Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Cuenca

9/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 439
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 15

Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Cuenca
*
G.R. No. 154112. September 23, 2004.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioner, vs.

ROBERTO J. CUENCA and Hon. ALFONSO B. COMBONG, JR.,
in His Capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 63, La Carlota City, respondents.
Remedial Law; Actions; Jurisdiction; Basic guiding rules in

determining jurisdiction.—Two basic rules have guided this Court in
determining jurisdiction in these cases. First, jurisdiction is conferred by
law. 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. The defenses resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss
are disregarded; otherwise, the question
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
16
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of jurisdiction would depend entirely upon the whim of the defendant.

Same; Same; Same; The RTCs have not been completely divested of
jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters; Matters falling under the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of Special Agrarian Courts.—We have
held that the RTCs have not been completely divested of jurisdiction over
agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657 confers special jurisdiction
on “Special Agrarian Courts,” which are actually RTCs designated as such
by the Supreme Court. Under Section 57 of the same law, these Special
Agrarian Courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the following
matters: “1) ‘all petitions for the determination of just compensation to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165b320fbc256657e7b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
landowners,’ and “2) ‘the prosecution of all criminal offenses under x x x

[the] Act.’ ”
Same; Same; Same; Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); 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.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The jurisprudential trend is for courts to
refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters that demand the
special competence of administrative agencies, “even if the question[s]
involved [are] also judicial in character”.—There is no need to address the
other points pleaded by respondent in relation to the jurisdictional issue. We
need only to point that in case of doubt, the jurisprudential trend is for
courts to refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters that demand
the special competence of administrative agencies, “even if the question[s]
involved [are] also judicial in character,” as in this case.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
17
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 17

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance for petitioner.
Jose Diaz for respondent Cuenca.
Jadoc & Quevenco for intervenors Eduardo Hilario, et al.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
All 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. All doubts
should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it
special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian
matters.
The Case
1
1
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule2
45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing
3
the March 15, 2002 Decision and the June 18, 2002
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58536. In
the challenged Decision, the CA disposed as follows:
“As previously stated, the principal issue raised in the court below involves
a pure question of law. Thus, it being clear that the court a quo has
jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of the case below, it did not
commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued the assailed order denying
petitioner’s motion to dismiss and granting private respondent’s application
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 9-27.

2 Penned by Justice Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. and concurred in by Justices B. A.
Adefuin-de la Cruz (chair, Twelfth Division) and Josefina Guevara-Salonga.
3 Rollo, pp. 39-40.
18

“WHEREFORE, premises considered,

4
the petition is denied due course and
is accordingly DISMISSED.”
The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied petitioner’s

Motion for Reconsideration.
The Facts
The CA narrated the facts as follows:
“Private respondent Roberto J. Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of

land designated as Lot No. 816-A and covered by TCT No. 1084, containing
an area of 81.6117 hectares, situated in Brgy. Haguimit, La Carlota City and
devoted principally to the planting of sugar cane.
“On 21 September 1999, Noe Fortunado, Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO) of La Carlota City issued and sent a NOTICE OF
COVERAGE to private respondent Cuenca placing the above-described
landholding under the compulsory coverage of R.A. 6657, otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 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
dated 14 June 1990.
“On 29 September 1999, private respondent Cuenca filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, La Carlota City, a complaint against Noe
Fortunado and Land Bank of the Philippines for ‘Annulment of Notice of

Coverage and Declaration of Unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 405, Series of
1990, With Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order.’ The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 713.
“In his complaint, Cuenca alleged, inter alia, 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, as provided in the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL); that the placing of the
subject landholding under CARP is without the imprimatur of the
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Coordinating Commit-
_______________
4 CA Decision, p. 7; Id., p. 36.
19
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 19

tee (PARCOM) as required by R.A. 7905; that Executive Order No. 405
dated 14 June 1990 amends, modifies and/or repeals CARL and, therefore,
it is unconstitutional considering that on 14 June 1990, then President
Corazon Aquino no longer had law-making powers; that the NOTICE OF
COVERAGE is a gross violation of PD 399 dated 28 February 1974.
“Private respondent Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be
declared null and void ab initio and Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June
1990 be declared unconstitutional.
“On 05 October 1999, MARO Noe Fortunado filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the court a quo has no jurisdiction over the
nature and subject matter of the action, pursuant to R.A. 6657.
“On 12 January 2000, the respondent Judge issued a Temporary
Restraining Order directing MARO and LBP to cease and desist from
implementing the Notice of Coverage. In the same order, the respondent
Judge set the hearing on the application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction on January 17 and 18, 2000.
“On 14 January 2000, MARO Fortunado filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the order granting the TRO contending inter alia that the
DAR, through the MARO, in the course of implementing the Notice of
Coverage under CARP cannot be enjoined through a Temporary Restraining
Order in the light of Sections 55 and 68 of R.A. 6657.
“In an order dated 16 February 2000, the respondent Judge denied
MARO Noe Fortunado’s 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 Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) [thereafter filed before the

CA] a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, assailing the writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent
Judge on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.
“It is the submission of the petitioner that the assailed order is ‘in direct
defiance . . . of Republic Act 6657, particularly Section 55 and 68’ thereof,
which read:
20

‘SECTION 55. NO RESTRAINING ORDERS OR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIONS.—No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its
duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising
from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, or
enforcement or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian
reform.’
‘SECTION 68. IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FROM
COURT’S INTERFERENCE.—No injunction, Restraining Order, prohibition or
mandamus shall be issued by the lower court against the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
in the implementation of their program.’
“Petitioner contends that by virtue of the above provisions, all lower courts,
such as the court presided over by respondent Judge, ‘are barred if not
prohibited by law to issue orders of injunctions against the Department of
Agrarian Reform in the full implementation of the Notice of Coverage
which is the initial step of acquiring lands under R.A. 6657.’
“Petitioner also contends that the nature and subject matter of the case
below is purely agrarian in character over which the court a quo has no
jurisdiction and that
5
therefore, it had no authority to issue the assailed
injunction order.”
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
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.
_______________
5 Id., pp. 1-4 & 30-33.
21
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 21

The appellate court likewise held that petitioner’s reliance on

Sections 55 and 68 of RA 6657 had been misplaced, because the
case was not about a purely agrarian matter. It opined that the
prohibition in certain statutes against such writs pertained only to
injunctions against administrative acts, to controversies involving
facts, or to the exercise of discretion in technical cases. But on issues
involving pure questions of law, courts were not prevented from
exercising their power to 6
restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
Hence, this Petition.
Issues
In its Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues:
“1. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed serious error

by not taking into cognizance that the issues raised in the
complaint filed by the private respondent, which seeks to
exclude his land from the coverage of the CARP, is an
agrarian reform matter and within the jurisdiction of the
DAR, not with the trial court.
“2. The Honorable Court of Appeals, with due respect, gravely
abused its discretion by sustaining the writ of injunction
issued by the trial court, which is a7 violation of Sections 55
and 68 of Republic Act No. 6657.”
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition has merit.
_______________
6 The Petition was deemed submitted for decision on June 18, 2003, upon the
Court’s receipt of petitioner’s Supplemental Memorandum signed by Atty. Girlie B.
Rocha of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Department of Agrarian Reform.
Petitioner filed its Memorandum, also signed by Atty. Rocha, on May 22, 2003; while
the Court received private respondent’s Memorandum signed by Atty. Jose J. Diaz on
June 4, 2003.
7 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 5; Rollo, p. 161. Original in upper case.
22

First Issue:
Jurisdiction
In its bare essentials, petitioner’s argument is that private

respondent, in his Complaint for Annulment of the Notice of
Coverage, is asking for the exclusion of his landholding from the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
According to the DAR, the issue involves the implementation of
agrarian reform, a matter over which the DAR has original and
exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 50 of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657).
On the other hand, private respondent maintains that his
Complaint assails mainly the constitutionality of EO 405. He
contends that since the Complaint raises a purely legal issue, it thus
falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. We do not agree.
Conflicts involving jurisdiction over agrarian disputes are as
tortuous as the history of Philippine agrarian reform laws. The
changing jurisdictional landscape is matched only by the tumultuous
struggle for, and resistance to, the breaking up and distribution of
large landholdings.
Two Basic Rules

Two basic rules have guided this Court in determining8
jurisdiction in
these cases. First, jurisdiction is conferred by law. And second, the
nature of the action and the issue of jurisdiction are shaped by the
material9 averments of the complaint and the character of the relief
sought. The defenses
_______________
8 Alemar’s (Sibal & Sons), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 333, 339, January
26, 2001; Saura v. Saura, Jr., 313 SCRA 465, 472, September 1, 1999; Salva v. Court
of Appeals, 364 Phil. 281, 303; 304 SCRA 632, March 11, 1999.
9 Unilongo v. Court of Appeals, 365 Phil. 105, 114; 305 SCRA 561, April 5, 1999;
Abrin v. Campos, 203 SCRA 420, 423, November 12, 1991; Spouses De la Cruz v.
Bautista, 186 SCRA 517, 525, June 14, 1990.
23
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 23

resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss are disregarded;

otherwise, the question of 10jurisdiction would depend entirely upon
the whim of the defendant.
Grant of Jurisdiction
Ever since agrarian reform legislations began, litigants have
invariably sought the aid of the courts. Courts
11
of Agrarian Relations
(CARs) were organized under RA 1267 “[f]or the enforcement of
all laws and regulations governing the relation of capital and labor
on all agricultural lands under any system of cultivation.” The
jurisdiction of these courts was spelled out in Section 7 of the said
law as follows:
“Sec. 7. Jurisdiction of the Court.—The Court shall have original and

exclusive jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate,
decide, and settle all questions, matters, controversies or disputes involving
all those relationships established by law which determine the varying rights
of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land where one of the
parties works the land, and shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court
of First Instance over employer and farm employee or labor under Republic
Act Numbered six hundred two and over landlord and tenant involving
violations of the Usury Law (Act No. 2655, as amended) and of inflicting
the penalties provided therefor.”
All the powers and prerogatives

12
inherent in or belonging to the then
Courts of First Instance (now the RTCs) were
_______________
10 Unilongo v. Court of Appeals, supra; Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 339 Phil. 433,
441-442; 273 SCRA 239, June 10, 1997.
11 June 14, 1955.
12 §155 of RA 3844 provides:
“Sec. 155. Powers of the Court; Rules and Procedures.—The Courts of Agrarian Relations
shall have all the powers and prerogatives inherent in or belonging to the Court of First
Instance.
“The Courts of Agrarian Relations shall be governed by the Rules of Court: Provided, That
in the hearing, investiga
24

granted to the CARs. The latter were further vested by the

Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844) with original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the following matters:
“(1) All cases or actions involving matters, controversies,

disputes, or money claims arising from agrarian relations: x
xx
“(2) All cases or actions involving violations of Chapters I and
II of this Code and Republic Act Number eight hundred and
nine; and
“(3) Expropriations
13
to be instituted by the Land Authority: x x
x.”
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 946 thereafter reorganized the CARs,

streamlined their operations, and expanded their jurisdiction as
follows:
“Sec. 12. Jurisdiction over Subject Matter.—The Courts of Agrarian

Relations shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons in the

cultivation and use of agricultural land except those cognizable by
the National Labor Relations Commission; x x x ;
b) Questions involving rights granted and obligations imposed by
laws, Presidential Decrees, Orders, Instructions, Rules and
Regulations issued and promulgated in relation to the agrarian
reform program; Provided, however, That matters involving the
administrative implementation of the transfer of the land to the
tenant-farmer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and amendatory
and related decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations, shall
be exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
namely:
_______________
tion and determination of any question or controversy pending before them, the Courts without
impairing substantial rights, shall not be bound strictly by the technical rules of evidence and
procedure, except in expropriation cases.”
13 §154 of RA 3844.
25
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 25

(1) classification and identification of landholdings;

(2) x x x;
(3) parcellary mapping;
(4) x x x;
xxx xxx xxx
m) Cases involving expropriation of all kinds of land in

furtherance of the agrarian reform program;
xxx xxx xxx
p) Ejectment proceedings instituted by the Department of
Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank involving lands under
their administration and disposition, except urban properties
belonging to the Land Bank;
q) Cases involving violations of the penal provisions of
Republic Act Numbered eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as
amended, Republic Act Numbered thirty eight hundred and
forty-four, as amended, Presidential Decrees and laws
relating to agrarian reform; Provided, however, That
violations of the said penal provisions committed by any
Judge shall be tried by the courts of general jurisdiction;
and
r) Violations of Presidential Decrees Nos. 815 and 816.
14
The CARs were abolished, however, pursuant to Section 44
_______________
14 §44 of BP 129 reads:
“Sec. 44. Transitory provisions.—The provisions of this Act shall be immediately carried out in
accordance with an Executive Order to be issued by the President. The Court of Appeals, the
Courts of First Instance, the Circuit Criminal Courts, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Courts, the Courts of Agrarian Relations, the City Courts, the Municipal Courts, and the
Municipal Circuit Courts shall continue to function as presently constituted and organized,
until the completion of the reorganization provided in this Act as declared by the President.
Upon such declaration, the said courts shall be deemed automatically abolished and the
incumbents thereof
26

15
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (approved August 14, 1981), which
had fully been implemented on February 14, 1983. Jurisdiction 16
over
cases theretofore given to the CAR’s was17vested in the RTCs.
Then came Executive Order No. 229. Under Section 17 thereof,
the DAR shall exercise “quasi-judicial powers to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian
reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the DENR and the Department of Agriculture [DA].” The DAR

shall also have the “powers to punish for contempt and to issue
subpoena, subpoena duces tecum and writs to enforce its orders or
decisions.” 18
In Quismundo v. CA, this provision was deemed to have
repealed Section 12 (a) and (b) of Presidential Decree No. 946,
which vested 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.”
Under Section 4 of Executive Order No. 129-A, the DAR was
also made “responsible for implementing the Comprehen-
_______________
shall cease to hold office. The cases pending in the old Courts shall be transferred to the
appropriate Courts constituted pursuant to this Act, together with the pertinent functions,
records, equipment, property and the necessary personnel.
xxx xxx x x x” (Italics supplied)
15 Otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act.

16 §19(7) of BP 129. See also Pagara v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 66, 80; 254
SCRA 606, March 12, 1996; and Philippine National Bank v. Florendo, 206 SCRA
582, 587, February 26, 1992.
17 Providing the Mechanisms for the Implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.
18 201 SCRA 609, 613-614, September 13, 1991, per Regalado, J. (cited in
Machete v. Court of Appeals, 320 Phil. 227, 233-234; 250 SCRA 176, 180-181,
November 20, 1995).
27
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 27

sive Agrarian Reform Program.” In accordance with Section 5 of the

same EO, it possessed the following powers and functions:
“(b) Implement all agrarian laws, and for this purpose, punish for contempt
and issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, writs of execution of its
decisions, and other legal processes to ensure successful and expeditious
program implementation; the decisions of the Department may in proper
cases, be appealed to the Regional Trial Courts but shall be immediately
executory notwithstanding such appeal;
xxx xxx xxx
“(h) Provide free legal services to agrarian reform beneficiaries and
resolve agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems as may be
provided for by law;
xxx xxx xxx
“(l) Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of

agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses
as may be provided x x x.”
The above grant of jurisdiction to the DAR covers these areas:
(a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of

agrarian reform;
(b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related
problems; and
(c) approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or
readjustment of agricultural lands into residential,
commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses.
The foregoing provision was as broad as those “theretofore vested in

the Regional Trial Court by Presidential
19
Decree No. 946,” as the
Court ruled in Vda. de Tangub v. CA, which we quote:
_______________
19 191 SCRA 885, December 3, 1990.
28

“x x x. The intention evidently was to transfer original jurisdiction to the

Department of Agrarian Reform, a proposition stressed by the rules
formulated and promulgated by the Department for the implementation of
the executive orders just quoted. The rules included the creation of the
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board designed to exercise the adjudicatory
functions of the Department, and the allocation to it of—
‘x x x [O]riginal and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter vested upon it by
law, and all cases, disputes, controversies and matters or incidents involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Executive
Order No. 229, Executive Order No. 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by
Republic Act No. 6289, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their
implementing rules and regulations.’
“The implementing rules also declare that ‘(s)pecifically, such

jurisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to x x x (that theretofore
vested in the Regional Trial Courts, i.e.) (c)ases involving the rights and
obligations of persons engaged in the cultivation and use of agricultural land
covered by the Comprehensive
20
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and
other agrarian laws x x x.”
In the same case, the Court also held that the jurisdictional
competence of the DAR had further been clarified by RA 6657 thus:
“x x x. The Act [RA 6657] makes references to and explicitly recognizes the
effectivity and applicability of Presidential Decree No. 229. More
particularly, the Act echoes the provisions of Section 17 of Presidential
Decree No. 229, supra, investing the Department of Agrarian Reform with
original jurisdiction, generally, over all cases involving agrarian laws,
although, as shall shortly be pointed out, it restores to the Regional Trial
Court, limited jurisdiction over two groups of cases. Section 50 reads as
follows:
‘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 exclu
_______________
20 Id., pp. 888-890, per Narvasa, J. (later CJ).
29
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 29

sive 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].
xxx xxx xxx
‘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 contempt in the same manner and
21
subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.’ ”
Nonetheless, we have held that the RTCs have not been completely
divested of jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of
RA 6657 confers special jurisdiction on “Special Agrarian Courts,”22
which are actually RTCs designated as such by the Supreme Court.
Under Section 57 of the same law, these Special Agrarian Courts
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the following matters:
“1) ‘all petitions for the determination of just compensation to

land-owners,’ and
“2) ‘the prosecution of all criminal offenses under x x x [the]
Act.’ ”
The above delineation of jurisdiction remains

23
in place to this date.
Administrative Circular No. 29-2002 of this Court stresses the
distinction between the quasi-judicial powers of the DAR under
Sections 50 and 55 of RA 6657 and the juris-
_______________
21 Id., pp. 890-892.

22 Id., p. 892; Machete v. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 235; p. 182.
23 Issued on July 1, 2002. The Circular seeks the avoidance of conflict of
jurisdiction over cases under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA
No. 6657).
30

diction of the Special Agrarian Courts referred to by Sections 56 and

57 of the same law.
Allegations of the Complaint

24
A careful perusal of respondent’s 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 DAR’s 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, among others:
“6. This implementation of CARP in the landholding of the

[respondent] is contrary to law and, therefore, violates
[respondent’s] constitutional right not to be deprived of his
property without due process of law. The coverage of
[respondent’s] landholding under CARP is NO longer with
authority of law. If at all, the implementation of CARP in
the landholding of [respondent] should have commenced
and [been] completed between June 1988 to June 1992 as
provided for in CARL, to wit: x x x;
“7. Moreover, the placing of [respondent’s] landholding under
CARP as of 21 September 1999 is without the imprimatur of
the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCOM) as mandated and required by law pursuant to
R.A. 7905 x x x;
xxx xxx xxx
“9. Under the provisions of CARL, it is the PARC and/or the
DAR, and not x x x Land Bank, which is authorized to
preliminarily determine the value of the lands as

compensation therefor, thus—x x x;
xxx xxx xxx
“12. That the aforementioned NOTICE OF COVERAGE with
intendment and purpose of acquiring [respondent’s]
aforementioned
_______________
24 The case caption is “Annulment of Notice of Coverage and Declaration of

Unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 405, Series of 1990 with Preliminary Injunction and
Restraining Order.” Rollo, pp. 40-A to 53.
31
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 31

land is a gross violation of law (PD 399 dated 28 February

1974 which is still effective up to now) inasmuch as
[respondent’s] land is traversed by and a road frontage as
admitted by the DAR’s technician and defendant
FORTUNADO (MARO) x x x;”
“13. That as reflected in said Pre-Ocular Inspection Report, copy
of which is hereto attached as annex ‘D’ forming part
hereof, [respondent’s] land is above eighteen percent (18%)
slope and therefore, automatically exempted and 25excluded
from the operation of Rep. Act 6657, x x x.” (Italics
supplied)
In contrast, the 14-page Complaint touches on the alleged

unconstitutionality of EO 405 by merely making these two
allegations:
“10. Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990 (issued by the
then President Corazon Aquino) is unconstitutional for it
plainly amends, modifies and/or repeals CARL. On 14 June
1990, then President Corazon Aquino had no longer law-
making powers as the Philippine Congress was by then
already organized, existing and operational pursuant to the
1987 Constitution. A copy of the said Executive Order is
hereto attached as Annex ‘B’ forming part hereof.
“11. Our constitutional system of separation of powers renders
the said Executive Order No. 405 unconstitutional and all
valuations made, and to be made, by the defendant Land
Bank pursuant thereto are null and void and without force
and effect. Indispensably and ineludibly, all related rules,
regulations, orders and other issuances issued or

promulgated pursuant to said Executive Order No. 405 are 26
also null and void ab initio and without force and effect.”
We stress that the main subject matter raised by private respondent

before the trial court
27
was not the issue of compensation (the subject
matter of EO 405 ). Note that no amount
_______________
25 Complaint, pp. 3-7; Rollo, pp. 41-45.

26 Id., pp. 5-6 & 43-44.
27 The pertinent provisions of EO 405 provide: “Sec. 1. The Land Bank of the
Philippines shall be primarily responsible for the determination of the land valuation
and compensation for all private lands suitable for agriculture
32

had yet been determined nor proposed by the DAR. Hence, there
was no occasion 28
to invoke the court’s function of determining just
compensation. 29
To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of Coverage constitutes
the first necessary step towards the acquisition of pri-
_______________
under either the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) or Compulsory Acquisition (CA) arrangement
as governed by Republic Act No. 6657. The Department of Agrarian Reform shall make use of
the determination of the land valuation and compensation by the Land Bank of the Philippines,
in the performance of its functions.
After effecting the transfer of titles from the landowner to the Republic of the Philippines,
the Land Bank of the Philippines shall inform the Department of Agrarian Reform of such fact
in order that the latter may proceed with the distribution of the lands to the qualified agrarian
reform beneficiaries within the time specified by law.
“Sec. 2. The Department of Agrarian Reform shall continue to perform its functions under
Republic Act No. 6657, particularly in the identification of the priority landholdings for
coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
xxx xxx xxx
“Sec. 4. This Executive Order shall not be construed to diminish the rights and remedies of
the landowners and agrarian reform beneficiaries under Republic Act No. 6657.”
28 Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of

Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343, 380, July 14, 1989. See also Section 57 of RA
6657 regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian Courts.
29 §16 of RA 6657 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private lands. The
pertinent provisions provide:
“(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send
its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and
post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place
where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the
33
VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 33

vate 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.
In view of the foregoing, there is no need to address the other
points pleaded by respondent in relation to the jurisdictional issue.
We need only to point that in case of doubt, the jurisprudential trend
is for courts to refrain from resolving a controversy involving
matters that demand the special competence of administrative
agencies, “even
30
if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in
character,” as in this case.
Second Issue:
Preliminary Injunction
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. That Writ must perforce be stricken down as a nullity.
Such nullity is particularly true in
_______________
DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17,
and 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.”
xxx xxx xxx
“(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative
proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and
other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the
matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days
after it is submitted for decision.” (Italics supplied)
30 Villaflor v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 524, 559; 280 SCRA 297, 327, October
9, 1997, per Panganiban, J.
34

the light of the express prohibitory provisions of the CARP and this
Court’s Administrative Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 38-2002. These
Circulars enjoin all trial judges to strictly observe Section 68 of RA
6657, which reads:
“Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference.—

No injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by
the lower courts against the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the
Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their
implementation of the program.”
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the

challenged Decision and Resolution REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the February 16, 2000 Order of the Regional
Trial Court of La Carlota City (Branch 63) is ANNULLED and a
new one entered, DISMISSING the Complaint in Civil Case 713.
The Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued therein is also expressly
VOIDED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, assailed decision and resolution reversed and
set aside.
Note.—Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by mere

administrative policy of any court or tribunal. (Arranza vs. B.F.
Homes, Inc., 333 SCRA 799 [2000])
——o0o——
35
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Cuenca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Cuenca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 439

VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 15

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioner, vs.

Remedial Law; Actions; Jurisdiction; Basic guiding rules in

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Cuenca

of jurisdiction would depend entirely upon the whim of the defendant.

landowners,’ and “2) ‘the prosecution of all criminal offenses under x x x

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 17

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive

1 Rollo, pp. 9-27.

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“WHEREFORE, premises considered,

The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied petitioner’s

The CA narrated the facts as follows:

“Private respondent Roberto J. Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of

Fortunado and Land Bank of the Philippines for ‘Annulment of Notice of

4 CA Decision, p. 7; Id., p. 36.

VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 19

“The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) [thereafter filed before the

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

‘SECTION 55. NO RESTRAINING ORDERS OR PRELIMINARY

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

5 Id., pp. 1-4 & 30-33.

VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 21

The appellate court likewise held that petitioner’s reliance on

In its Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues:

“1. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed serious error

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition has merit.

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In its bare essentials, petitioner’s argument is that private

Two Basic Rules

VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 23

resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss are disregarded;

“Sec. 7. Jurisdiction of the Court.—The Court shall have original and

All the powers and prerogatives

24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

granted to the CARs. The latter were further vested by the

exclusive jurisdiction over the following matters:

“(1) All cases or actions involving matters, controversies,

Presidential Decree (PD) No. 946 thereafter reorganized the CARs,

“Sec. 12. Jurisdiction over Subject Matter.—The Courts of Agrarian

a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons in the

VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 25

(1) classification and identification of landholdings;

xxx xxx xxx

m) Cases involving expropriation of all kinds of land in

14 §44 of BP 129 reads:

26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the DENR and the Department of Agriculture [DA].” The DAR

15 Otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act.

VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 27

sive Agrarian Reform Program.” In accordance with Section 5 of the

“(l) Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of

The above grant of jurisdiction to the DAR covers these areas:

(a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of

The foregoing provision was as broad as those “theretofore vested in

19 191 SCRA 885, December 3, 1990.

28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“x x x. The intention evidently was to transfer original jurisdiction to the