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.
Department Of Agrarian Reform vs. Trinidad Valley Realty & Devt. Corp. et al.

G.R. No. 173386, February 11, 2014

Facts: Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. are the registered owners of a parcel of
land in Vallehermoso, Negros Oriental devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane. A portion of this land was
awarded by respondent, DAR to beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Trinidad
opposed this move in the RTC and alleged that: DAR committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, the valuation by Land Bank is not just compensation, the register of deeds
cannot cancel their title without a court order, and that Land Bank together with the LRA and Register of
deeds committed grave abuse of discretion when they cooperated to commit the act. In its answer, DAR
asserted that jurisdiction over all matters concerning agrarian reform exclusively belongs to DAR and that
the RTCs jurisdiction in agrarian reform matters is limited only to the determination of just compensation
and prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657. The RTC ruled in favor of Trinidad claiming that it
has jurisdiction. On appeal, the CA set aside the lower courts decision citing that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the said case hence this petition.

Issue: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the case at bar.

Held: No. In view of Section 54 of RA 6657; the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the
amended petition as it did not have jurisdiction over both the petition and amended petition filed by
Trinidad et al. which clearly provides that it is the CA, and not the RTC, which has jurisdiction over the
case. It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an
action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of
the complaint. Jurisdiction is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and cannot be
conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived,
enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is
neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in
character. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined
based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the
complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the
allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Section 54 of RA 6657 leaves no room
for doubt that decisions, orders, awards or rulings of the DAR may be brought to the CA by certiorari and
not with the RTC through an ordinary action for cancellation of title. The findings of fact of the DAR shall
be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence. The Court likewise ruled in the similar case of
DAR v. Cuenca that "[a]ll controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they
raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature." Given our ruling that the RTC lacked
jurisdiction over the instant case, we find no necessity to address the other issues raised in the three
consolidated petitions. The petition is denied.

.R. No. 183409 June 18, 2010

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA), petitioner, vs.THE
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondent.

FACTS:

The Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued, on 29 October 1997, DAR AO No. 07-97,3 entitled "Omnibus
Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses," which
consolidated all existing implementing guidelines related to land use conversion. The aforesaid rules
embraced all private agricultural lands regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, and
all untitled agricultural lands and agricultural lands reclassified by Local Government Units (LGUs) into
non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988.

Subsequently, on 30 March 1999, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued DAR AO No. 01-99,4 entitled
"Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural Uses,"
amending and updating the previous rules on land use conversion. Its coverage includes the following
agricultural lands, to wit: (1) those to be converted to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and
other non-agricultural purposes; (2) those to be devoted to another type of agricultural activity such as
livestock, poultry, and fishpond the effect of which is to exempt the land from the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage; (3) those to be converted to non-agricultural use other than
that previously authorized; and (4) those reclassified to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-
agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657.

Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued another Administrative Order, i.e., DAR AO No. 01-02, entitled "2002
Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion," which further amended DAR AO No. 07-97 and DAR AO
No. 01-99, and repealed all issuances inconsistent therewith. The aforesaid DAR AO No. 01-02 covers all
applications for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another agricultural use.

To address the unabated conversion of prime agricultural lands for real estate development, the Secretary
of Agrarian Reform further issued Memorandum No. 88 on 15 April 2008, which temporarily suspended
the processing and approval of all land use conversion applications.

By reason thereof, petitioner claims that there is an actual slow down of housing projects, which, in turn,
aggravated the housing shortage, unemployment and illegal squatting problems to the substantial
prejudice not only of the petitioner and its members but more so of the whole nation.

ISSUE:

WHETHER THE DAR SECRETARY HAS JURISDICTION OVER LANDS THAT HAVE BEEN RECLASSIFIED AS
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR FOR OTHER NON-AGRICULTURAL USES.

HELD: yes?

Under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, "lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or
other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988" have been included in the definition of agricultural lands.
In so doing, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform merely acted within the scope of his authority stated in the
aforesaid sections of Executive Order No. 129-A, which is to promulgate rules and regulations for agrarian
reform implementation and that includes the authority to define agricultural lands for purposes of land
use conversion. Further, the definition of agricultural lands under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, merely
refers to the category of agricultural lands that may be the subject for conversion to non-agricultural uses
and is not in any way confined to agricultural lands in the context of land redistribution as provided for
under Republic Act No. 6657.

More so, Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, which Opinion has been
recognized in many cases decided by this Court, clarified that after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657
on 15 June 1988 the DAR has been given the authority to approve land conversion.38 Concomitant to
such authority, therefore, is the authority to include in the definition of agricultural lands "lands not
reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988" for
purposes of land use conversion.