that the jurisdiction over
agrarian reform matters is now expressly vested in the DAR through the
DARAB.
Indeed, Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 confers on the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate
agrarian reform matters. In the process of reorganizing the DAR,
Executive Order No. 129-A created the DARAB to assume the
powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian
reform cases. Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure
enumerates the cases falling within the primary and exclusive
jurisdiction of the DARAB.

In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,
reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental and Heirs of the late Herman Rey Santos v.
Court of Appeals, this Court decreed:
Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it states that
the program
"xxx shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity
produce, all public and private agricultural land as provided in
Proclamation No. 131 dated July 22, 1987, including whenever
applicable in accordance with law, other lands of the public domain
suitable to agriculture."
Section 17 thereof
1) vested the Department of Agrarian Reform with "quasi-
judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters," and
2) granted it "jurisdiction over all matters involving
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of
Agriculture (DA), as well as 'powers to punish for contempt and to
issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum and writs to enforce its
orders or decisions.'"

In Nuesa v. Court of Appeals the Court, in addition to re-echoing the jurisdiction
of the DARAB, puts emphasis on the extent of the coverage of the term "agrarian
dispute," thus:
As held by this Court in Centeno v. Centeno [343 SCRA 153], "the
DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the
agrarian reform program." The DARAB has primary, original and
appellate jurisdiction "to determine and adjudicate all agrarian
disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving
the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program under R.A. No. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A.
No. 3844 as amended by R.A. No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations."

Under Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 (CARP Law), "agrarian
dispute" is defined to include "(d) . . . 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 this
Act 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 beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor
and lessee." (citations and underscoring omitted)24[24]

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court
of Appeals, dated November 21, 2003, and the Resolution dated April 21, 2004, in C.A.-G.R. SP
No. 69699, entitled Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) vs. Hon. Hakim S. Abdulwahid,
as RTC Judge & Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc., are REVERSED. Civil Case No. 5113,
entitled Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Buenavista Yupangco Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association, Inc. (BYARBAI), et al. is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice

WE CONCUR:






24[24] Id.

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associ
ate Justice





RENATO C. CORONA ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice





TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice


C E R T I F I C A T I O N


Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.



REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice




Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 176838 June 13, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, as represented by Fritzi C. Pantoja, in her
capacity as the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR-Laguna, Petitioner,
vs.
PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS EQUITIES, INC., JIMMY CHUA, ROJAS CHUA,
BENJAMIN SIM, SANTOS C. TAN, WILLIAM C. LEE and STEWART C. LIM,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J .:
This resolves the Petition for Review
1
filed by petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
to assail the Decision
2
dated Oct8ber 12, 2006 and Resolution
3
dated January 10, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89693, which granted Paramount Holdings Equities,
Inc., Jimmy Chua, Rojas Chua, Benjamin Sim, Santos C. Tan, William C. Lee and Stewart C.
Lim's (respondents) appeal from the rulings of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 12284.
The Antecedents
The case stems from the petition
4
docketed as DARAB Case No. R 0403-0009-02, filed with the
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) by the DAR through Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer (PARO) Felixberto Q. Kagahastian. The petition sought to nullify the sale to the
respondents of several parcels of land, with details of the sale as follows:
Vendee Title No. Area Covered New Title Vendor
Jimmy C. Chua and
Rojas Chua
T-37140 71,517 square
meters
T-196706 Golden Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
Paramount
Holdings Equities, Inc.
T-37141 14,634 sq m T-196705 Golden Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
Paramount
Holdings Equities,
Inc.
T-37139 17,203 sq m T-196704 Golden Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
William C. Lee and
Steward C. Lim
T-37137 68,078 sq m T-196707 Green Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
Benjamin Sim and
Santos C. Tan
T-37138 66,114 sq m T-196708 Green Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
The PARO argued that the properties were agricultural land yet their sale was effected without
DAR Clearance as required under Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. No. 6657), otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Allegedly, the PARO came to know of the
transactions only after he had received a directive from the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to
investigate the matter, following the latters receipt of a letter-request from persons
5
who claimed
to be the tenant-farmers of the properties previous owners.
6

The respondents opposed the petition, contending that since the matter involves an
administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657, the case is cognizable by the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, not the DARAB. They also sought the petitions dismissal on the grounds of
prescription, litis pendentia, res judicata and forum shopping.
The Ruling of the PARAD
On October 16, 2002, Provincial Adjudicator Virgilio M. Sorita (PA Sorita) issued a Resolution
7

dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. He explained:
Petitioner further argued that the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board includes and is not limited to those involving sale, alienation, mortgage,
foreclosure, preemption and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of CARP or
other agrarian laws. These provisions were originally lifted from Presidential Decree 946. The
emphasis is on the phrase under the coverage of CARP or other agrarian laws which definitely
refers to land already placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R.A.
6657, lands already placed under Presidential Decree 27, landed estate acquired by Land Bank of
the Philippines and administered by the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to the
Provision of R.A. 3844 as amended and lands under the Settlement and Resettlement Project also
administered by the Department of Agrarian Reform for the simple reason that disputes and
controversies arising from these areas are agrarian reform matters. It does not include the sale,
disposition or alienation of private lands not administered by the DAR to private individuals such
as in this instant case.
Petitioner also argued that jurisdiction of the Adjudication Board also covers violation of the
Rules and Guidelines in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
This is true but such violation is only confined to violations committed by beneficiaries of the
program not like in the instant case, otherwise, jurisdiction lies on the Regional Trial Court
acting as Special Agrarian Court as clearly provided by law.
8
(Underscoring ours)
Furthermore, PA Sorita cited the absence of any showing that the petition was filed with the
knowledge and authority of the Solicitor General, as the official counsel of the government being
the aggrieved party in the dispute.
The DARs motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the filing of an appeal with the
DARAB.
The Ruling of the DARAB
The DARAB granted the appeal via a Decision
9
dated August 18, 2004. The dispositive portion
of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is hereby REVERSED and/or SET
ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered nullifying the Deeds of Sale in question dated September 5,
1989 and ordering the Register of Deeds of Laguna to cancel the aforesaid Deeds of Sale, as well
as the Transfer Certificates of Title issued to the respective private respondents concerned.
SO ORDERED.
10

Contrary to the findings of PA Sorita, the DARAB ruled that: first, the failure of the parties to
the sale to obtain the required clearance indicates that their transactions were fraudulent;
11

second, the PARO had the personality to file the petition even in the absence of the Solicitor
Generals assistance, citing Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2001 (Circular No. 2), and
the policy of DAR to "acquire and distribute all lands covered by RA 6657, including those
subject of illegal transfers x x x";
12
and third, the DARAB has the jurisdiction over the case,
since its jurisdiction under Circular No. 2 covers the cancellation of deeds of conveyance and
corresponding transfer certificates of title over agricultural lands.
13

The denial
14
of the respondents motion for reconsideration led to the filing of a petition with the
CA.
The Ruling of the CA
On October 12, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed Decision,
15
the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The appealed Decision (dated August 18,
2004) and Resolution (dated March 16, 2005) of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board-Central Office, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City are ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE. The Petition in DARAB Case No. R-0403-0009-02 is hereby DISMISSED. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
16

The CA emphasized that the DARABs jurisdiction over the dispute should be determined by the
allegations made in the petition. Since the action was essentially for the nullification of the
subject properties sale, it did not involve an agrarian suit that is within the DARABs
jurisdiction.
DARs motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution
17
dated January 10, 2007. Hence,
this petition.
The Present Petition
The Court has issued on June 6, 2007 a Resolution
18
denying the petition on the following
grounds: (a) DARs failure to attach proof of service of the petition upon the CA as required by
Section 3, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court; (b) the DARs
failure to accompany the petition with clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copies of
the assailed CA decision and resolution, in violation of Sections 4(d) and 5 of Rule 45, in
relation to Section 5(d) of Rule 56; (c) the petition was prepared by the DAR Region IV-Legal
Assistance Division without the concurrence of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG); and
(d) the petition failed to sufficiently show that the appellate court committed any reversible error
in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise by the Court of its
discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
On October 15, 2007,
19
the Court resolved to grant DARs motion to reconsider the dismissal,
after it filed its compliance and the OSG, its appearance and manifestation that it was adopting
the petition and motion for reconsideration filed by DAR.
On December 10, 2008, the Court again resolved to deny the petition on the ground of the OSGs
failure to obey a lawful order of the Court, following its failure to file the required reply despite
the Courts grant of its several motions for extension.
20
On April 20, 2009, the Court resolved to
grant DARs motion for reconsideration and accordingly, reinstate the petition.
21

The main issue for the Courts resolution is: Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction over
the dispute that seeks the nullification of the subject properties sale.
This Courts Ruling
The Court answers in the negative.
The jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited under the law, as it was created under Executive Order
(E.O.) No. 129-A specifically to assume powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of
agrarian reform cases under E.O. No. 229 and E.O. No. 129-A.
22
Significantly, it was organized
under the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The limitation on the authority of it to
mere agrarian reform matters is only consistent with the extent of DARs quasi-judicial powers
under R.A. No. 6657 and E.O. No. 229, which read:
SECTION 50 [of R.A. No. 6657]. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.The DAR is hereby
vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the 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).
SECTION 17 [of E.O. No. 229]. Quasi-Judicial 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 original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of
Agriculture (DA).
Thus, Sections 1 and 2, Rule II of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, which was adopted and
promulgated on May 30, 1994 and came into effect on June 21, 1994, identify the specific extent
of the DARABs and PARADs jurisdiction, as they read:
SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction.The Board shall have
primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, Republic Act
No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian
laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include
but not be limited to cases involving the following:
a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the
management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other
agrarian laws;
b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and payment of just
compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation,
amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the functions of the Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP);
c) The 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;
d) Those cases arising from, or connected with membership or representation in compact
farms, farmers cooperatives and other registered farmers associations or organizations,
related to lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and
redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws;
f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with
the Land Registration Authority;
g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946,
except sub-paragraph (q) thereof and Presidential Decree No. 815.
It is understood that the aforementioned cases, complaints or petitions were filed with the
DARAB after August 29, 1987.
Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of Republic Act No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other
agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and
cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.
h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of
the DAR.
SECTION 2. Jurisdiction of the Regional and Provincial Adjudicator.The RARAD and the
PARAD shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the Board to hear, determine and
adjudicate all agrarian cases and disputes, and incidents in connection therewith, arising within
their assigned territorial jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied)
Consistent with the aforequoted legal provisions, we emphasized in Heirs of Candido Del
Rosario v. Del Rosario
23
that the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to
cases involving agrarian disputes, including incidents arising from the implementation of
agrarian laws. Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this manner:
(d) 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 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 beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or
government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined
by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of
whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs."
24
Upon the Courts
perusal of the records, it has determined that the PAROs petition with the PARAD failed to
indicate an agrarian dispute.
Specifically, the PAROs petition failed to sufficiently allege any tenurial or agrarian relations
that affect the subject parcels of land. Although it mentioned a pending petition for coverage
filed with DAR by supposed farmers-tillers, there was neither such claim as a fact from DAR,
nor a categorical statement or allegation as to a determined tenancy relationship by the PARO or
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The PAROs petition merely states:
3.3 That the Provincial Office only came to know very recently about such transaction when the
Office received on two separate occasions a memorandum directive dated 22 October and 25
April 2002 from the Office of the DAR Secretary to investigate and if warranted file a
corresponding petition for nullification of such transaction anent the petition for coverage of the
actual occupants farmers-tillers led by spouses Josie and Lourdes Samson who informed the
Office of the DAR Secretary about such transaction. x x x
25
(Emphasis ours)
It is also undisputed, that even the petition filed with the PARAD failed to indicate otherwise,
that the subject parcels of land had not been the subject of any notice of coverage under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Clearly, the PAROs cause of action was
merely founded on the absence of a clearance to cover the sale and registration of the subject
parcels of land, which were claimed in the petition to be agricultural.
Given the foregoing, the CA correctly ruled that the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the
PAROs petition. While the Court recognizes the legal requirement for clearances in the sale and
transfer of agricultural lands, the DARABs jurisdiction over such disputes is limited by the
qualification under Rule II, Section 1, paragraphs (c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of
Procedure, which read:
c) The 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;
x x x x
e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre emption and redemption of
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws. (Emphasis ours)
Even Circular No. 2 cited in the Decision
26
dated August 18, 2004 on the authority of the PARO
to file petitions with the PARAD in case of illegal transfers presupposes the fulfillment of the
conditions in the cited Section 1, paragraphs (c) and (e), Rule II of the DARAB Rules and
Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657. The pertinent provisions of Circular No. 2 read:
SECTION 4. Operating Procedures.The procedures for annulment of deeds of conveyance
executed in violation of RA 6657 are as follows:
x x x x
b) The Chief, Legal Division, of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office, shall have the following
responsibilities:
x x x x
2. If there was illegal transfer, file a petition for annulment of the deed of conveyance in behalf
of the PARO before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). The petition shall
state the material facts constituting the violation and pray for the issuance of an order from the
PARAD directing the ROD to cancel the deed of conveyance and the TCT generated as a result
thereof. As legal basis therefor, the petition shall cite Section 50 of RA 6657 and Rule II, Section
1(c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure;
x x x x
6. In the event of an adverse decision or a denial of the petition, file a Notice of Appeal within
the 15-day reglementary period with the DARAB, and, thereafter, transmit the records of the
case to the Director, Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), for prosecution of the
appeal.
Clearly, not every sale or transfer of agricultural land would warrant DARABs exercise of its
jurisdiction. The law is specific that the property must be shown to be under the coverage of
agrarian reform laws. As the CA correctly ruled:
It is easily discernable x x x that the cause of action of the DAR sufficiently established a suit for
the declaration of the sale of the subject landholdings null and void (in violation of
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989). Obviously, it does not involve an agrarian suit,
hence, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the DARAB. It must be emphasized that, "(t)here
must be a tenancy relationship between the party litigants for the DARAB to validly take
cognizance of a controversy." (Suarez vs. Saul, 473 SCRA 628). Also, it is necessary that the
controversy must relate 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," (Section 3 (d), Chapter I in
relation to Section 50, Chapter XII, R.A. 6657 and Section 1, Rule II, DARAB Rules of
[Procedure]). Here, an allegation to declare null and void a certain sale of a landholding does not
ipso facto make the case an agrarian dispute.
27
(Emphasis ours)
Our finding on the DARABs lack of jurisdiction over the PAROs petition renders it needless
for the Court to discuss the other issues that are raised in the petition. In any case, the Court finds
it worthy to discuss that the original petition remains dismissible on the merits.
Even during the proceedings before the PARAD, the respondents have raised the pendency with
the Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna of Civil Case No. B-5862, an appeal from the
decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Santa Rosa, Laguna in Civil Case No. 2478. The records
indicate that when the matter was elevated to the CA via the petition docketed as CA G.R. SP
No. 68110, the appellate court declared the subject properties to have long been reclassified from
"agricultural" to "industrial". Thus, the CA Decision dated September 23, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 68110 reads in part:
As to the nature of the subject lands, the tax declarations of real property, the annual receipts for
real estate taxes paid, and zoning ordinance, providing for the Town Comprehensive Land Use
Plan of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, have always classified the lands as "industrial". Moreover, as certified
by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, there is no record of tenancy or
written agricultural leasehold contract with respect to the subject lands, nor are the same covered
by Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27. Thus, for being industrial in nature, the subject
lands are outside the ambit of existing agricultural tenancy laws.
28
(Citations omitted)
An appeal from the CAs decision was denied by the Court in a Resolution dated June 18,
2003.
29

The Housing Land Use Regulatory Board has affirmed through a Certification
30
dated May 22,
1991 that the zoning ordinance referred to was approved on December 2, 1981. Thus, the
respondents correctly argued that since the subject properties were already classified as
"industrial" long before the effectivity of the CARL, their sale could not have been covered by
the CARP and the requirement for a clearance. Significantly, DAR failed to refute said
allegation, which the Court finds duly supported by documents that form part of the case records.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October
12, 2006 and Resolution dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
89693 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DAR MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 07-91
SUBJECT : Clarification on the Scope of Jurisdiction of DARAB, RARADs,
and PARADs Over Orders and Decisions of
the Secretary

Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (see also Sec. 17, Exec. Order No. 229) vested in the
Department of Agrarian Reform quasi-judicial functions which are being discharged
by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), or the
Adjudicators, by delegation, pursuant to Section 13 of E.O. No. 129-A. DcSEHT
Section 1, Rule II of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DARAB
enumerates the cases over which the DARAB has primary, original and appellate
jurisdiction. Expressly excluded from said jurisdiction are cases involving decisions
or orders of the Department Secretary, it reads:
"SECTION 1. Primary, Original and Appellate
Jurisdiction. . . ..
"Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be
limited to the following. . . . . .
"c) Cases involving the annulment or cancellation of orders
or decisions of DAR officials other than the Secretary, lease contracts
or deeds of sale or their amendments under the administration and
disposition of the DAR and LBP. (emphasis added).
The above provision implies that the Adjudication board has no jurisdiction
over cases involving annulment or cancellation of orders or decisions of the Secretary.
However, a distinction must be made when the order or decision involved is merely
incidental to the main agrarian dispute falling under the jurisdiction of the DARAB,
RARAD or PARAD, and cannot be avoided for purposes of having full and final
determination of the case. Such cases must first be forwarded to the Executive
Director of DARAB, for him to determine whether they may fall under Paragraph (g)
of said Section 1. Upon finding that the case falls under paragraph (g), prior clearance
from the Secretary should be secured before the DARAB may take cognizance of the
case. Absent such clearance or unless there is express referral by the Secretary in all
other cases, the party adversely affected by an order or decision of the Secretary may
resort for relief elsewhere but not the DARAB, RARAD or PARAD concerned.
This shall take effect immediately.
September 30, 1991.

(SGD.) BENJAMIN T. LEONG
Secretary
















G.R. No. 176838 June 13, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, as represented by Fritzi C. Pantoja, in her
capacity as the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR-Laguna, Petitioner,
vs.
PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS EQUITIES, INC., JIMMY CHUA, ROJAS CHUA,
BENJAMIN SIM, SANTOS C. TAN, WILLIAM C. LEE and STEWART C. LIM,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J .:
This resolves the Petition for Review
1
filed by petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
to assail the Decision
2
dated Oct8ber 12, 2006 and Resolution
3
dated January 10, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89693, which granted Paramount Holdings Equities,
Inc., Jimmy Chua, Rojas Chua, Benjamin Sim, Santos C. Tan, William C. Lee and Stewart C.
Lim's (respondents) appeal from the rulings of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 12284.
The Antecedents
The case stems from the petition
4
docketed as DARAB Case No. R 0403-0009-02, filed with the
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) by the DAR through Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer (PARO) Felixberto Q. Kagahastian. The petition sought to nullify the sale to the
respondents of several parcels of land, with details of the sale as follows:
Vendee Title No. Area Covered New Title Vendor
Jimmy C. Chua and
Rojas Chua
T-37140 71,517 square
meters
T-196706 Golden Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
Paramount
Holdings Equities, Inc.
T-37141 14,634 sq m T-196705 Golden Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
Paramount
Holdings Equities,
Inc.
T-37139 17,203 sq m T-196704 Golden Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
William C. Lee and
Steward C. Lim
T-37137 68,078 sq m T-196707 Green Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
Benjamin Sim and
Santos C. Tan
T-37138 66,114 sq m T-196708 Green Mountain
Agricultural Development
Corporation
The PARO argued that the properties were agricultural land yet their sale was effected without
DAR Clearance as required under Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. No. 6657), otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Allegedly, the PARO came to know of the
transactions only after he had received a directive from the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to
investigate the matter, following the latters receipt of a letter-request from persons
5
who claimed
to be the tenant-farmers of the properties previous owners.
6

The respondents opposed the petition, contending that since the matter involves an
administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657, the case is cognizable by the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, not the DARAB. They also sought the petitions dismissal on the grounds of
prescription, litis pendentia, res judicata and forum shopping.
The Ruling of the PARAD
On October 16, 2002, Provincial Adjudicator Virgilio M. Sorita (PA Sorita) issued a Resolution
7

dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. He explained:
Petitioner further argued that the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board includes and is not limited to those involving sale, alienation, mortgage,
foreclosure, preemption and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of CARP or
other agrarian laws. These provisions were originally lifted from Presidential Decree 946. The
emphasis is on the phrase under the coverage of CARP or other agrarian laws which definitely
refers to land already placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R.A.
6657, lands already placed under Presidential Decree 27, landed estate acquired by Land Bank of
the Philippines and administered by the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to the
Provision of R.A. 3844 as amended and lands under the Settlement and Resettlement Project also
administered by the Department of Agrarian Reform for the simple reason that disputes and
controversies arising from these areas are agrarian reform matters. It does not include the sale,
disposition or alienation of private lands not administered by the DAR to private individuals such
as in this instant case.
Petitioner also argued that jurisdiction of the Adjudication Board also covers violation of the
Rules and Guidelines in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
This is true but such violation is only confined to violations committed by beneficiaries of the
program not like in the instant case, otherwise, jurisdiction lies on the Regional Trial Court
acting as Special Agrarian Court as clearly provided by law.
8
(Underscoring ours)
Furthermore, PA Sorita cited the absence of any showing that the petition was filed with the
knowledge and authority of the Solicitor General, as the official counsel of the government being
the aggrieved party in the dispute.
The DARs motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the filing of an appeal with the
DARAB.
The Ruling of the DARAB
The DARAB granted the appeal via a Decision
9
dated August 18, 2004. The dispositive portion
of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is hereby REVERSED and/or SET
ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered nullifying the Deeds of Sale in question dated September 5,
1989 and ordering the Register of Deeds of Laguna to cancel the aforesaid Deeds of Sale, as well
as the Transfer Certificates of Title issued to the respective private respondents concerned.
SO ORDERED.
10

Contrary to the findings of PA Sorita, the DARAB ruled that: first, the failure of the parties to
the sale to obtain the required clearance indicates that their transactions were fraudulent;
11

second, the PARO had the personality to file the petition even in the absence of the Solicitor
Generals assistance, citing Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2001 (Circular No. 2), and
the policy of DAR to "acquire and distribute all lands covered by RA 6657, including those
subject of illegal transfers x x x";
12
and third, the DARAB has the jurisdiction over the case,
since its jurisdiction under Circular No. 2 covers the cancellation of deeds of conveyance and
corresponding transfer certificates of title over agricultural lands.
13

The denial
14
of the respondents motion for reconsideration led to the filing of a petition with the
CA.
The Ruling of the CA
On October 12, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed Decision,
15
the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The appealed Decision (dated August 18,
2004) and Resolution (dated March 16, 2005) of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board-Central Office, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City are ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE. The Petition in DARAB Case No. R-0403-0009-02 is hereby DISMISSED. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
16

The CA emphasized that the DARABs jurisdiction over the dispute should be determined by the
allegations made in the petition. Since the action was essentially for the nullification of the
subject properties sale, it did not involve an agrarian suit that is within the DARABs
jurisdiction.
DARs motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution
17
dated January 10, 2007. Hence,
this petition.
The Present Petition
The Court has issued on June 6, 2007 a Resolution
18
denying the petition on the following
grounds: (a) DARs failure to attach proof of service of the petition upon the CA as required by
Section 3, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court; (b) the DARs
failure to accompany the petition with clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copies of
the assailed CA decision and resolution, in violation of Sections 4(d) and 5 of Rule 45, in
relation to Section 5(d) of Rule 56; (c) the petition was prepared by the DAR Region IV-Legal
Assistance Division without the concurrence of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG); and
(d) the petition failed to sufficiently show that the appellate court committed any reversible error
in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise by the Court of its
discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
On October 15, 2007,
19
the Court resolved to grant DARs motion to reconsider the dismissal,
after it filed its compliance and the OSG, its appearance and manifestation that it was adopting
the petition and motion for reconsideration filed by DAR.
On December 10, 2008, the Court again resolved to deny the petition on the ground of the OSGs
failure to obey a lawful order of the Court, following its failure to file the required reply despite
the Courts grant of its several motions for extension.
20
On April 20, 2009, the Court resolved to
grant DARs motion for reconsideration and accordingly, reinstate the petition.
21

The main issue for the Courts resolution is: Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction over
the dispute that seeks the nullification of the subject properties sale.
This Courts Ruling
The Court answers in the negative.
The jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited under the law, as it was created under Executive Order
(E.O.) No. 129-A specifically to assume powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of
agrarian reform cases under E.O. No. 229 and E.O. No. 129-A.
22
Significantly, it was organized
under the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The limitation on the authority of it to
mere agrarian reform matters is only consistent with the extent of DARs quasi-judicial powers
under R.A. No. 6657 and E.O. No. 229, which read:
SECTION 50 [of R.A. No. 6657]. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.The DAR is hereby
vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the 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).
SECTION 17 [of E.O. No. 229]. Quasi-Judicial 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 original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of
Agriculture (DA).
Thus, Sections 1 and 2, Rule II of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, which was adopted and
promulgated on May 30, 1994 and came into effect on June 21, 1994, identify the specific extent
of the DARABs and PARADs jurisdiction, as they read:
SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction.The Board shall have
primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, Republic Act
No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian
laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include
but not be limited to cases involving the following:
a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the
management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other
agrarian laws;
b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and payment of just
compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation,
amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the functions of the Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP);
c) The 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;
d) Those cases arising from, or connected with membership or representation in compact
farms, farmers cooperatives and other registered farmers associations or organizations,
related to lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and
redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws;
f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with
the Land Registration Authority;
g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946,
except sub-paragraph (q) thereof and Presidential Decree No. 815.
It is understood that the aforementioned cases, complaints or petitions were filed with the
DARAB after August 29, 1987.
Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of Republic Act No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other
agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and
cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.
h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of
the DAR.
SECTION 2. Jurisdiction of the Regional and Provincial Adjudicator.The RARAD and the
PARAD shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the Board to hear, determine and
adjudicate all agrarian cases and disputes, and incidents in connection therewith, arising within
their assigned territorial jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied)
Consistent with the aforequoted legal provisions, we emphasized in Heirs of Candido Del
Rosario v. Del Rosario
23
that the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to
cases involving agrarian disputes, including incidents arising from the implementation of
agrarian laws. Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this manner:
(d) 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 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 beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or
government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined
by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of
whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs."
24
Upon the Courts
perusal of the records, it has determined that the PAROs petition with the PARAD failed to
indicate an agrarian dispute.
Specifically, the PAROs petition failed to sufficiently allege any tenurial or agrarian relations
that affect the subject parcels of land. Although it mentioned a pending petition for coverage
filed with DAR by supposed farmers-tillers, there was neither such claim as a fact from DAR,
nor a categorical statement or allegation as to a determined tenancy relationship by the PARO or
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The PAROs petition merely states:
3.3 That the Provincial Office only came to know very recently about such transaction when the
Office received on two separate occasions a memorandum directive dated 22 October and 25
April 2002 from the Office of the DAR Secretary to investigate and if warranted file a
corresponding petition for nullification of such transaction anent the petition for coverage of the
actual occupants farmers-tillers led by spouses Josie and Lourdes Samson who informed the
Office of the DAR Secretary about such transaction. x x x
25
(Emphasis ours)
It is also undisputed, that even the petition filed with the PARAD failed to indicate otherwise,
that the subject parcels of land had not been the subject of any notice of coverage under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Clearly, the PAROs cause of action was
merely founded on the absence of a clearance to cover the sale and registration of the subject
parcels of land, which were claimed in the petition to be agricultural.
Given the foregoing, the CA correctly ruled that the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the
PAROs petition. While the Court recognizes the legal requirement for clearances in the sale and
transfer of agricultural lands, the DARABs jurisdiction over such disputes is limited by the
qualification under Rule II, Section 1, paragraphs (c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of
Procedure, which read:
c) The 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;
x x x x
e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre emption and redemption of
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws. (Emphasis ours)
Even Circular No. 2 cited in the Decision
26
dated August 18, 2004 on the authority of the PARO
to file petitions with the PARAD in case of illegal transfers presupposes the fulfillment of the
conditions in the cited Section 1, paragraphs (c) and (e), Rule II of the DARAB Rules and
Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657. The pertinent provisions of Circular No. 2 read:
SECTION 4. Operating Procedures.The procedures for annulment of deeds of conveyance
executed in violation of RA 6657 are as follows:
x x x x
b) The Chief, Legal Division, of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office, shall have the following
responsibilities:
x x x x
2. If there was illegal transfer, file a petition for annulment of the deed of conveyance in behalf
of the PARO before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). The petition shall
state the material facts constituting the violation and pray for the issuance of an order from the
PARAD directing the ROD to cancel the deed of conveyance and the TCT generated as a result
thereof. As legal basis therefor, the petition shall cite Section 50 of RA 6657 and Rule II, Section
1(c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure;
x x x x
6. In the event of an adverse decision or a denial of the petition, file a Notice of Appeal within
the 15-day reglementary period with the DARAB, and, thereafter, transmit the records of the
case to the Director, Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), for prosecution of the
appeal.
Clearly, not every sale or transfer of agricultural land would warrant DARABs exercise of its
jurisdiction. The law is specific that the property must be shown to be under the coverage of
agrarian reform laws. As the CA correctly ruled:
It is easily discernable x x x that the cause of action of the DAR sufficiently established a suit for
the declaration of the sale of the subject landholdings null and void (in violation of
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989). Obviously, it does not involve an agrarian suit,
hence, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the DARAB. It must be emphasized that, "(t)here
must be a tenancy relationship between the party litigants for the DARAB to validly take
cognizance of a controversy." (Suarez vs. Saul, 473 SCRA 628). Also, it is necessary that the
controversy must relate 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," (Section 3 (d), Chapter I in
relation to Section 50, Chapter XII, R.A. 6657 and Section 1, Rule II, DARAB Rules of
[Procedure]). Here, an allegation to declare null and void a certain sale of a landholding does not
ipso facto make the case an agrarian dispute.
27
(Emphasis ours)
Our finding on the DARABs lack of jurisdiction over the PAROs petition renders it needless
for the Court to discuss the other issues that are raised in the petition. In any case, the Court finds
it worthy to discuss that the original petition remains dismissible on the merits.
Even during the proceedings before the PARAD, the respondents have raised the pendency with
the Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna of Civil Case No. B-5862, an appeal from the
decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Santa Rosa, Laguna in Civil Case No. 2478. The records
indicate that when the matter was elevated to the CA via the petition docketed as CA G.R. SP
No. 68110, the appellate court declared the subject properties to have long been reclassified from
"agricultural" to "industrial". Thus, the CA Decision dated September 23, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 68110 reads in part:
As to the nature of the subject lands, the tax declarations of real property, the annual receipts for
real estate taxes paid, and zoning ordinance, providing for the Town Comprehensive Land Use
Plan of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, have always classified the lands as "industrial". Moreover, as certified
by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, there is no record of tenancy or
written agricultural leasehold contract with respect to the subject lands, nor are the same covered
by Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27. Thus, for being industrial in nature, the subject
lands are outside the ambit of existing agricultural tenancy laws.
28
(Citations omitted)
An appeal from the CAs decision was denied by the Court in a Resolution dated June 18,
2003.
29

The Housing Land Use Regulatory Board has affirmed through a Certification
30
dated May 22,
1991 that the zoning ordinance referred to was approved on December 2, 1981. Thus, the
respondents correctly argued that since the subject properties were already classified as
"industrial" long before the effectivity of the CARL, their sale could not have been covered by
the CARP and the requirement for a clearance. Significantly, DAR failed to refute said
allegation, which the Court finds duly supported by documents that form part of the case records.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October
12, 2006 and Resolution dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
89693 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 06-00
August 30, 2000

DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 06-00

SUBJECT : Rules Of Procedure For Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases

Pursuant to Sections 49 and 50 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, the "Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1998," and in order to foster a just, inexpensive and expeditious
determination of agrarian cases, the following rules governing the adjudication of cases
involving agrarian law implementation are hereby promulgated:
RULE I
Preliminary Provisions
SECTION 1. Title. These Rules shall be known as the "Rules of Procedure for
Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases." EDCcaS
SECTION 2. Cases Covered These Rules shall govern cases falling within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary which shall include the following:
(a) Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), including protests or oppositions
thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage;
(b) Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-beneficiaries;
(c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP;
(d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP
Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 816, including the issuance, recall or cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or
Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with the Register of
Deeds;
(e) Exercise of the right of retention by landowner;
(f) Application for exemption under Section 10 of RA 6657 as implemented by DAR
Administrative Order No. 13 (1990);
(g) Application for exemption pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No.
44 (1990) as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6 (1994);
(h) Application for exemption under DAR Administrative Order No. 9 (1993);
(i) Application for exemption under Section 1 of RA 7881, as implemented by DAR
Administrative Order No. 3 (1995);
(j) Issuance of certificate of exemption for lands subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell
(VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for agricultural purposes
pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 34 (1997);
(k) Application for conversion of agricultural lands to residential, commercial,
industrial or other non-agricultural uses including protests or oppositions thereto;
(l) Right of agrarian reform beneficiaries to homelots;
(m) Disposition of excess area of the farmer-beneficiary's landholdings;
(n) Transfer, surrender or abandonment by the farmer-beneficiary of his farmholding
and its disposition;
(o) Increase of awarded area by the farmer-beneficiary;
(p) Conflict of claims in landed estates and settlements; and
(q) Such other matters not mentioned above but strictly involving the administrative
implementation of RA 6657 and other agrarian laws, rules and regulations as determined
by the Secretary.
SECTION 3. Cases Not Covered. These Rules shall not apply to cases falling within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), as
provided for under Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, which
shall include the following:
(a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the
management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other
agrarian laws;
(b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and payment of just
compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation,
amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the functions of the Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP);
(c) The 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;
(d) Those cases arising from or connected with membership or representation in
compact farms, farmers' cooperative and other registered farmers' associations or
organizations related to lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
(e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and
redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws;
(f) Those involving the issuance, correction, and cancellation of Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with
the Land Registration Authority;
(g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
defunct Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) under Section 12 of P.D. No 946, except
Sub-paragraph (q) thereof and P.D. No. 815. It is understood that said cases, complaints
or petitions were filed with the DARAB after August 29, 1987; and
(h) Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the
Secretary.
SECTION 4. Referral of Cases. If a case covered by Section 2 herein is filed before
.the DARAB, the concerned DARAB official shall refer the case to the proper DAR
office for appropriate action within five (5) days after said case is determined to be within
the jurisdiction of the Secretary. Likewise, if a case covered by Section 3 herein is filed
before any office other than the DARAB, the concerned DAR official shall refer the case
to the DARAB for resolution within the same period provided herein.
SECTION 5. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed to carry out the
objectives of agrarian reform and to promote a just, expeditious and inexpensive
determination of agrarian cases. In accordance with Section 50 of RA 6657, the DAR
shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear
and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing
all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and
equity and the merits of the case.
RULE II
Jurisdiction Over ALI Cases
SECTION 6. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction. The Secretary shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over all cases involving agrarian law implementation as enumerated
in Section 2 herein. This jurisdiction may, however; be delegated to certain officials of
DAR in accordance with existing rules and regulations and/or as provided for in this
Order.
SECTION 7. Jurisdiction Over Protests or petitions for Lifting of Coverage. The
Regional Director shall exercise primary jurisdiction over protests against CARP
coverage or petitions for lifting of notice of coverage.
SECTION 8. Jurisdiction Over Exemptions or Exclusions. (a) The Secretary shall
exercise jurisdiction over applications for the issuance of exemption clearance under
DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994, for lands which have been reclassified
to non-agricultural use before the effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15, 1988, with an area
of more than five (5) hectares. For lands with an area of five (5) hectares and below, the
issuance of such exemption clearance is hereby delegated to the Regional Directors.
(b) Applications for exemption or exclusion under DAR Administrative Order No. 13,
Series of 1990, DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993, DAR Administrative
Order No. 3, Series of 1995 and DAR Memorandum Circular No. 34, Series of 1997 and
other pertinent rules and regulations, shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of the
concerned DAR officials identified therein, except those involving lands five (5) hectares
and below situated within the provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon
(CALABARZON) which are hereby delegated to the concerned Regional Director. IDaEHC
SECTION 9. Jurisdiction Over Conversions. The DAR officials authorized to approve
or disapprove applications for conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses
pursuant to Section 22 of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1999, "Revised
Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural
Uses," shall exercise jurisdiction over applications for conversion within the scope of
their authority granted therein.
SECTION 10. Jurisdiction Over Other ALI Cases. The jurisdiction over ALI
cases, other than those identified in Sections 7 to 9 herein, shall generally pertain to the
Regional Directors, except those cases specifically delegated to other DAR officials
under existing rules and regulations, or those that may subsequently be promulgated by
the Secretary.
SECTION 11. Jurisdiction Over Flashpoint Cases. Flashpoint cases involving
agrarian law implementation, duly certified as such in accordance with the criteria and
procedures provided in DAR Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 1997, shall be
under the jurisdiction of the DAR official duly designated to decide on such cases in
accordance with the particular rules land regulations governing the same. The
certification that a case is considered flashpoint shall merely serve to accord utmost
priority to the resolution thereof but shall not divest the concerned DAR official of the
authority to resolve such cases, unless otherwise specifically directed in the national
interest, or the Secretary himself has assumed jurisdiction over the case.
RULE III
Commencement, Investigation And Resolution Of Cases
SECTION 12. Commencement of Actions. All applications, petitions or
complaints involving ALI cases shall be in writing and under oath following the
prescribed form, if any, and filed by the affected party or his duly authorized
representative before the office designated to receive the same in accordance with
applicable rules and regulations. The documentary evidence required or relevant to the
resolution of the action shall be simultaneously filed with the petition or application.
SECTION 13. Period to File Actions. Petitions for lifting of notice of coverage
shall be filed within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Notice of Coverage by the
affected party. If the affected party cannot be located or refuses to receive the notice, the
same shall be effected through publication in a newspaper of national circulation. In the
latter case, the thirty (30)-day period shall commence from the date of publication.
Failure by the affected party to file the protest or petition within the thirty (30)-day period
shall be deemed a waiver of his right thereto.
If the action is filed after the expiration of the thirty (30)-day period, the protest or
petition shall no longer be entertained or shall be summarily dismissed by the MARO or
the PARO, except in the following instances:
(a) The protest or petition is based on allegations that the subject landholding is
exempted from CARP coverage pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990), as implemented
by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994; or
(b) Upon evaluation of the pertinent documents and based on the physical conditions
obtaining in the property, it is determined by DAR that the subject landholding is
exempted from CARP coverage pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13 (1990),
DAR Administrative Order No. 9 (1993), DAR Administrative Order No. 3 (1995) and
DAR Memorandum Circular No. 34 (1997) notwithstanding the issuance of the Notice of
Coverage.
Protests involving notices of coverage issued prior to the effectivity of this Order may be
filed within thirty (30) days thereof, otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived.
Petitions or applications involving other ALI cases shall be filed or commenced within
the period prescribed, if any, in their respective governing rules and regulations.
SECTION 14. Effect of Filing of Application/Protest/Petition. The filing of an
application, protest or petition involving ALI cases such as exemption, exclusion,
conversion, retention or protest against coverage, shall have the following effects in so
far as land acquisition and distribution is concerned:
(a) Application/Petition Filed Before Issuance of Notice of Coverage. If the
application or petition is filed before the issuance of the notice of coverage, the notice of
coverage shall not be issued until the application or petition is finally resolved.
(b) Application/Petition Filed Where Claimfolder is Pending with DAR. If the
application, protest or petition is filed after issuance of the notice of coverage, the DAR
may proceed with the processing of the claimfolder notwithstanding the pendency of the
application, protest or petition in accordance with the activities outlined under DAR
Administrative Order No. 2 (1996), as amended. The processing of the claimfolder may
be suspended by the PARO if upon proper review and evaluation of the Field
Investigation Report (FIR) submitted by the MARO, and upon personal verification of
the allegations in the application, protest or petition, it is determined that the subject
landholding is in fact exempted or excluded from CARP coverage. Otherwise, the PARO
may forward the claimfolder to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for further
processing.
(c) Application/Petition Filed Where Claimfolder is Pending with LBP. In case the
application, protest or petition is filed where the claimfolder is pending with LBP, or
where the claimfolder has been forwarded by the PARO notwithstanding such
application, protest or petition, the LBP shall continue with the processing of the land
compensation claim, except that the Certification of Deposit (COD) shall not be issued to
the PARO until the application, protest or petition is finally resolved.
SECTION 15. Mediation/Conciliation. In cases where mediation or conciliation
is required or deemed necessary, the MARO or the duly designated mediator or
conciliator shall conduct a mediation/conciliation conference within fifteen (15) days
from the filing of the action with the assistance of the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC). The MARO or mediator/conciliator shall notify the parties
concerned by personal delivery with proof of service or by registered mail with return
card.
Upon successful conclusion of the mediation/conciliation, the protest or petition shall be
deemed finally terminated. The MARO or mediator/conciliator shall reduce the
agreement in writing duly signed by the parties and attested to by the MARO or mediator
conciliator.
SECTION 16. Investigation Procedure. As a general rule, the investigation of
ALI cases shall follow the following procedures:
(a) Designation of Investigating Officer. In general, the MARO shall conduct the
investigation of ALI cases. However, the RD, PARO or MARO may designate another
investigating officer as circumstances may warrant.
(b) Issuance of Notice. The MARO or investigating officer shall issue a notice of
summary investigation to the parties concerned within ten (10) days from termination of
the mediation/conciliation (if unsuccessful) or from receipt of the application, protest or
petition. The notice shall be sent by personal delivery with proof of service or by
registered mail with return card.
(c) Ocular Inspection. An ocular inspection of the subject landholding shall be
conducted, where necessary, for the judicious determination of the issues and/or
respective claims of the parties. It shall be conducted before, or in the course of, the
summary investigation, as appropriate.
If after due notice, the party refuses to cooperate, the ocular inspection shall
nonetheless be conducted with a representative from the BARC where the subject
property is situated.
After the ocular inspection, the investigating officer shall prepare an ocular
inspection report and affix his signature thereon. Likewise, the parties concerned or any
of their duty authorized representatives and the representative of the BARC shall affix
their respective signature's on the report. In case any party or his duly authorized
representative or the BARC representative fails or refuses to affix his signature on the
report, such fact shall be stated therein by the investigating officer. The ocular inspection
report shall form part of the records of the case.
(d) Summary Investigation. Within ten (10) days from the ocular inspection, if any,
the MARO or investigating officer shall conduct a summary investigation of the case.
The investigation may be conducted at the DAR Municipal Office or at the BARC office
where the subject property is situated, or in any convenient place designated by the
investigating officer, in the presence of all the parties concerned or their authorized
representatives.
Upon request of the party to whom questions are propounded, or at the instance of
the MARO or investigating officer, the other party may be excluded from the place where
the investigation is being conducted. Afterwards, the party excluded and his witnesses
may be called upon for their turn to testify or present evidence.
The party or person who will testify must first be sworn under oath before the
MARO or the investigating officer, after which, he must state his name, status and other
personal circumstances.
Documentary evidence presented by any party in the course of the investigation
shall be admitted and marked as exhibits in support of his claim or allegation. Any
document already on record necessary to the resolution of the case shall be made
available during the investigation and must be properly identified and shown by the
parties concerned.
(e) Power to Summon Witnesses, to Compel Submission of Records, and to Cite for
Contempt. Pursuant to Section 50 of RA 6657, the MARO or the investigating officer
shall have the power to summon witnesses, require submission of reports, compel the
production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories, and issue subpoena
and subpoena duces tecum. The MARO or the investigating officer shall likewise have
the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject to the
same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.
(f) Record of Proceedings. All proceedings shall be recorded by the. duly
appointed stenographer. In the absence of a stenographer, the MARO or a duly
designated recorder shall faithfully record the proceedings. The transcript of summary
investigation shall contain the date, time, and place of investigation, the name of the
witnesses investigated, and the name of the stenographer or recorder. Each and every
page of the transcript of investigation must be signed by the witness/party concerned and
shall be certified as true and correct by the stenographer, recorder or the MARO who
recorded the proceedings. The transcript of investigation shall form part of the records of
the case.
The parties may be required to submit their position papers at the instance of the
investigating officer.
(g) Submission of Recommendation. The MARO or the investigating officer shall
submit his Field Investigation Report (FIR) to the PARO for review and evaluation
within fifteen (15) days from termination of the summary investigation.
The PARO shall submit to the Regional Director (RD) the case folder together
with his recommendations within ten (10) days from receipt of the FIR.
SECTION 17. Issuance of Cease and Desist Order. In cases where grave or
irreparable damage will result to the parties, or where the doing or continuance of certain
acts will render the case moot and academic, or where there is a need to maintain peace
and order and prevent injury or loss of life or property, the Regional Director or DAR
official with jurisdiction over the case, shall, motu propio or at the instance of a party,
have the authority to issue a Cease and Desist or Status Quo Order pending the resolution
of the case. In this regard, the issuing authority may request the assistance of law
enforcement agencies to implement the order.
SECTION 18. Prohibition Against Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction.
Pursuant to Section 55 of RA 6657, no court shall have jurisdiction to issue any
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the DAR and other concerned
officials, in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection
with, the application, implementation, enforcement or interpretation of RA 6657 and
other pertinent agrarian, reform laws, rules and regulations.
Unless duly referred by the DAR Secretary, the DARAB or its adjudicators shall have no
authority to issue any restraining order or preliminary injunction against the Regional
Director of any concerned officials and personnel in any case, dispute, or controversy
arising from the implementation of agrarian laws, rules and regulations as provided
herein.
SECTION 19. Resolution of Cases. The RD or approving authority shall rule on
the issues raised in the application, protest or petition taking into account the records of
the case and the recommendations of the PARO within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the case folder. The RD shall furnish a copy of the decision to the BARC, MARO, PARO
and the parties concerned or their duly authorized representatives. The RD may conduct
his own summary investigation and/or ocular inspection in accordance with the procedure
provided herein if deemed necessary for the expeditious and just resolution of the case.
SECTION 20. Investigation and Resolution of Certain ALI Cases. Unless
otherwise directed by the Secretary, the investigation and resolution of certain ALI cases
such as applications for conversion, exemptions or exclusions, retention, identification of
beneficiaries of commercial farms, disputes involving joint economic enterprises, and
such other ALI cases as the Secretary may identify; shall be undertaken in accordance
with their respective governing rules and regulations.
SECTION 21. Motion for Reconsideration. In case any of the parties disagrees
with the decision or resolution, the affected party may file a written motion for
reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order, furnishing a copy
thereof to the adverse party. The filing of the motion for reconsideration shall suspend the
running of the period to appeal.
Any party shall be allowed only one (1) motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, the RD or
approving authority shall rule on the said motion within fifteen (15) days from receipt
thereof. In the event that the motion is denied, the adverse party has the right to perfect
his appeal within the remainder of the period to appeal, reckoned from receipt of the
resolution of denial. If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the aggrieved party
shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution of reversal within which to
perfect his appeal.
SECTION 22. Finality. Unless an appeal is perfected, the decision or order of
the RD or approving authority shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen
(15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties or their counsels or duly
authorized representatives. In all cases, the parties and their counsels shall be furnished
with a copy of the decision or order. SEHTIc
RULE IV
Appeals
SECTION 23. Grounds for Appeal. Any person who is aggrieved by the
decision of the RD or approving authority may file a written appeal on any of the
following grounds:
(a) There is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RD or approving authority;
(b) The order or decision is obtained through fraud, coercion or graft and corruption;
or
(c) Errors in the findings of facts or conclusions of law were committed which, if not
corrected, would cause grave and irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
SECTION 24. Caption. In all cases appealed to the Secretary, the party
appealing shall be called the "Appellant" and the adverse party the "Appellee" and the
case shall be assigned a docket number by the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
(BALA) of the DAR Central Office.
SECTION 25. When to Appeal. Appeals may be taken within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the decision or order. This shall apply to appeals to the Office of the
President in view of Section 51 of RA 6657 which provides that "(a)ny order, ruling or
decision shall be final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof".
SECTION 26. Perfection and Manner of Appeal. (a) Appeal from the decision
of the Regional Director to the Secretary shall be made by filing a notice of appeal with
the Regional Office concerned together with payment of P500.00 appeal fee to the
cashier of said Regional Office.
(b) Appeal from the decision of the Undersecretary shall be made by filing a notice of
appeal with the said office and payment of P500.00 appeal fee to the cashier of the DAR
Central Office.
(c) Appeal from the decision of the Secretary may be taken to the Office of the
President pursuant to OP Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987, except as to the
period therein provided, or to the Court of Appeals (CA) by certiorari pursuant to Sec. 54
of RA 6657.
SECTION 27. Appeal by Pauper Litigant. An appellant who is an agricultural
lessee, share tenant, actual tiller, farmworker, member of farmers' organization,
association or cooperative, shall be entitled to the rights and privileges of a pauper
litigant such as exemption from payment of appeal fee, without need of further proof
thereof."
SECTION 28. Appeal Memorandum. An appeal-memorandum shall be
submitted by the appellant within fifteen (15) days from perfection of the appeal,
furnishing a copy thereof to the adverse party and the DAR official who rendered the
decision or order.
SECTION 29. Effect of Appeal. Appeal to the Secretary, the Office of the
President, or the Court of Appeals shall have the following effects:
(a) Appeal from the Regional Director or Undersecretary to the Secretary. The
appeal shall stay the order appealed from unless the Secretary directs execution pending
appeal, as he may deem just, considering the nature and circumstances of the case
(Executive Order No. 292 [1987], Book VII, Chapter 4, Sec. 21).
(b) Appeal to the Office of the President. Except as otherwise provided by special
laws, the execution of the decision/resolution/order appealed from is, stayed upon the
filing of the appeal within the period prescribed. However, in all cases, at any time during
the pendency of the appeal, the Office of the President may direct or stay the execution of
the decision/resolution/order appealed from upon such terms and conditions as it may
deem just and reasonable (OP Admin. Order No. 18, Series of 1987, Sec. 4).
(c) Appeal to the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to Section 50 of RA 6657, the
decision of the DAR shall be immediately executory notwithstanding an appeal to the
Court of Appeals.
SECTION 30. Transmittal of Records Upon receipt of the appeal memorandum,
the Director of BALA shall direct the RD or the concerned office to immediately transmit
the records of the case to the BALA.
The records of the case shall contain, among others, a table of contents, the minutes of
the hearings conducted, all original pleadings filed, documentary exhibits, transcripts or
written summary of the hearings filed, investigation reports, notices, orders or decisions
of the RD or approving authority and proof of service thereof. It shall be numbered and
initialed by the Records Officer of the Region or office concerned on every page thereof.
A photocopy of the receipt of the appeal fee, duly certified by the cashier, shall also be
attached to the records of the case.
SECTION 31. Withdrawal of Appeal. Except when it is prejudicial to public
interest, an appeal may be withdrawn upon filing with the BALA a motion to withdraw at
any time prior to the promulgation of the order or decision. The DAR Secretary shall
issue an order approving the motion to withdraw.
SECTION 32. Motion for Reconsideration. Only one (1) motion for
reconsideration of the order or decision of the Secretary shall be allowed. If a motion for
reconsideration is denied, the movant shall have the right to perfect his appeal with the
Office of the President (OP) pursuant to OP Administrative Order No. 18 dated February
12, 1987.
SECTION 33. Intervention. The filing of a motion for intervention shall be
discouraged. Such motion shall be entertained only upon a clear showing by the movant
that he has a substantial right or interest in the case that cannot be adequately pursued and
protected in another proceeding. Should a motion for intervention be deemed in order, the
same may be filed not later than the expiration of the period allowed for the filing of a
motion for reconsideration.
RULE V
Execution Of Orders Or Decisions
SECTION 34. Execution upon Final Order or Decision. Execution shall issue
upon an order or decision that has become final and executory. Such execution shall issue
as a matter of course and upon expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal
has been duly perfected. The Director of BALA shall issue the certificate of finality
involving ALI cases upon request of the interested party. SCcHIE
SECTION 35. How to Execute Orders or Decisions. Upon certification by the
proper officer that an order or decision has been served to the party, his counsel or
authorized representative on record, and such order or decision; has become final and
executory, the RD or approving authority may, upon motion or motu propio, issue a Writ
of Execution ordering the MARO or any other concerned official to enforce the same.
For this purpose, the MARO or the concerned official may do such acts and things as
may be necessary, and seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies, as appropriate, to
implement the order or decision.
RULE VI
Final Provisions
SECTION 36. Transitory Provision. The investigation and resolution of ALI
cases involving lands situated within CALABARZON shall be transferred to the
jurisdiction of the DAR Regional Director for Region 4 effective upon implementation of
the DAR reorganization, or as directed by the Secretary. In the meantime or pending the
reorganization, such cases shall remain with the Center for Land Use, Policy, Planning
and Implementation (CLUPPI)-2 for appropriate action.
SECTION 37. Repealing Clause. This Order modifies or repeals DAR
Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1994 and other issuances or portions thereof which
are inconsistent herewith.
SECTION 38. Separability Clause. In the event any of the provisions of this
Order is declared unconstitutional, the validity of the other provisions shall not be
affected by said declaration.
SECTION 39. Effectivity Clause. This Order shall take effect ten (10) days after
its publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
Diliman, Quezon City, August 30, 2000.