SECTION 7. General Jurisdiction.
The Regional Director shall exercise primary
XI. Adjudication of Agrarian Disputes
Administrative Adjudication Board (Section 50-53 of RA 6657)
SECTION 50. 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). It
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.
Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and
inexpensive determination for every action or proceeding before it. It shall have the power to summon
witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of reports, compel the production of
books and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum,
and enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It shall likewise have the power to
punish direct and indirect contempt’s in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as
provided in the Rules of Court. Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves,
their fellow farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: Provided, however, that
when there are two or more representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should
choose only one among themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings.
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately
executory.
SECTION 51. Finality of Determination.
Any case or controversy before it shall be decided within thirty (30) days after it is submitted
for resolution. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Any order, ruling or decision
shall be final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
SECTION 52. Frivolous Appeals.
To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals from the decisions or orders on the local or
provincial levels, the DAR may impose reasonable penalties, including but not limited to fines or
censures upon erring parties.
SECTION 53. Certification of the BARC.
The DAR shall not take cognizance of any agrarian dispute or controversy unless a certification
from the BARC that the dispute has been submitted to it for mediation and conciliation without any
success of settlement is presented: Provided, however, That if no certification is issued by the BARC
within thirty (30) days after a matter or issue is submitted to it for mediation or conciliation the case or
dispute may be brought before the PARC.
DAR AO 3 S.O 2003
Jurisdiction over ALI Cases
jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases except when a separate special rule vests
primary jurisdiction in a different DAR office.
SECTION 8. Jurisdiction over protests or petitions to lift coverage. The Regional
Director shall exercise primary jurisdiction over protests against CARP coverage or petitions to lift
notice of coverage. If the ground for the protest or petition to lift CARP coverage is exemption or
exclusion of the subject land from CARP coverage, the Regional Director shall either resolve the
same if he has jurisdiction, or refer the matter to the Secretary if jurisdiction over the case belongs
to the latter.
SECTION 9. Jurisdiction over land use conversions and exemptions/exclusions from
CARP coverage. Separate special rules governing applications for land use conversion and
exemption/exclusion from CARP coverage shall delineate the jurisdiction of the recommending and
approving authorities thereunder.
SECTION 10. Appellate Jurisdiction. The Secretary shall exercise appellate
jurisdiction over all ALI cases, and may delegate the resolution of appeals to any Undersecretary.
SECTION 11. Jurisdiction over Flashpoint cases. Any certification declaring a case as
"flashpoint" in accordance with the criteria and procedure in DAR Memorandum Circular (MC) No.
13 [1997] shall not divest any authority from the DAR official for resolving the case. A flashpoint
certification merely serves to accord utmost priority to the resolution of the case subject thereof.
RULE III
Procedure
SECTION 12. Applicability. The procedures herein shall generally apply to all ALI
cases except for specific situations such as applications for land use conversion and
exemption/exclusion from CARP coverage which shall be governed by the special procedures
therefor.
SECTION 13. Commencement of an action.
13.1. Without or prior to issuance of notice of CARP coverage — When the land in
question has never been the subject of a notice of coverage, an ALI case involving
said land shall commence upon filing of the initiatory pleading or application
before the Regional Director or Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).
13.1.1. Commencement at the DAR Regional Office (DARRO) — The
DARRO shall docket the case and transmit the case folder to the PARO
within five (5) working days from filing, with notice to all parties. Upon
receipt, the PARO shall, within five (5) working days and with notice to
all parties, transmit the case folder to the MARO who shall conduct the
necessary mediation/conciliation proceedings.
13.1.2. Commencement at the DAR Provincial Office (DARPO) — The
PARO shall docket the case and submit a case brief to the Regional
Director within five (5) working days, with notice to all parties. Within
the same five (5) working-day period and with notice to all parties, the
PARO shall transmit the case folder to the MARO who shall conduct the
necessary mediation/conciliation proceedings.
13.2. After issuance of notice of coverage — Commencement shall be at the DAR
Municipal Office (DARMO). When the applicant/petitioner commences the case
at any other DAR office, the receiving office shall transmit the case folder to the
DARMO or proper DAR office in accordance with the pertinent order and/or
circular governing the subject matter. Only the real-party-in-interest may file a
 protest/opposition or petition to lift CARP coverage and may only do so within
sixty (60) calendar days from receipt of the notice of coverage; a protesting party
who receives the notice of coverage by newspaper publication shall file his
protest / opposition / petition within sixty (60) calendar days from publication
date; failure to file the same within the period shall merit outright dismissal of
the case.
2009 DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE
RULE II
Jurisdiction of the Board and the Adjudicators
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 R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, E.O. Nos. 228, 229,
and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as amended by R.A. 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 R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL), as amended, and other related agrarian laws; ACaDTH
b. The preliminary administrative determination of reasonable and just
compensation of lands acquired under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 and the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP);
c. Those cases involving the annulment or rescission of lease contracts or
deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands under the administration and
disposition of the DAR or Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), and the
amendment of titles pertaining to agricultural lands under the administration
and disposition of the DAR and LBP; as well as EPs issued under PD 266,
Homestead Patents, Free Patents, and miscellaneous sales patents to settlers in
settlement and re-settlement areas under the administration and disposition of
the DAR;
d. Those cases involving the ejectment and dispossession of tenants and/or
leaseholders;
e. Those cases involving the sale, alienation, pre-emption, and redemption
of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARL, as amended or other
agrarian laws;
f. Those involving the correction, partition, secondary and subsequent
issuances such as reissuance of lost/destroyed owner's duplicate copy and
reconstitution of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and
Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration
Authority;
g. Those cases involving the review of leasehold rentals and fixing of
disturbance compensation;
h. Those cases involving the collection of amortization payments,
foreclosure and similar disputes concerning the functions of the LBP, and
payments for lands awarded under PD No. 27, RA No. 3844, as amended, and
R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, and other related laws, decrees,
orders, instructions, rules, and regulations, as well as payment for residential,
commercial, and industrial lots within the settlement and resettlement areas
under the administration and disposition of the DAR;
i. Those cases involving boundary disputes over lands under the
administration and disposition of the DAR and the LBP, which are transferred,
distributed, and/or sold to tenant-beneficiaries and are covered by deeds of sale,
patents, and certificates of title;
j. Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of PD
No. 946 except those cases falling under the proper courts or other quasi-judicial
bodies; and
k. Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by
the Secretary of the DAR.
(CASE)
RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE of the [CAR]
RTC, Branch 4, Iligan City, and SPOUSES DOMINGO and EUGENIA MARTIL, Respondents.
FACTS:
 The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, acting as a special agrarian court, in the light of
Executive Orders Numbered 129-A and 229 and Republic Act No. 6657, is what is at issue in
the proceeding at bar.
 Rufina Tangub and her husband, Andres, now deceased, filed with the RTC of Lanao del Norte
in March, 1988, "an agrarian case for damages by reason of unlawful dispossession . . .were
tenants from the landholding" owned by the Spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil.
 Respondent Judge Felipe G. Javier, Jr. dismissed the complaint as the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court over agrarian cases had been transferred to the Department of Agrarian
Reform.
 The Tangub Spouses filed a petition for Certiorari with this Court, this Court referred the same
to the Court of Appeals, that tribunal having concurrent jurisdiction to act thereon.: nad
 The Court of Appeals, dismissed the petition, finding that the jurisdictional question had been
correctly resolved by the Trial Court.
Emphatically ruled that agrarian cases no longer fall under the jurisdiction of Regional Trial
Courts but rather under the jurisdiction of the DAR Adjudication Board.
Basis:
-Below E.Os were issued by President Corazon Aquino in the exercise of her
revolutionary powers in accordance with Section 6, Article 17 of the 1986 Consti.
Section 6, Article 17 of 1986 Consti provided that the "incumbent President
shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened."
 E.O No. 229 approved on July 22, 1987 (Section 17)
  Vested the Department of Agrarian Reform with "quasi-judicial powers to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters,"
 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]
 Powers to punish for contempt and to issue subpoena,
subpoena duces tecum and writs to enforce its orders or
decisions."
 E.O No. 129-A (Section 5), issued on July 26, 1987, in relation to Republic Act No.
6657, effective on June 15, 1988
 Implement all agrarian laws, and for this purpose
 Punish for contempt and issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, writ of
execution of its decision, and other legal processes to ensure successful
and expeditious program implementation;
***The decisions of the Department may in proper cases, be appealed to
the Regional Trial Courts but shall be immediately executory
notwithstanding such appeal;
 Provide free legal service to agrarian reform beneficiaries and resolve
agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems as may be provided
for by laws;
 Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of
agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land
uses as may be provided . . ."
 The jurisdiction thus conferred on the Department of Agrarian Reform is evidently quite as
extensive as that theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Court by Presidential Decree No. 946.
 The intention evidently was to transfer original jurisdiction to the Department of Agrarian
Reform, a proposition stressed by the rules formulated and promulgated by the Department for
the implementation of the executive orders just quoted
 The petitioner Rufina Vda. de Tangub, now widowed, is once again before this Court,
contending that the Trial Court's "order of dismissal of August 26, 1988, and the decision of
the Honorable Court of Appeals affirming it, are patently illegal and unconstitutional" because
they deprive "a poor tenant access to courts and directly violate R.A. 6657, PD 946, and Batas
Bilang 129."
ISSUE: WON agrarian cases fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
HELD: Not all.
 Regional Trial Court has a limited jurisdiction over two groups of cases:
 SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with
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].
 The Regional Trial Courts have not, however, been completely divested of jurisdiction over
agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand, confers "special
jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are Regional Trial Courts designated by the
Supreme Court — at least one (1) branch within each province — to act as such. These
Regional Trial Courts qua Special Agrarian Courts have, according to Section 57 of the same
law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
 All petitions for the determination of just compensation to land-owners, and
 The prosecution of all criminal offenses under. . [the] Act
***In these cases, "(t)he Rules of Court shall apply . . Unless modified by . . . (the)
Act."
 It is relevant to mention in this connection that —
 Appeals from decisions of the Special Agrarian Courts "may be taken by filing a petition for
review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt or notice of the decision, .
."
 Appeals from any "decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on
any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this
Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by
Certiorari except as otherwise provided . . . within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
thereof," the "findings of fact of the DAR [being] final and conclusive if based on substantial
evidence."
 The Regional Trial Court of Iligan City was therefore correct in dismissing Agrarian Case No.
1094. It being a case concerning the rights of the plaintiffs as tenants on agricultural land, not
involving the "special jurisdiction" of said Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian Court, it
clearly came within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform, or
more particularly, the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, established precisely to wield the
adjudicatory powers of the Department, supra.
 the law strives to make resolution of controversies therein more expeditious and inexpensive,
by providing not only that the Board "shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and
evidence," supra, but also that, as explicitly stated by the penultimate paragraph of Section 50
of the Act:
 "Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or
their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: Provided, however, that when there are
two or more representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only
one among themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings."
Section 9 of RA 9700 Amending Section 24 of RA 6657 (Award to Beneficiaries)
SECTION 9. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows: "SEC. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall
commence from their receipt of a duly registered emancipation patent or certificate of land ownership
award and their actual physical possession of the awarded land. Such award shall be completed in not
more than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of registration of the title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation patents, the certificates of land ownership
award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program shall be indefeasible and
imprescriptible after one (1) year from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to
the conditions, limitations and qualifications of this Act, the property registration decree, and other
pertinent laws. The emancipation patents or the certificates of land ownership award being titles
brought under the operation of the Torrens system, are conferred with the same indefeasibility and
security afforded to all titles under the said system, as provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as
amended by Republic Act No. 6732. "It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to register the
title of the land in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, after the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) has certified that the necessary deposit in the name of the landowner constituting full payment in
cash or in bond with due notice to the landowner and the registration of the certificate of land
ownership award issued to the beneficiaries, and to cancel previous titles pertaining thereto. "Identified
and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, based on Section 22 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended,
shall have usufructuary rights over the awarded land as soon as the DAR takes possession of such
land, and such right shall not be diminished even pending the awarding of the emancipation patent or
the certificate of land ownership award. CTSHDI "All cases involving the cancellation of registered
emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian
reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR."
DAR AO 3 2009 (Procedure for Cancellation of CLOA’s and EP’s)
SECTION 5. Who may file the Petition for Cancellation? - The verified petition for cancellation shall be
filed by any of the following persons: (a) Owners of private agricultural lands who were granted
retention; (b) Owners of private agricultural lands whose lands had been declared as exempted or
excluded from the coverage of RA No. 6657, as amended, and PD No. 27; (c) Qualified farmer-
beneficiaries who have been determined as legally entitled in the generated and issued CLOA; (d) Re-
allocatees and transferees of the awarded land; or 4 (e) Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) in his
official capacity for the purpose of correcting erroneously issued CLOAs or EPs which are registered but
not yet distributed.
SECTION 6. Documentary Requirements. - In support of the verified petition for cancellation, the
petitioner shall also submit in duplicate the following official documents: (a) Certified true copy of the
final and executory Order and Resolution; (b) Certificate of Finality; (c) Owner's duplicate copy or
certified photocopy by the Register of Deeds of the CLOA or EP or other title sought to be cancelled; (d)
Official receipt showing proof of payment of filing fee; and (e) Any other legal documents that may
support the petition for cancellation.
SECTION 7. Where to File the Petition for Cancellation. - The verified petition for cancellation, together
with the documentary requirements, shall be filed with the Regional Office of the place where the land
covered by the CLOA, EP or other title is located
SECTION 8. Filing Fees. - A filing fee of P1 ,000.00 shall be paid by the petitioner to the DAR cashier,
except if the petitioner is the government or its official or employee in the exercise of their official
function
SECTION 9. Assignment of Case Control Number. - Upon receipt of the verified petition, the Regional
Office shall assign a Case Control Number to the petition received for monitoring purposes.
SECTION 10. Issuances of Notice. - The Regional Office shall, as much as possible within five (5) days
from receipt of the verified petition, issue a Notice to Comment attaching therewith copy of the petition
and attachments or annexes, and expressly requiring the respondents to controvert the allegations of
the petition by filing a Comment in writing.
SECTION 11. Services of Notice. - The Notice to Comment together with the petition and attachments
shall be served by personal service or by registered mail.
(CASE)
DAR VS. CUENCA
FACTS:
Private respondent Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in La Carlota
City and devoted principally to the planting of sugar cane. The MARO of La Carlota City issued and sent
a NOTICE OF COVERAGE to private respondent Cuenca placing the landholding under the compulsory
coverage of R.A. 6657. The NOTICE OF COVERAGE also stated that the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) will determine the value of the subject land pursuant to Executive Order No. 405. Private
respondent Cuenca filed with the RTC for Annulment of Notice of Coverage and Declaration of
Unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 405. Cuenca alleged that the implementation of CARP in his landholding
is no longer with authority of law considering that, if at all, the implementation should have commenced
and should have been completed between June 1988 to June 1992; that Executive Order No. 405
amends, modifies and/or repeals CARL and, therefore, it is unconstitutional considering that then
President Corazon Aquino no longer had law-making powers; that the NOTICE OF COVERAGE is a
gross violation of PD 399.
Private respondent Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be declared null and void ab
initio. The respondent Judge denied MARO Noe Fortunados motion to dismiss and issued a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction directing Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease and desist from
implementing the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from proceeding with the determination of the value
of the subject land. The DAR thereafter filed before the CA a petition for certiorari assailing the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by respondent Judge on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Stressing that the issue was not simply the improper issuance of the Notice of Coverage, but
was mainly the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 405, the CA ruled that the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) had jurisdiction over the case. Consonant with that authority, the court a quo also had the power
to issue writs and processes to enforce or protect the rights of the parties.
ISSUE: Whether the complaint filed by the private respondent is an agrarian reform and within the
jurisdiction of the DAR, not with the trial court
RULING:
Yes. A careful perusal of respondents Complaint shows that the principal averments and reliefs
prayed for refer -- not to the pure question of law spawned by the alleged unconstitutionality of EO 405
-- but to the annulment of the DARs Notice of Coverage. Clearly, the main thrust of the allegations is the
propriety of the Notice of Coverage, as may be gleaned from the following averments. The main subject
matter raised by private respondent before the trial court was not the issue of compensation. Note that
no amount had yet been determined nor proposed by the DAR. Hence, there was no occasion to invoke
the courts function of determining just compensation. To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of Coverage
constitutes the first necessary step towards the acquisition of private land under the CARP. Plainly
then, the propriety of the Notice relates to the implementation of the CARP, which is under the quasi-
judicial jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not be ousted from its authority by the simple
expediency of appending an allegedly constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is clearly
agrarian.
Section 19 of RA 9700 Amending Section 50-A of RA 6657
SECTION 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.
"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."
DAR AO 4 S. 2009 (Rules and Regulation in the Implementation of Section 19 of RA 9700
SECTION 3. When Automatic Referral Shall Be Made - Referral to DAR shall be made when: a) there is
an allegation in the pleadings from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature or involves an
agrarian dispute and one of the parties is a tenant, lessee, farmer-beneficiary, farmer, or farmworker; or
b) the case arises out of or is in connection with an agrarian dispute.
SECTION 4. Who Shall Make the Referral - When the complaint or information is filed before the Office
of the Prosecutor or before the court, the case shall be referred to the DAR by: I. the concerned judge or
fiscal motu propio; or 2. upon motion by the party concerned?
SECTION 5. To Whom Shall Referral Be Made - Referral shall be made to the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Office (PARO) concerned to determine whether an agrarian dispute exists. Upon receipt of the records of
the case, the PARO shall immediately assign the referred case to the Chief Legal Division for the conduct
of summary proceedings or preliminary/fact-finding investigation.
SECTION 6. Effects of the Referral - The court or the Prosecutor's office shall not take cognizance of the
case until such time that the DAR makes a certification that an agrarian dispute does not exist. Pending
issuance of the required certification, parties to the case shall observe status quo ante.
SECTION 7. Procedures - 1. DAR Lawyers are hereby authorized to conduct summary proceedings or
preliminary/fact-finding investigation. For this purpose, the hearing officer is hereby authorized to issue
subpoena and administer oath to determine the existence of an agrarian dispute. 2. Upon receipt by the
authorized hearing officer of the referral, he/she shall, within three (3) days, serve notice to the parties
personally or through registered mail, stating therein the hour, date and place of the proceedings. The
venue of the proceeding shall be in the province where the agricultural property involved is located. In
the same notice, he shall require the parties and their witnesses to submit during the proceeding their
sworn statements together with their documentary evidences, if any. 3. The hearing officer shall, as far
as practicable, submit to the PARO his/her findings and recommendations together with the records of
the case within ten (10) days from receipt of the referred case. 4. To preclude conflict of interest, in no
case should a defense counsel of the farmer-beneficiary be assigned as hearing officer. Moreover, to
prevent appearance of bias, a hearing officer should not handle a case involving a relative within the
fourth degree by consanguinity or affinity.
SECTION 8. Issues to be Determined - The hearing officer shall determine whether one of the following
exists: 1. tenancy/actual tiller 2. Agricultural land 3. Involves ejectment, harassment/removal of tiller 4.
The crime complained of arose out of or in connected with an agrarian dispute Positive findings (of the
above-enumerated issues) - the legal officer shall recommend that the referred case is not proper for
trial.
SECTION 9. Certification - The PARO shall issue the certification within 48 hours from receipt of the
findings and recommendations of the hearing officer. Such certification, to be accompanied by pertinent
documentation, ------- shall state whether or not the referred case involves an agrarian dispute, giving
reasons therefor, as follows: a) Where the case is not proper for trial • This is to certify that after
preliminary determination of the relationship between the parties pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. No.
9700 amending R.A. No. 6657, the case involves an agrarian dispute, thus, it is not proper for trial b)
Where the case is proper for trial • Certification to the effect that an agrarian dispute does not exist.
Special Agrarian Courts pursuant to Sec 57 of RA 6657
Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. —
The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for
the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses
under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts,
unless modified by this Act.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction
within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.
(CASES)
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE PASCUAL, December 29,
1999
Facts:
Private respondent Jose Pascual owned three (3) parcels of land located in Gattaran, Cagayan.
Pursuant to the Land Reform Program of the Government under PD 27 and EO 228, the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed these lands under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT).
In compliance with EO 228, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of the DAR in an
Accomplished OLT Valuation Form recommended Average Gross Productivity (AGP) should be 25 cavans
per hectare for unirrigated lowland rice.Meanwhile, the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform (SAR)
also conducted its own valuation proceedings apart from the PARO.Private respondent Jose Pascual,
opposing the recommended AGP of the PARO.
PARAD ruled in favor of private respondent nullifying the AGP recommended by the
PARO.Instead, the PARAD applied the 1976 AGP and the AGP stated in private respondent's Tax
Declarations to determine the correct compensation and "Government Support Price" (GSP) of P300 for
each cavan of palay and P250 for each cavan of corn.
PARAD ordered petitioner LBP to pay private respondent P1,961,950.00.After receiving notice
of the decision of the PARAD, private respondent accepted the valuation. However, when the judgment
became final and executory, petitioner LBP as the financing arm in the operation of PD 27 and EO 228
refused to pay thus forcing private respondent to apply for a Writ of Execution with the PARAD which
the latter issued on 24 December 1992.Still, petitioner LBP declined to comply with the order.
Secretary Ernesto Garilao Jr. of the DAR wrote a letter to petitioner LBP requiring the latter to
pay the amount stated in the judgment of the PARAD.Again, petitioner LBP rejected the directive of
Secretary Garilao. Petitioner LBP Executive Vice President, Jesus Diaz, then sent a letter to Secretary
Garilao arguing that (a) the valuation of just compensation should be determined by the courts; (b)
PARAD could not reverse a previous order of the Secretary of the DAR; and, (c) the valuation of lands
under EO 228 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR and not of the DARAB.
Petitioner LBP having consistently refused to comply with its obligation despite the directive of
the Secretary of the DAR and the various demand letters of private respondent Jose Pascual, the latter
finally filed an action for Mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel petitioner to pay the valuation
determined by the PARAD.
The appellate court also required petitioner LBP to pay a compounded interest of 6% per
annum in compliance with DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994.
Petitioner's MR was denied. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
1.Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction to determine the value of lands covered by OLT under PD
27.
2.Whether or not private respondent Pascual should file a case in the Special Agrarian Court to compel
Petitioner Landbank to pay just compensation.
Held:FIRST ISSUE
Yes. It is the DARAB which has the authority to determine the initial valuation of lands
involving agrarian reform although such valuation may only be considered preliminary as the final
determination of just compensation is vested in the courts.
Thus, petitioner's contention that Sec. 12, par. (b), of PD 946 is still in effect cannot be
sustained. It seems that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform erred in issuing Memorandum Circular No. I,
Series of 1995, directing the DARAB to refrain from hearing valuation cases involving PD 27 lands.
SECOND ISSUE
No. Although it is true that Sec. 57 of RA 6657 provides that the Special Agrarian Courts shall
have jurisdiction over the final determination of just compensation cases, it must be noted that
petitioner Landbank never contested the valuation of the PARAD. Thus, the land valuation stated in its
decision became final and executory. There was therefore no need for private respondent Pascual to file
a case in the Special Agrarian Court.
Although the case at bar pertains to an involuntary sale of land, the same principle should
apply. Once the Land Bank agrees with the appraisal of the DAR, which bears the approval of the
landowner, it becomes its legal duty to finance the transaction. In the instant case, petitioner
participated in the valuation proceedings held in the office of the PARAD through its counsel, Atty.
Eduard Javier. It did not appeal the decision of PARAD which became final and executory.
As a matter of fact, petitioner even stated in its Petition that "it is willing to pay the value
determined by the PARAD PROVIDED that the farmer beneficiaries concur thereto."
These facts sufficiently prove that petitioner LBP agreed with the valuation of the land. The
only thing that hindered it from paying the amount was the non- concurrence of the farmer-beneficiary.
But as we have already stated, there is no need for such concurrence. Without such obstacle, petitioner
can now be compelled to perform its legal duty through the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Decision is AFFIRMED.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs LEONILA P. CELADA, January 23, 2006
FACTS:
Leonila P. Celada owns hectares of agricultural land which was identified by the DAR as
suitable for compulsory acquisition under the CARP. The matter was then indorsed to LBP for field
investigation and land valuation. LBP valued the land at P2.1105517 per square meter for an aggregate
value of P299,569.61. The DAR offered the same amount to respondent as just compensation, but it was
rejected. Nonetheless LBP deposited the same in cash and bonds in the name of Celada. Pursuant to
Section 16(d) of RA 6657 or CARP, the matter was referred to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) for
summary administrative hearing on determination of just compensation.While the DARAB case was
pending, Celada filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation against LBP, the DAR
and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) alleging that the current market value of her land is
at least P150,000.00 in RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court.
In its Answer, LBP raised non-exhaustion of administrative remedies as well as forum-
shopping and respondent must first await the outcome of the DARAB case before taking any judicial
recourse. That its valuation was arrived at by applying the formula prescribed by law whereas
respondent’s was based only on the "current value of like properties". The DAR and the MARO filed an
Answer averring that the determination of just compensation rests exclusively with the LBP. Thus, they
are not liable to respondent and are merely nominal parties in the case. PARAD affirmed the valuation
made by LBP.
LBP elevated the matter to the CA which, however, dismissed the appeal. Upon denial of its
MR. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC (SAC) has jurisdiction over the petition for determination of just
compensation while administrative proceedings are on-going.
HELD:
 We do not agree with petitioner’s submission that the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over
respondent’s petition for determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the administrative
proceedings before the DARAB. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the landowner filed
an action for determination of just compensation without waiting for the completion of the DARAB’s re-
evaluation of the land. The Court nonetheless held therein that the SAC acquired jurisdiction over the
action for the following reason:
It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has ‘original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners.’ This
‘original and exclusive’ jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in
administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court
for the review of administrative decision. Thus, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the
decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Sec. 57 that the
original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such
jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate
jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC by
private respondent is valid.
It would be well to emphasize that the taking of property under RA No. 6657 is an exercise of
the power of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or determination of just
compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the
courts and not with administrative agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of
respondent’s petition for determination of just compensation.
In the same vein, there is no merit to petitioner’s contention that respondent failed to exhaust
administrative remedies when she directly filed the petition for determination of just compensation with
the SAC even before the DARAB case could be resolved. The issue is now moot considering that the
valuation made by petitioner had long been affirmed by the DARAB in its order dated April 12, 2000. As
held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
inapplicable when the issue is rendered moot and academic, as in the instant case.
LBP vs Heirs of Eleuterio, September 2008
Facts:
Respondent Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz are the registered owner of an unirrigated riceland
situated in Lakambini, Tuao, Cagayan per Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-368. Of the total 13.7320
hectares of respondents landholding, an area of 13.5550 hectares was placed by the government under
the coverage of the operation land transfer program under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27.
Petitioner pegged the value of the acquired landholding at P106,935.76 based on the guidelines
set forth under P.D. No. 27 and Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228.Respondents rejected petitioners
valuation and instituted an action for a summary proceeding for the preliminary determination of just
compensation before the PARAD. On 23 November 1999, the PARAD rendered a decision fixing the just
compensation in the amount of P80,000.00 per hectare.
Thus, on 28 January 2000, petitioner filed a petition for the determination of just
compensation before the RTC of Tuguegarao City.
The SAC held that the value of P80,000.00 per hectare fixed by the PARAD should be accorded
weight and probative value and that the SAC is guided by the various factors enumerated in Section 17
of R.A. No. 6657 in determining just compensation. It disregarded respondents claim that the valuation
should be based on the current market value of the landholding since no evidence was adduced in
support of the claim.
On 17 August 2006, the CA rendered the assailed decision partly granting petitioners
appeal.The appellate court ruled that the total area covered by the agrarian reform program as was duly
established before the PARAD and expressly stated in the pre-trial order was only 13.5550 hectares and
not 13.7320 hectares as was stated in the dispositive portion of the decision of the SAC.However, the
appellate court affirmed the SAC decision fixing just compensation at P80,000.00 per hectare.
Issue:
Whether or not the values in E.O. No. 228 are applicable to lands acquired under P.D. No. 27
in cognizance of the well-settled rule that just compensation is the value of the property at the time of
the taking on 21 October 1972, when the ownership of the subject property was transferred from the
landowner to the farmers-beneficiaries and when the former was effectively deprived of dominion and
possession over said land.
Ruling: Petition lacks merit.
The Court laid down in Paris v. Alfeche ,the applicability of P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228
in relation to R.A. No. 6657 in the matter of the payment of just compensation. There the Court
explained that while under P.D. No. 27 tenant farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till,
they are still required to pay the cost of the land before the title is transferred to them and that pending
the payment of just compensation, actual title to the tenanted land remains with the landowner.
In Paris, the application of the process of agrarian reform was still incomplete thus, the Court
held therein that with the passage of R.A. No. 6657 before its completion, the process should now be
completed under R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 applying only suppletorily.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, the Court explained why the guidelines under P.D.
No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 are no longer applicable to the delayed payment of lands acquired under P.D.
No. 27, to wit:
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on
the guideline provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering the DARs failure to
determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just
compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or
EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full
and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the
equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
The decisive backdrop of the instant case coincides with that in Paris, that is, the amount of
just compensation due to respondents had not yet been settled by the time R.A. No. 6657 became
effective. Following the aforementioned pronouncement in Paris, the fixing of just compensation should
therefore be based on the parameters set out in R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228
having only suppletory effect.
 Thus, the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan, which is directed to determine with dispatch the just compensation due respondents strictly
in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARTINEZ, August 2007
FACTS:
After compulsory acquisition by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of
respondent Martinez’s 62.5369-hectare land pursuant to CARL, petitioner Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) offered P1,955,485.60 as just compensation.Convinced that the proffered
amount was unjust and confiscatory, respondent rejected it.
Thus, (DARAB), through (PARAD) conducted summary administrative proceedings for
the preliminary determination of just compensation.
In 2002, PARAD Virgilio M. Sorita, finding some marked inconsistencies in the figures
and factors made as bases by LBP, ordered the Land Bank of the Philippines to pay landowner-
protestant (Php12,179,492.50), in the manner provided for by law.LPB then filed for a petition
for fixing of just compensation with SAC (also RTC).But Martinez contented that the orders,
rulings and decisions of the DARAB become final after the lapse of 15 days from their receipt,
moved for the dismissal of the petition for being filed out of time for filing it 26 days after
receiving the decision of the PARAD.So the PARAD issued a writ of execution in 2004.
Aggrieved of these developments, LBP, moved to quash the said PARAD resolution.On
April 6, 2004, even as the motion to quash was yet unresolved, LBP instituted a petition for
certiorari before the CA.
LBP primarily contended that the Office of the PARAD gravely abused its discretion
when it issued the writ of execution despite the pendency with the SAC of a petition for the
fixing of just compensation. The CA, finding LBP guilty of forum-shopping for not disclosing
the pendency of the Motion to Quash, dismissed the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) gravely abused its
discretion when it issued a writ of execution despite the pendency of LBP’s petition for fixing of just
compensation with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC).
Contention of LBP:
That the PARAD had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution due to the pending
petition for determination of just compensation with the SAC; and that the Court’s August 14,
2007 Decision in this case is contrary to its October 11, 2007 Decision in Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Suntay, G.R. No. 157903 on the issue of whether the petition for determination
of just compensation was filed out of time.
HELD:
No. On the supposedly conflicting pronouncements in the cited decisions, the Court reiterates
its ruling in this case that the agrarian reform adjudicator’s decision on land valuation attains finality
after the lapse of the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules.
The petition for the fixing of just compensation should therefore, following the law and settled
jurisprudence, be filed with the SAC within the said period. Following settled doctrine, we ruled in this
case that the PARAD’s decision had already attained finality because of LBP’s failure to file the petition
for the fixing of just compensation within the 15-day period.
Comparison with Suntay case:
 The Court in that case stressed that the petition was not an appeal from the
adjudicator’s final decision but an original action for the determination of just
compensation.
 The Court notes that the Suntay ruling is based on Republic of the Philippines v.
Court of Appeals, decided in 1996 also through the pen of Justice Vicente V.
Mendoza.
 In that case, the Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the SAC is original and
exclusive, not appellate. Republic, however, was decided at a time when Rule XIII,
Section 11 was not yet present in the DARAB Rules
 Further, Republic did not discuss whether the petition filed therein for the fixing of
just compensation was filed out of time or not. The Court merely decided the issue
of whether cases involving just compensation should first be appealed to the DARAB
before the landowner can resort to the SAC under Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657.
 Thus, while a petition for the fixing of just compensation with the SAC is not an appeal from
the agrarian reform adjudicator’s decision but an original action, the same has to be filed
within the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules; otherwise, the adjudicator’s decision will
attain finality.
 This rule is not only in accord with law and settled jurisprudence but also with the principles
of justice and equity.
 Verily, a belated petition before the SAC, e.g., one filed a month, or a year, or even a decade
after the land valuation of the DAR adjudicator, must not leave the dispossessed landowner in
a state of uncertainty as to the true value of his property.
PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK V. CA, January 2000
Facts:
Philippine Veterans Bank owned four parcels of land in Tagum, Davao. Their land was taken
by DAR pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The bank contended that DAR
adjudicators have no jurisdiction to determine the just compensation for the taking of lands under
CARP because such jurisdiction is vested in the RTC.
Issue: Whether the DAR or RTC has jurisdiction

Held:
DAR has jurisdiction. There is nothing contradictory between the DAR’s primary jurisdiction
over “agrarian reform matters” and exclusive original jurisdiction over “all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform,” which includes the determination of questions of just
compensation, and the RTC’s “original and exclusive jurisdiction” over all petitions for the determination
of just compensation to the landowner. In accordance with settled principles of administrative law,
primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary
manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under CARP, but such
determination is subject to challenge in the courts.
Mode of Appeal from the DARAB’s decision:
Section 60 of RA 6657
Appeals. — An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing a
petition for review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days receipt of notice of the decision;
otherwise, the decision shall become final.
An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, or from any order, ruling or decision of the DAR, as
the case may be, shall be by a petition for review with the Supreme Court within a non-extendible
period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of said decision.
RULE 43
Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals
Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax
Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial
agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service
Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the
President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of
Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy
Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under
Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission,
Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of
Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by
law. (n)
Section 2. Cases not covered. — This Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the
Labor Code of the Philippines. (n)
Section 3. Where to appeal. — An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals within
the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or
mixed questions of fact and law. (n)
Section 4. Period of appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is
required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration
duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for
reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket
fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period
of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted
except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (n)
Section 5. How appeal taken. — Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven (7)
legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and
on the court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals shall be
indicated as such by the petitioner.
Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals the
docketing and other lawful fees and deposit the sum of P500.00 for costs. Exemption from payment of
docketing and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs may be granted by the Court of Appeals upon a
verified motion setting forth valid grounds therefor. If the Court of Appeals denies the motion, the
petitioner shall pay the docketing and other lawful fees and deposit for costs within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the denial. (n)
Section 6. Contents of the petition. — The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties
to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a
concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final
order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the
record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against
forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the
specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein. (2a)
Section 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with
any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit
for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (n)
Section 8. Action on the petition. — The Court of Appeals may require the respondent to file a comment
on the petition not a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice, or dismiss the petition if it
finds the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions
raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. (6a)
Section 9. Contents of comment. — The comment shall be filed within ten (10) days from notice in seven
(7) legible copies and accompanied by clearly legible certified true copies of such material portions of the
record referred to therein together with other supporting papers. The comment shall (a) point out
insufficiencies or inaccuracies in petitioner's statement of facts and issues; and (b) state the reasons
why the petition should be denied or dismissed. A copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner, and
proof of such service shall be filed with the Court of Appeals. (9a)
Section 10. Due course. — If upon the filing of the comment or such other pleadings or documents as
may be required or allowed by the Court of Appeals or upon the expiration of the period for the filing
thereof, and on the records the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the court or agency concerned
has committed errors of fact or law that would warrant reversal or modification of the award, judgment,
final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, it may give due course to the petition; otherwise, it shall
dismiss the same. The findings of fact of the court or agency concerned, when supported by substantial
evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals. (n)
Section 11. Transmittal of record. — Within fifteen (15) days from notice that the petition has been
given due course, the Court of Appeals may require the court or agency concerned to transmit the
original or a legible certified true copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review. The record to
be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all parties to the proceeding. The Court of Appeals may
require or permit subsequent correction of or addition to the record. (8a)
Section 12. Effect of appeal. — The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution
sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may
deem just. (10a)
Section 13. Submission for decision. — If the petition is given due course, the Court of Appeals may set
the case for oral argument or require the parties to submit memoranda within a period of fifteen (15)
days from notice. The case shall be deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last pleading or
memorandum required by these Rules or by the court of Appeals. (n)
Sec. 54 of RA 6657
Section 54. Certiorari. — Any decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or
on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act
and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari except
as otherwise provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of a copy thereof.
The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence.
Certiorari – Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
RULE 65
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution
subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (1a)
Section 2. Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer
or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of
its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings
in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice
may require.
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or
resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (2a)
Section 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to
protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (3a)
Section 4. When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from
notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely
filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of
the denial of said motion.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a
lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of
Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court
of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no
case exceeding fifteen (15) days. (4a) (Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998; A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC)
Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases. — When the petition filed relates to the acts or
omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the
petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents,
the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of
such private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the
public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such
proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the
judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public
respondent or respondents.
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, the public
respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If
the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public respondents shall be included therein
as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by the court, they shall not appear
or participate in the proceedings therein. (5a)
Section 6. Order to comment. — If the petition is sufficient in form and substance to justify such
process, the court shall issue an order requiring the respondent or respondents to comment on the
petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Such order shall be served on the
respondents in such manner as the court may direct together with a copy of the petition and any
annexes thereto.
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of
section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course thereto, the court may require the
respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the petition. Thereafter, the court
may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary
and proper. (6a)
Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. — The court in which the petition is filed may issue
orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The
petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a
writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in
the case. (7a)
Section 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. — After the comment or other pleadings required by the
court are filed, or the time for the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear the case or require the
parties to submit memoranda. If after such hearing or submission of memoranda or the expiration of
the period for the filing thereof the court finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render
judgment for the relief prayed for or to which the petitioner is entitled.
The court, however, may dismiss the petition if it finds the same to be patently without merit,
prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration. (8a)

Section 9. Service and enforcement of order or judgment. — A certified copy of the judgment rendered in
accordance with the last preceding section shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial agency,
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person concerned in such manner as the court may direct, and
disobedience thereto shall be punished as contempt. An execution may issue for any damages or costs
awarded in accordance with section 1 of Rule 39. (9a)