AGRARIAN REFORM CASES

Presented by:

RHODA DELA TORRE

Social Legislation

February 17, 2015

G.R. No. 180013June 20, 2012

HEIRS OF CANDIDO DEL ROSARIO AND HEIRS OF GIL

DEL ROSARIO versus

MONICA DEL ROSARIO

FACTS:

Pedro G. Lazaro was the former owner of the 9,536

square meters parcel of land subject of the dispute.

Spouses del Rosario tenanted the land

Spouses had 3 children – Monica, Candido and Gil, all

surnamed del Rosario.

Petitioners claimed that when the spouses died, they

continued to become tenants and tilled the land.

Sometime February 1991, Monica and Gil entered into an

agreement.

Gil to facilitate the application for Emancipation

patent in the name of Monica.

In exchange, Monica will cede to Gil 1/3 of the said

land after the Emancipation patent has been issued

to her.

After 7 years, DAR issued the EP to Monica and

subsequent TCT was issued too in the name of Monica

however the agreement failed to materialize.

Petitioners filed with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian

Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in Malolos, Bulacan a complaint

against Monica for amendment of TCT and partition of the

subject land.

The PARAD’s Decision

Cancel TCT issued under Monica’s name

partition the lot amongst the heir of the late spouses

del Rosario.

comply with the agreement to cede 1/3 of the land to

the heirs of Gil del Rosario.

Monica appealed from the foregoing disposition of PA Ilao to

the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

(DARAB).

The DARAB’s Decision

Reversed and set aside PARAD’s decision

o Monica and siblings are not co-heirs of landholding in

question.

o Agreement between Monica and Gil is contrary to PD

No. 27 - prohibits the transfer of parcels of land given

to qualified farmer-beneficiaries other than by

hereditary succession or to the government. 

Petition for Review was filed by Monica with the CA

CA’s DECISION:

PARAD and the DARAB had no jurisdiction to take

cognizance of the petitioners’ complaint for

amendment of the Emancipation Patent and partition of

the subject land, there being no agrarian dispute or

tenancy relations between the parties.

petitioners are bound by the decision of the DARAB

declaring Monica as the bona fide holder of TCT No. EP-

257-M since they participated in the proceedings before

the PARAD and the DARAB without raising any

objection thereto.

ISSUE:

1. Do PARAD and DARAB have jurisdiction to take

cognizance of the petitioners’ complaint for amendment and

partition?

2. Are the petitioners bound by their respective

dispositions if PARAD and DARAB have no jurisdiction over the

complaint for amendment and partition?

HELD:

1.No. The jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is limited

only to all agrarian disputes and matters or incidents involving

the implementation of the CARP. The petitioners’ complaint for

amendment and Partition is beyond the jurisdiction of the PARAD

and the DARAB.

Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an AGRARIAN DISPUTE in

this wise:

  (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.

Complaint for amendment and partition does not involve any

“agrarian dispute,” nor does it involve any incident arising from

the implementation of agrarian laws.  The petitioners and

Monica have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian

relations whatsoever that will bring this controversy within the

jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB.  Since the PARAD and

the DARAB have no jurisdiction over the present controversy,

they should not have taken cognizance of the petitioners’

complaint for amendment of the Emancipation Patent and

partition.

2. No. In a long line of decisions, this Court has consistently

held that an order or decision rendered by a tribunal or agency

without jurisdiction is a total nullity.  Accordingly, we rule that

the decision of the DARAB in the instant case is null and

void.  Consequently, the decision of the Court of Appeals

affirming the decision of the DARAB is likewise invalid. 

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES

versus

SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM and DAR REGIONAL

DIRECTOR (Region V)

G.R. No. 139285December 21, 2007 

FACTS:

Archbishop is the registered owner of several properties in

Camarines Sur, with a total area of 268.5668 hectares planted

with rice, corn (249.02 hectares) and coconut trees (19.5432

hectares).

In 1985, Archbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform

District Office Naga City, Camarines Sur several petitions for

exemption of certain properties located in various towns of

Camarines Sur from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer

(OLT) under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 but 2 of the petitions

were denied. 

Archbishop appealed from the order and sought exemption

from OLT coverage of all lands planted with rice and corn but

was denied, too.

The appeal was elevated to CA but was dismissed and motion

for reconsideration subsequently denied.

ISSUES:

1.Does the Archbishop only holds a naked title to the subject

properties on behalf of the beneficiaries?

2. Can the Archbishop be considered as landowner?

3. Should the properties be exempt from OLT?

1. No. Archbishop was found to be the registered owner of the

lands in question, and does not contest that fact.  For the

purposes of the law, this makes him the landowner, without

the necessity of going beyond the registered titles. 

2. Yes. The laws simply speak of the “landowner” without

qualification as to under what title the land is held or what

rights to the land the landowner may exercise.  There is no

distinction made whether the landowner holds “naked title”

only or can exercise all the rights of ownership.

3. NO. Archbishop’s contention that he is merely an

administrator of the donated properties will not serve to

remove these lands from the coverage of agrarian

reform.  Under PD 27, the coverage is lands devoted to rice

and corn. Section 4 of RA 6657 states, “The Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of

tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and

private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131

and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the

public domain suitable for agriculture.”  The lands in

Archbishop’s name are agricultural lands that fall within the

scope of the law, and do not fall under the exemptions.

Archbishop cannot claim exemption in behalf of the millions of

Filipino faithful, as the lands are clearly not exempt under the

law. He should not fear that his followers are simply being

deprived of land, as under both PD 27 and RA 6657, he is

entitled to just compensation, which he may then use for the

benefit of his followers. His situation is no different from other

landowners affected by agrarian reform––they are somewhat

deprived of their land, but it is all for a greater good.