Decision: Court of Appeals
Decision: Court of Appeals
Decision: Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
MANILA
FOURTEENTH DIVISION
- versus -
DECISION
HERNANDEZ-AZURA, J.:
The Antecedents
1
Rollo, pp. 13-38.
2
Id., pp. 43-47.
3
Id., pp. 51-52.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 2 of 8
Decision
approximate area of one hundred twenty-nine thousand six hundred and fifty-
nine square meters (129,659 sqm.) which was previously covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2941104 in the name of petitioner, a domestic
corporation. The disputed property was later placed under the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for the benefit of the
private respondents.
4
It is more particularly described as follows:
"A parcel of land (Lot 381-C the subd. Plan Psd-03 085663 being a portion of lot 381, Csc 352, San
Jose del Monte Csd, LRD Rec. No. situated in the Bo. Of Gaya-gaya Mun. of San Jose del Monte,
Prov. Of Bulacan x xx containing an area of One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred
Fifty Nine (129,659) sq. meters."
5
Rollo, p. 243.
6
Id., p. 246.
7
Id., p. 248.
8
Id., pp. 156-162.
9
Id., pp. 173-175.
10
Id., pp. 176-178.
11
Id., pp. 179-181.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 3 of 8
Decision
The DARAB issued the Assailed Decision setting aside the PARAD’s
Decision and dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the
cancellation of the CLOAs is a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary pursuant to the last
paragraph of Section 9 of R.A. No. 9700, viz:
The DARAB added that the issue on whether the disputed property
should be under the coverage of the CARP renders it as a purely agrarian law
implementation case that is within the jurisdiction of either the Regional
Director or the DAR Secretary, as prescribed by DAR Administrative Order
(A.O.) No. 3, series of 2003 and its amended version, DAR A.O. No. 1, series
of 2017.
12
Id., pp. 182-185.
13
Id., pp. 191-201, 205-207.
14
Id., pp. 209-218.
15
Supra Note 2.
16
Id., pp. 219-228, 230-234.
17
Id., pp. 236-241.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 4 of 8
Decision
The DARAB issued the Assailed Resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner for the latter’s failure to raise any
compelling reason to warrant the reversal of the Board’s Decision.
Petitioner’s Arguments18
18
Supra Note 1.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 5 of 8
Decision
Private respondents’ counsel averred that neither the PARAD nor the
DARAB has jurisdiction over the case by express provision of Section 3 of
the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, which states that the “Adjudicator or
the Board shall have no jurisdiction over matters involving the administrative
implementation of RA No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated
by pertinent rules and administrative orders, which shall be under the
exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Office of the Secretary of
DAR…”
The Issues
The issues are essentially whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction
over the petition filed by private respondents; and should DARAB have
jurisdiction over the case, whether or not the PARAD Decision is in
accordance with law and evidence, and hence, must be reinstated.
Our Ruling
It must be stated at the outset that it is the law that confers jurisdiction
and not the rules of procedure. Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred
by the Constitution or the law, and rules of procedure yield to substantive law.
Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law.20 Applying this
well-established principle, We must therefore refer to the law, rather than any
version of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, in determining the jurisdiction of
the DARAB and the DAR Secretary.
Here, the PARAD, acting on the petition and prayer of the petitioner,
ordered the cancellation of CLOAs issued to private respondents. As correctly
pointed out by the DARAB in its Assailed Decision, the cancellation of
CLOAs falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary as
embodied in Section 24 of RA 6657, as amended by Section 9 of RA 9700,
quoted as follows:
19
Id., pp. 277-279, 282-283.
20
Papunan v. DARAB and Rodriguez, G.R. No. 132163, January 28, 2003, citing People v. Casiano, G.R.
No. L-15309, 111 Phil 73, February 16, 1961.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 6 of 8
Decision
"It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to register the title of
the land in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, after the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the necessary deposit in
the name of the landowner constituting full payment in cash or in bond
with due notice to the landowner and the registration of the certificate
of land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries, and to cancel
previous titles pertaining thereto.
21
Footnote 63 in Malabanan v. Heirs of Maronilla, G.R. No. 229983, July 29, 2019.
22
G.R. No. 229983, July 29, 2019.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 7 of 8
Decision
The facts and issues of the above case fall squarely upon the present
case before Us. In praying for the cancellation of private respondents’
registered CLOAs, petitioner in this case assailed the qualifications of private
respondents as farmers-beneficiaries and the coverage of the disputed
property in the CARP. From the foregoing, it is clear that the DAR Secretary
has jurisdiction over the case.
23
Ibid.
CA G.R. SP No. 165527 Page 8 of 8
Decision
SO ORDERED.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
WE CONCUR:
ORIGINAL SIGNED
VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES
Associate Justice
ORIGINAL SIGNED
FLORENCIO M. MAMAUAG, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
ORIGINAL SIGNED
VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES
Chairperson, Fourteenth Division