The Secretariat shall be headed by the Secretary
Presidential Agrarian pf Agrarian Reform who shall be assisted by an
Reform Council
Section 41
The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(PARC) shall be composed of the President of
the Philippines as Chairman, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform as Vice-Chairman and the
following as members; Secretaries of the DAR;
DENR; DBM; DPWH; DTI; DOF; DOLE; Director-
General of NEDA; President of LBP;
Administrator, National Irrigation
Administration and three (3) representatives of
affected landowners to represent Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao, provided that one of
them shall be from the cultural communities.
Section 42
Executive Committee
There shall be an Executive Committee
(EXECOM) of the PARC composed of the DAR as
Chairman, and such other members as the
President may designate, taking into account
Article XIII, Sec. 5 of the Constitution. Unless
otherwise directed by PARC, the EXECOM may
meet and decide on any and all matters in
between meetings of the PARC: Provided,
however, that its decisions must be reported to
the PARC immediately and not later than the
next meeting.
Section 43
Secretariat
A PARC Secretariat is hereby established to
provide general support and coordinative
services such as inter-agency linkages; program
and project appraisal and evaluation and
general operations monitoring for the PARC.
Undersecretary and supported by a staff whose
composition shall be determined by the PARC
EXECOM and whose compensation shall be
chargeable against the Agrarian Reform Fund.
All officers and employees of the Secretariat
shall be appointed by the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform.
Section 49
Rules and Regulations
The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to
issue rules and regulations, whether substantive
or procedural, to carry out the objects and
purposes of this Act. Said rules shall take effect
ten (10) days after its publication in two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation.
Provincial Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Committee
Section 44
Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Committee (PARCCOM)
A Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Committee (PARCCOM) is hereby created in
each province, composed of a Chairman, who
shall be appointed by the President upon the
recommendation of the EXCOM, the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer as Executive Officer,
and one representative each from the
Departments of Agriculture, and of
Environment and Natural Resources and from
the LBP, one representative each from existing
farmers' organizations, agricultural cooperatives
and non-governmental organizations in the
province; two representatives from landowners,
at least one of whom shall be a producer
representing the principal crop of the province,
and two representatives from farmer and
farmworker-beneficiaries, at least one of whom
shall be a farmer or farmworker representing
the principal crop of the province, as members:
provided, that in areas where there are cultural
communities, the latter shall likewise have one
representative.
The PARCCOM shall coordinate and monitor the
implementation of the CARP in the province.t
shall provide information on the provisions of
the CARP, guidelines issued by the PARC and on
the progress of the CARP in the province.
Provincial Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Committee
Section 45
Province-by-Province Implementation
The PARC shall provide the guidelines for a
province-by-province implementation of the
CARP. The ten-year program of distribution of
public and private lands in each province shall
be adjusted from year by the province's
PARCCOM in accordance with the level of
operations previously established by the PARC,
in every case ensuring that support services are
available or have been programmed before
actual distribution is affected.
Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee
Section 46
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC)
Unless otherwise provided in this Act, the
provisions of Executive Order No. 229 regarding
the organization of the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee (BARC) shall be in effect.
Section 47
Functions of the BARC
In addition to those provided in Executive
Order No. 229, the BARC shall have the
following functions:
(a) Mediate and conciliate between
parties involved in an agrarian dispute
including matters related to tenurial
and financial arrangements;
(b) Assist in the identification of
qualified beneficiaries and landowners
within the barangay;
(c) Attest to the accuracy of the initial
parcellary mapping of the beneficiary's
tillage;
(d) Assist qualified beneficiaries in
obtaining credit from lending
institutions;
(e) Assist in the initial determination of
the value of the land;
(f) Assist the DAR representatives in the
preparation of periodic reports on the
CARP implementation for submission to
the DAR;
(g) Coordinate the delivery of support
services to beneficiaries; and
(h) Perform such other functions as may
be assigned by the DAR
(2) The BARC shall endeavor to mediate,
conciliate and settle agrarian disputes lodged
before it within thirty (30) days from its taking
cognizance thereof after the lapse of the thirty
day period, it is unable to settle the dispute, it
shall issue a certificate of its proceedings and
shall furnish a copy thereof upon the parties
within seven (7) days after the expiration of the
thirty-day period.
Section 48
Legal Assistance
The BARC or any member thereof may,
whenever necessary in the exercise of any of its
functions hereunder, seek the legal assistance
of the DAR and the provincial, city, or municipal
government.
Financing the
Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program
Section 63
Funding Source
The initial amount needed to implement this
Act for the period of ten (10) years upon
approval hereof shall be funded from the
Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections
20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229.
Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be
appropriated as and when needed to augment
the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully
implement the provisions of this Act.
Sources of funding or appropriations shall
include the following:
(a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets
Privatization Trust;
(b) All receipts from assets recovered
and from sales of ill-gotten wealth
recovered through the Presidential
Commission on Good Government;
(c) Proceeds of the disposition of the
properties of the Government in foreign
countries;
(d) Portion of amounts accruing to the
Philippines from all sources of official
foreign grants and concessional
financing from all countries, to be used
for the specific purposes of financing
production credits, infrastructures, and
other support services required by this
Act;
(e) Other government funds not
otherwise appropriated.
All funds appropriated to implement the
provisions of this Act shall be considered
continuing appropriations during the period of
its implementation.
Resolution of Agrarian
Disputes
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.t 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.
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.
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.

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
 Rufina vda. De Tangub v. CA
UDK no. 9864, Dec. 3, 1990
Facts: Rufina Tangub and her deceased
husband, Andres, were tenants of the
landholding owned by the Spouses Domingo
and Eugenia Martil. Said land was mortgaged to
the Philippine National Bank, which was later on
foreclosed and acquired by the latter for being
the highest bidder. The Philippine National Bank
then sold a portion of the subject parcel of land
to the National Steel Corporation. Petitioner
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del
Norte in March, 1988, an agrarian case for
damages by reason of their unlawful
dispossession and prayed that mortgage and
the transactions thereafter made in relation
thereto be annulled and voided.
Respondent Judge Felipe G. Javier, Jr. dismissed
the complaint, rationalizing that jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court over agrarian cases had
been transferred to the Department of Agrarian
Reform by virtue of Executive Order No. 229
and Executive No. 129-A.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition,
finding that the jurisdictional question had been
correctly resolved by the Trial Court. The Court
of Appeals, adverted to a case earlier decided
by it, Estanislao Casinillo v. Hon. Felipe G. Javier,
Jr., et al., in which it was "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."
Tangub once again contended before the
Supreme Court that the Trial Court's order of
dismissal, and the decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming it, is patently illegal and
unconstitutional because they deprived a poor
tenant access to courts and directly violate R.A.
6657.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC and the CA
erred in dismissing the case filed by the
petitioner.
Held: No. The Regional Trial Court of Iligan
City was 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 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:
1) "all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to land-owners," and
2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses
under…[the] Act." In these cases, "(t)he Rules of
Court shall apply…unless modified by...(the)
Act."
The petition was thus DISMISSED for lack of
merit, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals
is AFFIRMED.
 STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION V. AMANTE
FACTS: The Canlubang Estate in Laguna is a vast
landholding previously titled in the name of the
late Speaker and Chief Justice Jose Yulo, Sr.
Within this estate are two parcels of land part
of Barangay Casile, subsequently titled in the
name of Sta. Rosa Realty Development
Corporation (SRRDC), the majority stockholder
of which is C.J. Yulo and Sons, Inc. Amante, et
al., instituted an action for injunction with
damages against Luis Yulo, SRRDC, and several
SRRDC security personnel, They alleged that
their ancestors started occupying the area, built
their houses and planted fruit-bearing trees
thereon, and since then, have been peacefully
occupying the land; sometime in June 3, 1985,
SRRDCs security people illegally entered Bgy.
Casile and fenced the area; SRRDCs men also
entered the barangay on November 4, 1985, cut
down the trees, burned their huts, and barred
the lone jeepney from entering the Canlubang
Sugar Estate; as a result of these acts, Amante,
et al. were deprived of possession and
cultivation of their lands. SRRDC denied the
allegations and disclaimed any control and
supervision over its security personnel. SRRDC
also alleged that as the real owner of the
property, it was the one that suffered damages
due to the encroachment on the property.
While the injunction and ejectment cases were
still in process, it appears that in August, 1989,
the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO)
issued a Notice of Coverage to SRRDC,
informing petitioners that the property is
scheduled for compulsory acquisition under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP). They claimed that the property had
already been classified as park since 1979 under
the Zoning Ordinance of Cabuyao, as approved
by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) and that it forms part of a watershed.
SRRDC filed its Protest and Objection with the
MARO on the grounds that the area was not
appropriate for agricultural purposes, as it was
rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and above,
and that the occupants of the land were
squatters, who were not entitled to any land as
beneficiaries.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject property is covered
by the compulsory acquisition under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP)?
Are the occupants of the said property entitled
to the land as qualified beneficiaries?
HELD:
As the landholdings of SRRDC subject of the
instant proceedings are already developed not
only as a community but also as an agricultural
farm capable of sustaining daily existence and
growth, the court found no infirmity in placing
said parcels of land under compulsory coverage.
They do not belong to the exempt class of
lands. The claim that the landholding of SRRDC
is a watershed; hence, belonging to the exempt
class of lands is literally throwing punches at the
moon because the DENR certified that the only
declared watershed in Laguna Province and San
Pablo City is the Caliraya-Lumot Rivers.
Map prepared by Agricultural Engineer Rosalina
H. Jumaquio showing that: a) the topography of
the property covered by TCT No. T-84891
topography is flat to undulating with a 5 to 10%
slope; (b) it is suitable to agricultural crops; and
(c) the land is presently planted with diversified
crops; Certification dated August 28, 1989 by
APT Felicito Buban of the Department of
Agriculture of Laguna that, per his ocular
inspection, the subject property is an
agricultural area, and that the inhabitants’ main
occupation is farming

The power to determine whether a property is

agricultural and subject to CARP coverage
together with the identification, qualification or
disqualification of farmer-beneficiaries lies with
the DAR Secretary. The farmer-beneficiaries
have already been identified in this case. Also,
the DAR Secretary has already issued Notices of
Coverage and Notices of Acquisition pertaining
to the subject property. It behooves the courts
to exercise great caution in substituting its own
determination of the issue, unless there is grave
abuse of discretion committed by the
administrative agency, which in these cases the
Court finds none. Significantly, the DAR had
already determined that the properties are
subject to expropriation under the CARP and
has distributed the same to the farmer-
beneficiaries.
Department of Agrarian Reform vs .Cuenca

G.R. No. 154112, September 23, 2004,

439 SCRA 15
 Cabral vs. Court of Appeals DARAB/RARAD/PARAD (judicial in nature) -is for
adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
G.R. No. 101974, July 12, 2001. 361 SCRA 122
(2). Court need not resolve the issue of
Facts: deprivation of due process allegedly suffered by
Sometime in July 1973, petitioner sought in petitioner in the proceedings before the
frustration DAR’s reclassification of property Regional Director.
into residential, commercial or industrial
purposes but there was no action. However, in
April 25, 1988, Emancipation Patents and
Transfer Certificates of Title (EP and TCT) were
issued in favor of private-respondents.

Thus, petitioner sought for cancellation of the

EP and TCT before the BARC on 16 January
1990. On 19 January 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.

Issue(s):

(1). whether it is the DAR Regional Office (RO)

or DARAB 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 RO.

DAR Regional Office - is the implementation

(purely executive) of agrarian reform laws.
 Isidro vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. L-105586, December 15, 1993, 216
SCRA 503
Facts:
Private respondent Natividad Gutierrez is the
owner of the subject parcel of land located in
Gapan, Nueva Ecija.
In 1985, Aniceta Garcia, sister of private
respondent and also the overseer of the latter,
allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to occupy the
swampy portion of the land. The occupancy of a
portion of said land was subject to the condition
that petitioner would vacate the land upon
demand. Petitioner occupied the land without
paying any rental and converted the same into
a fishpond.
In 1990, private respondent through the
overseer demanded from petitioner the return
of the land, but the latter refused to vacate and
return possession of said land, claiming that he
had spent effort and invested capital in
converting the same into a fishpond.
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by
private respondent against petitioner before
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Gapan,
Nueva Ecija.
Petitioner set up the following defenses:
(a) that the complaint was triggered by his
refusal to increase his lease rental;
(b) the subject land is a fishpond and
therefore is agricultural land; and
(c) that lack of formal demand to vacate
exposes the complaint to dismissal for
insufficiency of cause of action.
Based on an ocular inspection of the subject
land, the trial court found that the land in
question is a fishpond. The trial court dismissed
the case because it ruled that it is an agrarian
dispute, hence not cognizable by civil courts. It
held that the land is agricultural and therefore
the dispute over it is agrarian which is under the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts
of agrarian relations as provided in Sec. 12(a) of
Republic Act No. 946 (now embodied in the
Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board).
Private respondent appealed to the RTC which
affirmed in toto the decision of MTC and ruled
that the DARAB is the proper forum for such
issue.
On appeal to the CA, the decision of the trial
court was reversed.
Issue:
Whether or not the case is an agrarian dispute
and hence not cognizable by civil courts
Held:
No. A case involving an agricultural land does
not automatically make such case an agrarian
dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction.
The mere fact that the land is agricultural does
not ipso facto make the possessor an
agricultural lessee of tenant. The law provides
for conditions or requisites before he can
qualify as one and the land being agricultural is
only one of them.
The essential requisites of a tenancy
relationship are:
(1) The parties are the landowner and
the tenant;
(2) The subject matter is agricultural
land;
(3) There is consent;
(4) The purpose is agricultural
production;
(5) There is personal cultivation by the
tenant; and
(6) There is a sharing of harvests
between the parties.
All these requisites must concur in order to
create a tenancy relationship between the
parties. In the case at bar, there is an absence
of the last requisite, hence tenancy relationship
between Isidro and the private respondent was
not established.
Statutory definition of an agricultural tenant or
a lessee
Agricultural lessee as defined in Sec. 116(2)
of RA No. 3844, is a person who, by himself
and with the aid available from within his
immediate farm household, cultivates the
land belonging to, or possessed by, another
with the latter's consent for purposes of
production, for a price certain in money or in
produce or both. An agricultural lessor, on
the other hand, is a natural or judicial person
who, either as owner, civil law lessee,
usufructuary, or legal possessor lets or
grants to another the cultivation and use of
his land for a price certain.
It is clear that there is no tenancy or
agricultural/leasehold relationship existing
between the petitioner and the private
respondent since petitioner has failed to
substantiate his claim that he was paying rent
for the use of the land. There was no contract
or agreement entered into by the petitioner
with the private respondent nor with the
overseer of the private respondent, for
petitioner to cultivate the land for a price
certain or to share his harvests.
It is irrefutable in the case at bar that the
subject land which used to be an idle, swampy
land was converted by the petitioner into a
fishpond. And it is settled that a fishpond is an
agricultural land. An agricultural land refers to
the land devoted to agricultural activity as
defined in Republic Act No. 6657 15 and not
classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land. But such defense
as well as raising the issue as to whether or not
private respondent knew of the conversion by
petitioner of the idle, swampy land into a
fishpond is immaterial in this case. The fact
remains that the existence of all the requisites
of a tenancy relationship was not proven by the
petitioner. And in the absence of a tenancy
relationship, the complaint for unlawful
detainer is properly within the jurisdiction of
the Municipal Trial Court.
The law states that an agrarian dispute must be
a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement
over lands devoted to agriculture. Such
arrangement may be leasehold, tenancy or
stewardship. Tenancy is not a purely factual
relationship dependent on what the alleged
tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal
relationship. The intent of the parties, the
understanding when the farmer is installed, and
their written agreements, provided these are
complied with and are not contrary to law, are
even more important.
*The present case should be distinguished from
the recent case of Bernas vs. The Honorable
Court of Appeals. In the Bernas case, the land
occupant (Bernas) had a production-sharing
agreement with the legal possessor (Benigno
Bito-on) while the records in this case fail to
show that herein petitioner (Isidro) was sharing
the harvest or paying rent for his use of the
land.
In the Bernas case, the petitioner (Bernas) was
able to establish the existence of an agricultural
tenancy or leasehold relationship between him
and the legal possessor. The evidence in this
case, on the other hand, fails to prove that
petitioner Isidro, was an agricultural tenant or
lessee.
Heirs of Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of
Appeals
G.R. No. 109992, March 7, 2000
372 SCRA 293
FACTS:
Before this Court is a petition for review
on certiorari assailing the decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals in which affirmed the two
orders of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated April 3,
1992[2] and November 18, 1992.
The subject of the controversy is a parcel of
land in Parulan, Plaridel, Bulacan which was
levied on execution by the Municipal Trial
Court of Plaridel, Bulacan on October 24, 1989.
In accordance with said levy on execution, the
subject land was sold at public auction on
September 20, 1990 with Herman Rey Santos,
now substituted by his heirs represented by his
widow Arsenia Garcia Vda. de Santos, as the
sole bidder for P34,532.50.
Santos registered the Deed of Sale with the
Register of Deeds of Bulacan on October 15,
1990, after private respondent Exequiel Garcia
failed to exercise his right of redemption within
the reglementary period. As a result, Ex-
Officio Sheriff Carmelita Itapo executed a Final
Deed of Sale dated October 18, 1991 in favor of
Santos which was registered with the Registry
of Deeds of Bulacan on November 7, 1991.
On April 1, 1992, private respondent filed a
Petition for Injunction and Damages with an
application for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction with the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed
as DARAB Case No. 369-BUL 92, praying that
petitioner be enjoined from preventing private
respondent from gathering the mango fruits
lest they "over-mature and become useless."[4]
The Provincial Adjudicator Erasmo SP. Cruz of
the DARAB issued an order on April 3, 1992,
allowing the gathering of the mango fruits and
directing that the proceeds thereof be
deposited with the Adjudication Board.
Subsequently, on April 27, 1992, private
respondent filed a Petition for Consignation
before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, in an
apparent attempt to redeem his land. This
petition was dismissed.
Meanwhile, one Pantaleon Antonio filed on
May 18, 1992 a motion to intervene[5] with the
DARAB claiming that "he is affected in his rights
and interests as the party who tended and had
the mango trees bear fruits this season."
On May 7, 1992, private respondent filed a
complaint for Annulment/Cancellation of Sale
and Document, Redemption with Damages and
Preliminary Writ of Injunction against Herman
Rey Santos, the Deputy Sheriff of Bulacan and
the Register of Deeds of Bulacan.[6]
Thereafter, on July 1, 1992, the Adjudication
Board suspended the hearing on Pantaleon
Antonios motion for intervention pending the
resolution of the ownership issue raised in the
above-mentioned complaint.[7]
On July 8, 1992, intervenor Pantaleon Antonio
filed with the DARAB a Motion to Withdraw
Intervenors deposited share.[8] The motion was
granted and intervenor Pantaleon Antonio was
allowed to withdraw P87,300.00 out of
P174,600.00 harvest proceeds in an Order
dated November 18, 1992.[9] Corollarily, the
DARAB recognized Pantaleon Antonio as the
duly constituted agricultural tenant of the
subject land.
As adverted to above, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the April 3, 1992 Order of the DARAB
ordering the gathering of the mango fruits and
depositing with the Board the proceeds thereof,
and the November 18, 1992 Order allowing the
withdrawal of intervenors share in the proceeds
and recognizing him as the duly constituted
agricultural tenant.
ISSUES:
1. In ruling that the PARAD has jurisdiction over
the ancillary matter/s raised by intervenor in
DARAB Case No. 369-BUL 92 despite the fact
that the PARAD itself has admitted involvement
of question of ownership between the original
parties and has indefinitely suspended the
principal/main case pending the outcome of the
issue of ownership at the Regional Trial Court of
Malolos; and
2. In affirming and/or sustaining the order
dated November 18, 1992 of the PARAD
allowing the release of 50% of the proceeds of
the sale of the harvested fruits in favor of
intervenor without due process, during the
supposed indefinite suspension, and worse,
without requiring said purported intervenor to
post a bond that will answer for damages that
may be sustained by herein petitioners.
HELD:
Rule II, Section 1 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 Order Nos. 229, 228 and
129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by
Republic Act No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations. (Italics supplied)
"Agrarian dispute" is defined under Section 3(d)
of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARP Law), as:
(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 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.
Clearly, no agrarian dispute is involved in this
case. In fact, both are contending parties for the
ownership of the subject property.
In the case of Morta v. Occidental, et al.,[10] this
Court held:
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case,
there must exist a tenancy relationship
between the parties. In order for a tenancy
agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would
be essential to establish all its indispensable
elements to wit:
1) that the parties are the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee;
2) that the subject matter of the relationship is
an agricultural land;
3) that there is consent between the parties to
the relationship;
4) that the purpose of the relationship is to
bring about agricultural production;
5) that there is personal cultivation on the part
of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
6) that the harvest is shared between the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
*In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals (191
SCRA 885), we held that the jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the
following: a) adjudication of all matters
involving implementation of agrarian reform;
b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land
tenure related problems; and
c) approval and disapproval of the conversion,
restructuring or readjustment of agricultural
lands into residential, commercial, industrial,
and other non-agricultural uses.
Petitioners and private respondent have no
tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations
whatsoever that could have brought this
controversy under the ambit of the agrarian
reform laws. Consequently, the DARAB has no
jurisdiction over the controversy and should not
have taken cognizance of private respondents
petition for injunction in the first place.
Significantly, DARAB admitted that the issue
before the Regional Trial Court was one of
ownership. In fact, the issue of ownership had
been recognized by the DARAB in its assailed
order of April 3, 1992 when it held that:
A careful analysis of the records and attached
documents revealed that the issue involved is
question of ownership between the parties,
although the attached Transfer Certificates of
Title reflected the name of herein petitioner.
The next issue to be resolved is whether it was
proper for DARAB to take cognizance of
Pantaleon Antonios motion for intervention
considering that DARAB had no jurisdiction and
the issue of ownership is involved. This Court
rules in the negative.
The issue of who can harvest the mangoes and
when they can be harvested is an incident
ancillary to the main petition for injunction. As
such, it is dependent on the main case.
Inasmuch as the DARAB has no jurisdiction to
hear and decide the controversy between the
parties, necessarily, the motion for intervention
loses the leg on which it can stand. This issue,
after all, can be resolved by the trial court,
which has the jurisdiction to order the gathering
of the mango fruits and depositing the proceeds
with it, considering that an action has already
been filed before it on the specific issue of
ownership.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 29709 which affirmed the April 3,
1992 and November 18, 1992 orders of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Consequently, DARAB is permanently enjoined
from hearing the motion for intervention of
Pantaleon Antonio who is ordered to redeposit
the amount of P87,300.00 with the Regional
Trial Court. The DARAB is likewise ordered to
transfer the remaining P87,300.00 on deposit
with it to the Regional Trial Court. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
 Sta. Ana vs. Carpo
G.R. No. 164340, November 28, 2008, 572
SCRA 463
FACTS:
Respondent Leon Carpo (Leon) and his brother
Francisco G. Carpo are the registered co-owners
of a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 2175 of
the Santa Rosa Estate Subdivision, situated at
Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
A portion thereof, consisting of 3.5 hectares,
pertained to Leon and his wife, respondent
Aurora Carpo.
It was devoted to rice and corn
production(subject land) and was tenanted by
one Domingo Pastolero (Domingo), husband of
Adoracion Pastolero.
However, on December 29, 1983, Adoracion, by
executing a notarized Pinanumpaang Salaysay
with the conformity of Leon, and for a
consideration of P72,500.00, transferred her
rights in favor of petitioner Otilia Sta. Ana
(petitioner) who, together with her husband,
Marciano de la Cruz (Marciano), became the
new tenants of the subject land at the outset,
the parties had a harmonious tenancy
relationship.
In their Complaint for Ejectment due to Non-
Payment of Lease Rentals dated December 1,
1989, respondents alleged that it was their
agreement with petitioner and Marciano to
increase the existing rentals from 36 cavans to
45 cavans, and that, if respondents wanted to
repossess the property, they only had to pay
the petitioner the amount of P72,500.00, the
same amount paid by the latter to Adoracion.
In their Answer, dated January 26, 1990,
petitioner and Marciano denied that there was
an agreement to increase the existing rental
which was already fixed at 36 cavans of palay,
once or twice a year depending on the
availability of irrigation water; that neither was
there an agreement as to the future surrender
of the land in favor of the respondents; that
they did not refuse to pay the rentals because
they even sent verbal and written notices to the
respondents, advising them to accept the same;
the PARAD ruled that petitioner and Marciano
deliberately defaulted in the payment of the
rentals due the respondents.
The DARAB's Ruling; It is a fundamental rule in
this jurisdiction that for non-payment of lease
rentals to warrant the dispossession and
ejectment of a tenant, the same must be made
in a willful and deliberate manner for a valid
ouster or ejectment of a farmer-tenant, the
willful and deliberate intent not to pay lease
rentals and/or share can be ascertained when
there is a determination of will not to do a
certain act.
Considering the circumstances obtaining in this
case, it cannot be concluded that the
defendants-appellants deliberately failed or
refused to pay their lease rentals. It was not the
fault of defendants-appellants herein that the
rentals did not reach the plaintiffs-appellees
because the latter choose to lend a deaf ear to
the notices sent to them.
On March 5, 2004, the CA affirmed the factual
findings of the PARAD that petitioner and
Marciano failed to pay the rentals and that
there was no valid tender of payment.
The CA added that this failure to pay was
tainted with bad faith and deliberate intent.
Thus, petitioner and Marciano did not legally
comply with their duties as tenants.
ISSUES:
Whether the CA erred in ruling that the subject
land had already become residential,
commercial and/or industrial, thus, excluded
from the coverage of our laws on agrarian
reform;
Whether the petitioner, as an agricultural
tenant, failed to pay her lease rentals when the
same fell due as to warrant her dispossession of
the subject land.
RULING:
Without doubt, the PARAD acted without
jurisdiction when it held that the subject land
was no longer covered by our agrarian laws
because of the retention rights of the
respondents. The CA likewise acted without
jurisdiction when it ruled that the land had
become non-agricultural based on a zoning
ordinance of 1981-- on the strength of a mere
vicinity map. These rulings violated the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction.
Verily, there is an established tenancy
relationship between petitioner and
respondents in this case. An action for
Ejectment for Non-Payment of lease rentals is
clearly an agrarian dispute, cognizable at the
initial stage by the PARAD and thereafter by the
DARAB.
Proof necessary for the resolution of the issue
of the land being covered by, or
excluded/exempted from, P.D. No. 27, R.A. No.
6657, and other pertinent agrarian laws, as well
as of the issue of the right of retention of the
respondents, was not offered in evidence.
Under Section 37 of Republic Act No. 3844, as
amended, coupled with the fact that the
respondents are the complainants themselves,
the burden of proof to show the existence of a
lawful cause for the ejectment of the petitioner
as an agricultural lessee rests upon the
respondents as agricultural lessors.
Respondents failed to discharge such burden.
The agricultural tenant's failure to pay the lease
rentals must be willful and deliberate in order
to warrant his dispossession of the land that he
tills.
The term "deliberate" is characterized by or
results from slow, careful, thorough calculation
and consideration of effects and consequences.
The term "willful," on the other hand, is defined
as one governed by will without yielding to
reason or without regard to reason.
We agree with the findings of the DARAB that it
was not the fault of petitioner that the lease
rentals did not reach the respondents because
the latter chose to ignore the notices sent to
them.
To note, as early as November 10, 1986,
Marciano executed an Affidavit stating that
Leon refused to receive the respective lease
rentals consisting of 37 cavans for November
1985 and July 1986.
These factual circumstances negate the PARAD
findings of Marciano's and petitioner's
deliberate and willful intent not to pay lease
rentals. Good faith was clearly demonstrated by
Marciano and petitioner when, because
respondents refused to accept the proffered
payment, they even went to the point of
seeking government intervention in order to
address their problems with respondents.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED.
The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 60640 is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.
Principles: jurisdiction of the PARAD and the
DARAB, while issues of retention and
For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is non-coverage of a land under agrarian
vested in the Department of Agrarian reform, among others, are within the
Reform (DAR);... more specifically, in the domain... of the DAR Secretary.
Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB). Executive Section 36 of the same law pertinently
Order 229 vested the DAR with (1) quasi- provides:
judicial powers to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and Sec. 36. Possession of Landholding;
(2) jurisdiction over all matters involving Exceptions. -- Notwithstanding any
the implementation of... agrarian reform, agreement as to the period or future
except those falling under the exclusive surrender, of the land, an agricultural
original jurisdiction of the Department of lessee shall continue in the enjoyment
Agriculture and the Department of and possession of his landholding except
Environment and Natural Resources. when his dispossession has been...
authorized by the Court in a judgment that
the DAR is vested with the primary is final and executory if after due hearing
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate it is shown that:
agrarian reform matters and shall have
the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters (6) The agricultural lessee does not pay
involving the implementation of the... the lease rental when it falls due:
agrarian reform program. Provided, That if the non-payment of the
rental shall be due to crop failure to the
Under Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657 extent of seventy-five per centum as a
(CARP Law), "agrarian dispute" is defined result of a fortuitous event, the non-
to include "(d) . . . any controversy relating payment shall not be a ground for...
to tenurial arrangements, whether dispossession, although the obligation to
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or pay the rental due that particular crop is
otherwise over lands devoted to not thereby extinguished;
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."
Simply put, agrarian disputes, as defined
by law and settled in jurisprudence, are
within the primary and exclusive original