Regional Trial Courts qua Special Agrarian Courts have, according to

Section 57 of the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over:

Tangub
JURISDICTION
"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].
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 of 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 to enforce its writs through
sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It 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.
xxx

xxx

xxx

Notwithstanding an appeal to the court of appeals, the decision of

the DAR shall be immediately executory." 9
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

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."
It is relevant to mention in this connection that
(1)
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, . ." 10 and
(2)
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 11 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." 12
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.
,LBP VS. CA

DARAB NGA AT COURTS EH

The above quoted provision (Sec. 17) should be deemed to have repealed
Sec. 12 (a) and (b) of Presidential Decree No. 946 which invested the then
courts of agrarian relations with original exclusive jurisdiction over cases
and questions involving rights granted and obligations imposed by
presidential issuances promulgated in relation to the agrarian reform
program (emphasis supplied).
Thus, petitioners 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. For on the
contrary, it is the DARAB which has the authority to determine the initial
valuation of lands involving agrarian reformi[30] although such valuation
may only be considered preliminary as the final determination of just
compensation is vested in the courts.ii[31]
HINDI KELANGAN NG CONSENT NG FARMER BENEFICIARY
Sec. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. - The LBP shall compensate
the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner
and the DAR and the LBP in accordance with the criteria provided for in
Sections 16 and 17 and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be
finally determined by the court as the just compensation for the land
(emphasis supplied).

We cannot see why Sec. 18 of RA 6657 should not apply to rice and corn
lands under PD 27. Section 75 of RA 6657v[37] clearly states that the
provisions of PD 27 and EO 228 shall only have a suppletory effect. Section
7 of the Act also provides Sec. 7. Priorities.- The DAR, in coordination with the PARC shall plan and
program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands through a
period of (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired
and distributed as follows:
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.vi[41] It did not appeal the decision of PARAD which
became final and executory.vii[42] 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."viii[43]
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.
HINDI PEDE ANG REMEDIES NA ITOO

As may be gleaned from the aforementioned section, the landowner, the

DAR and the Land Bank are the only parties involved. The law does not
mention the participation of the farmer-beneficiary. However, petitioner
insists that Sec. 18 of RA 6657iii[35] does not apply in this case as it
involves lands covered by PD 27. It argues that in appraising PD 27 lands
the consent of the farmer-beneficiary is necessary to arrive at a final
valuation. Without such concurrence, the financing scheme under PD 251
cannot be satisfied.iv[36]
NAG APPLY DIN ITO KHIT GLING PD 27

The first remedy was to ask the sheriff of the DARAB to execute the ruling
of PARAD by levying against the Agrarian Reform Fund for so much of the
amount as would satisfy the judgment. Another remedy was to file a motion
with the DAR asking for a final resolution with regard to the financing of
the land valuation. Lastly, private respondent could have filed a case in the
Special Agrarian Court for the final determination of just
compensation.ix[44]
We hold that as to private respondent the suggested remedies are far from
plain, adequate and complete. After the judgment of PARAD became final
and executory, private respondent applied for a writ of execution which was

eventually granted. However, the sheriff was unable to implement it since

petitioner LBP was unwilling to pay. The PARAD even issued an order
requiring petitioners manager to explain why he should not be held in
contempt.x[45] Two (2) years elapsed from the time of the PARAD ruling
but private respondents claim has remained unsatisfied. This shows that
petitioner has no intention to comply with the judgment of PARAD. How
then can petitioner still expect private respondent to ask the DARABs
sheriff to levy on the Agrarian Reform Fund when petitioner bank which
had control of the fundxi[46]firmly reiterated its stand that the DARAB had
no jurisdiction?
ITO NA BAGONG FORMULAA
For palay: LV = (2.5 x AGP x 300 )
For corn: LV = (2.5 x AGP x 250)
CELADA

MAY JURISDICTION DIN ANG COURTS

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.

The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal on three technical

grounds, namely: (a) lack of affidavit of service; (b) failure of counsel to
indicate his Roll of Attorneys number; and (c) failure to attach material
portions of the records. However, the lack of affidavit of service is not
deemed fatal where the petition filed below is accompanied by the original
registry receipts showing that the petition and its annexes were served upon
the parties.[16] On the other hand, the failure of counsel to indicate his Roll
of Attorneys number would not affect respondents substantive rights, such
that petitioners counsel could have been directed to comply with the latter
requirement rather than dismiss the petition on purely technical grounds.

HINDI PEDENG BASIS ANG NEIGHBORING LANDS

MOOT DIN

by the government assessors[30] to determine just compensation, it is

In the same vein, there is no merit to petitioners 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.

r DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998 (DAR AO No.

5, s. of 1998),[29] is invalid and of no effect.
While SAC is required to consider the acquisition cost of the land,
the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration and the assessments made

equally true that these factors have been translated into a basic formula by
the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of RA No.
6657.[31] As the government agency principally tasked to implement the
agrarian reform program, it is the DARs duty to issue rules and regulations
to carry out the object of the law. DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998 precisely filled

in the details of Section 17, RA No. 6657 by providing a basic formula by

which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. The SAC
was at no liberty to disregard the formula which was devised to implement
the said provision.

Two basic rules have guided this Court in determining jurisdiction in these
cases. First, jurisdiction is conferred by law. 8 And second, the nature of the
action and the issue of jurisdiction are shaped by the material averments of
the complaint and the character of the relief sought.9 The defenses resorted
to in the answer or motion to dismiss are disregarded; otherwise, the
question of jurisdiction would depend entirely upon the whim of the
defendant

ITO UNG S AO FORMULA

REFER TO FIRST CASE FOR JURISDICTION
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
IMPLEMENTATION ITO NG CARP KYA DPAT S DAR
Where: LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all three factors are
present, relevant, and applicable.
A1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV
are applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
A2. When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV
are applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = (CS x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
A3. When both the CS and CNI are not present and only
MV is applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = MV x 2
CUENCA
HOW JURISDICTION IS GRANTED

A careful perusal of respondents Complaint24 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,
WALA NGANG JURISDICTION
Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it
follows that the RTC of La Carlota City (Branch 63) was devoid of
authority to issue the assailed Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
CRUZ
DELAYED PAYMENT NGA KASI EEH
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.1[

the petition for the fixing of just compensation because it was filed beyond
the 15-day period provided in the DARAB Rules.

REMANDED

To resolve the conflict in the rulings of the Court, we now declare herein,
for the guidance of the bench and the bar, that the better rule is that stated in
Philippine Veterans Bank, reiterated in Lubrica and in the August 14, 2007
Decision in this case. Thus, while a petition for the fixing of just
compensation with the SAC is not an appeal from the agrarian reform
adjudicators decision but an original action, the same has to be filed within
the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules; otherwise, the adjudicators
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.

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.
MARTINEZ
MAY FORUM SHOPPING
The Court went on to rule that the petition for review on certiorari could not
be filed without the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC)
entering its appearance as the principal legal counsel of the bank or without
the OGCC giving its conformity to the LBP Legal Departments filing of
the petition. The Court also found petitioner to have forum-shopped when it
moved to quash the PARAD resolutions and at the same time petitioned for
their annulment via certiorari under Rule 65. Most importantly, the Court
ruled that petitioner was not entitled to the issuance of a writ of certiorari by
the appellate court because the Office of the PARAD did not gravely abuse
its discretion when it undertook to execute the September 4, 2002 decision
on land valuation. The said adjudicators decision attained finality after the
lapse of the 15-day period stated in Rule XIII, Section 11 of the Department
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of Procedure.

VETERANS BANK

IDENTICAL GROUNDS

Within 30 days from receipt of notice, the landowner shall inform the DAR
of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.2[6] In the event the landowner
rejects the offer, a summary administrative proceeding is held by the
provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB)
adjudicator, as the case may be, depending on the value of the land, for the
purpose of determining the compensation for the land. The landowner, the
Land Bank, and other interested parties are then required to submit evidence
as to the just compensation for the land. The DAR adjudicator decides the
case within 30 days after it is submitted for decision.3[7] If the landowner
finds the price unsatisfactory, he may bring the matter directly to the
appropriate Regional Trial Court

15 DAYS DAPAAT

15 DAYS NGA ANG KULIT

In Philippine Veterans Bank, decided in 2000 through the pen of Justice

Vicente V. Mendoza, the Court ruled that the trial court correctly dismissed

The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and
exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the
judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative
determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the
DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be
foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of
administrative action.4[10]
PARAMOUNT HOLDING
SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction.
The Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and
appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A,
Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential
Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to
cases involving the following:
a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or
juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all
agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and
payment of just compensation, fixing and collection of lease
rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization payments, and
similar disputes concerning the functions of the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP);
c) The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale
or their amendments involving lands under the administration and
disposition of the DAR or LBP;
d) Those cases arising from, or connected with membership or
representation in compact farms, farmers cooperatives and other

registered farmers associations or organizations, related to lands

covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, preemption and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage
of the CARP or other agrarian laws;
f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and
Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land
Registration Authority;
g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under
Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, except sub-paragraph
(q) thereof and Presidential Decree No. 815.
ITOO NA LAAANG
Consistent with the aforequoted legal provisions, we emphasized in Heirs of
Candido Del Rosario v. Del Rosario23 that the jurisdiction of the PARAD
and the DARAB is only limited to cases involving agrarian disputes,
including incidents arising from the implementation of agrarian laws.
Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this manner:
(d) Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial
arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over
lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers
associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands
acquired under R.A. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian
reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation
of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasijudicial office or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of
a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and

the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of whether the petitioner or
complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs."24 Upon the Courts
perusal of the records, it has determined that the PAROs petition with the
PARAD failed to indicate an agrarian dispute.

c)

2)
Specifically, the PAROs petition failed to sufficiently allege any tenurial or
agrarian relations that affect the subject parcels of land. Although it
mentioned a pending petition for coverage filed with DAR by supposed
farmers-tillers, there was neither such claim as a fact from DAR, nor a
categorical statement or allegation as to a determined tenancy relationship
by the PARO or the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.

The affiant is not authorized to

sign the same for and in behalf of the
petitioner cooperative;

The attached copies of the Motion for

Reconsideration filed before the DARAB Quezon
City and the Complaint filed before the DAR,
Region XD, and the Decision and Resolution
rendered therein are mere plain photocopies, in
violation of Sec. 6 par. (c), Rule 43, supra.

It is also undisputed, that even the petition filed with the PARAD failed to
indicate otherwise, that the subject parcels of land had not been the subject
of any notice of coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP). Clearly, the PAROs cause of action was merely founded
on the absence of a clearance to cover the sale and registration of the subject
parcels of land, which were claimed in the petition to be agricultural.

compliance with the pertinent procedural rules, pointing to the attached

INDUSTRIAL PA NGA EH

On August 24, 2007,5[14] the CA denied the motion because DEARBC

In a motion for reconsideration, DEARBC invoked substantial

Secretarys Certificate as sufficient proof of authority given to the President

and Chairman of the Board, Dennis Hojas (Hojas), to represent DEARBC.

failed to attach a copy of the board resolution showing Hojas authority to

As to the nature of the subject lands, the tax declarations of real property,
the annual receipts for real estate taxes paid, and zoning ordinance,
providing for the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Sta. Rosa,
Laguna, have always classified the lands as "industrial".

file the petition. This was a fatal error that warranted dismissal of the
petition, according to the appellate court.

TAMA ANG DISMISSAL

b)

The Community Tax Certificate

Nos. of the affiant therein are not
indicated;

Hence, this petition for review.

With regard to the dismissal of the case by the CA on technical grounds, the
Court is of the view that it was correct. DEARBC clearly failed to comply
with the rules which mistake was a fatal error warranting the dismissal of
the petition for review. However, it has been the constant ruling of this
Court that every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity
for the proper and just disposition of his cause, free from constraints of
technicalities.6[15] Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite
the resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid
application of the rules that would result in technicalities that tend to

xxxx
f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates
of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which
are registered with the Land Registration Authority x x x. (Emphases
supplied)
Thus, the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of
registered CLOAs relating to an agrarian dispute between landowners and
tenants. However, in cases concerning the cancellation of CLOAs that
involve parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees cases related to
the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and
regulations - the jurisdiction is with the DAR, and not the DARAB

frustrate rather than promote justice must be avoided.7[16] Thus, the Court
opts to brush aside the procedural flaw and resolve the core issue of

S DAR ANG JURISDICTIOOON

jurisdiction as it has been discussed by the parties anyway.

Here, petitioner is correct in alleging that it is the DAR and not the DARAB
that has jurisdiction.1wphi1 First, the issue of whether the CLOA issued to
petitioners over respondents land should be cancelled hinges on that of
whether the subject landholding is exempt from CARP coverage by virtue
of two zoning ordinances. This question involves the DARs determination
of whether the subject land is indeed exempt from CARP coverage a
matter involving the administrative implementation of the CARP Law.
Second, respondents complaint does not allege that the prayer for the
cancellation of the CLOA was in connection with an agrarian dispute. The
complaint is centered on the fraudulent acts of the MARO, PARO, and the
regional director that led to the issuance of the CLOA. 37

HINDI NGA AGRARIAN DISPUTEEE

Ejecting the defendant from the subject landholding and/or causing
him to cede possession of the land to complainant. [Emphasis ours]
Section 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The
Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and
appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A,
Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential
Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to
cases involving the following:

Also, the elements showing that a tenurial relationship existed between

respondent and petitioners were never alleged, much less proven. In reality,
respondent only mentioned petitioners twice in his complaint. Although he
admitted that they occupied his land, he did not specify the nature of his
relationship with them. He only said that their stay on his land was based on
mere tolerance.38 Furthermore, the only other instance when respondent
mentioned petitioners in his complaint was when they informed him that he
could no longer harvest the fruits of the land, because they were already the
owners thereof. He never stated the circumstances that would have shown
that the harvest of the fruits was in relation to a tenurial arrangement

WALANG APPROVAL NG HLURB

The second requirement that a zoning ordinance, in order to validly
reclassify land, must have been approved by the HLURB prior to 15 June
1988 is the result of Letter of Instructions No. 729, dated 9 August 1978.
According to this issuance, local governments are required to submit their
existing land use plans, zoning ordinances, enforcement systems and
procedures to the Ministry of Human Settlements one of the precursor
agencies of the HLURB for review and ratification. (Emphasis supplied)
Here, the records of the case show the absence of HLURB Certifications
approving Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Resolution No. 51-98, Series
of 1982, and Zoning Ordinance No. 123, Series of 1997. Hence, it cannot be
said that the land is industrial and outside the ambit of CARP.