CABRAL

vs.
CA, DAR RD, et. Al
G.R. No. 101974, July 12, 2001

A petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA with an urgent subsequent prayer
for issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO)due to conveyance of property in issue by
private respondent to a third party.

Facts: Sometime in July 1973, Victoria Cabral sought in frustration DAR’s reclassification of
property into residential, commercial or industrial purposes.

However, in April 25, 1988, Emancipation Patents and Transfer Certificates of Title (EP and TCT)
were issued in favor of private-respondents (Florencio Adolfo, Gregorio Lazaro, Gregoria Adolfo
and Elias Policarpio).

Thus, petitioner sought for cancellation of the Emancipation Patent and TCT before the Barangay
Agrarian Reform Council on 16 January 1990 citing four reasons.

On 19January 1990, petitioner also petitioned DAR for cancellation of the EP and TCT but DAR
denied the same on trial and on motion for reconsideration, and by CA on certiorari and motion
for reconsideration. Thus, this petition for certiorari.

A TRO was granted on subsequent motion of petitioner due to conveyance of private-respondent

to a third party that has commenced conversion of the property on issue for commercial and
industrial use.

Issues:
(1). Whether it is the DAR Regional Office (RO) or DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD that has jurisdiction over agrarian reform issues.

(2). Whether petitioner was denied due process being not given the opportunity to be heard on
appeal.

Held:

(1). DARAB has jurisdiction, and not DAR Regional Office. The function of DAR Regional
Office is the implementation (purely executive) of agrarian reform laws whereas that of
DARAB/RARAD/PARAD is for adjudication (judicial in nature) of agrarian reform cases. These
were the laws at the time.
Although the CA cited that DARAB can delegate its powers and functions (judicial) to the regio
nal office, adjudication has beendelegated to the Regional Office, the same is however subject to
the rules promulgated by DARAB. The same rules have been revised, so that the same has now
been delegated to RARAD and PARAD which are deemed part of the Regional Office where it is
located.

This comingling of powers (executive and judicial) must not be confused, for duplication of
functions would seem:
1)impractical;
2) confusion as to what each agency serves;
3) divides agency’s resources.

The intention of law is to avoid such confusion, and thus, the theory that DAR Regional Office
has jurisdiction is without merit.

(2). The Court did not resolve the issue on denial of due process by DAR
[since DAR has no jurisdiction in the first place].

The petition is granted, CA Resolution is reversed and set aside. TRO made permanent.