Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • AGRA - Laguna Estates Development Corp - Vs - CA

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    27 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction to grant a right of way over private roads to beneficiaries of an agrarian reform program. The Supreme Court ruled that DARAB does not have jurisdiction, as there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. For DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must be an agricultural lease between the landowner and tenant. As this case involved a private road and no lease, it was outside DARAB's jurisdiction and should be heard by a court of general jurisdiction instead.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5. AGRA_Laguna Estates Development Corp_vs_CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case discusses whether the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction to grant a right of way over private roads to beneficiaries of an agrarian reform program. The Supreme Court ruled that DARAB does not have jurisdiction, as there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. For DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must be an agricultural lease between the landowner and tenant. As this case involved a private road and no lease, it was outside DARAB's jurisdiction and should be heard by a court of general jurisdiction instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    27 views2 pages

    AGRA - Laguna Estates Development Corp - Vs - CA

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    This case discusses whether the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction to grant a right of way over private roads to beneficiaries of an agrarian reform program. The Supreme Court ruled that DARAB does not have jurisdiction, as there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. For DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must be an agricultural lease between the landowner and tenant. As this case involved a private road and no lease, it was outside DARAB's jurisdiction and should be heard by a court of general jurisdiction instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    2S AGRA Case Digests

    TOPIC Module 12: Administrative Adjudication (Quasi Judicial Powers of DAR) AUTHOR 5_Ibe

    CASE Laguna Estates Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals GR. Nos.


    GR NO
    TITLE 119357,
    119375,
    TICKLER Easement of right of way DATE July 5, 2000

    DOCTRINE For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. the
    issue of a right of way or easement over private property without tenancy relations is not an agrarian matter, thus,
    it is outside the jurisdiction of the DARAB.
    FACTS 1st petition: Appeal by Laguna Estates Development Corporation (LEDC) from decision of CA dismissing its
    petition to nullify the order of DARAB ruling that it had jurisdiction to grant private respondents a right of way over
    petitioner’s private roads within its landholdings.

    2nd petition: Appeal by Canlubang Sugar Estate (CSE) from same decision of CA, dismissing its petition to prohibit
    DARAB from conducting further proceedings in the DARAB case including petitioner as one of the parties that
    DARAB ordered a grant of right of way.

    Some 234.76 hectares of agricultural land situated in Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna belonging to the Sta.
    Rosa Realty Development Corporation ("SRRDC", hereafter) was placed by the Department of Agrarian Reform
    (DAR), through its adjudicatory arm, public respondent DARAB, under the compulsory acquisition scheme of the
    Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and subsequently, Certificates of Land Ownership Award
    (CLOA’s) were issued and award to farmers-beneficiaries, private respondents herein, namely: Rosa T. Amante,
    et al., Rogelio O. Ayende, et al. and Juan T. Amante, et al., respectively. The compulsory acquisition and
    distribution of the said 234.76 hectares of land in favor of private respondents.

    The aforesaid agricultural lands were isolated and/or separated from the rest of the municipality of Cabuyao, and
    the only passage way or access road leading to said private respondents’ agricultural lands was the privately
    owned road network situated within the premises of petitioners CSE and LEDC. Subject to reasonable security
    regulations, the subject road network is open to the public. But after private respondents were awarded the
    aforesaid agricultural lands under the CARP Law, petitioners CSE and LEDC prohibited and denied private
    respondents from utilizing the subject road network, thereby preventing the ingress of support services under the
    CARP Law, provisions for daily subsistence to, and egress of farm produce from, Bgy. Casile where the farmlands
    awarded to private respondent are located.

    On motion by private respondents, an Order was issued on May 25 1993 by public respondent (DARAB) directing
    the unhampered entry and construction of support services coming from the national government, and other
    provisions for the use and benefit of private respondents in Bgy. Casile, and giving private respondents a right of
    way over the subject road network owned by petitioners.

    The public respondent DARAB sent a "Notice of Hearing and Summons" to petitioners CSE and LEDC, directing
    them to appear for hearing on 1 October 1993 before public respondent DARAB. Petitioner LEDC nor its counsel
    failed to appear at the aforementioned scheduled hearing, but it filed a "Special Appearance to Quash Summons"
    and later, an "Amended Special Appearance to Quash Summons", for the "sole purpose of objecting to its [public
    respondent DARAB] jurisdiction and quashing the summons" in the aforementioned DARAB Case, allegedly "for
    having been issued unlawfully, arbitrarily and with grave abuse of discretion. During the hearing, petitioner CSE
    manifested that public respondent DARAB has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, and that it did not acquire
    jurisdiction over the person of petitioner.

    In the meanwhile, after evaluating the respective positions of the petitioners and private respondents herein,
    public respondent DARAB issued its assailed Order re-affirming the efficacy of its Order dated 25 May 1993 and
    directing petitioners not to impede the complete implementation of the 25 May 1993 Order of the same public
    respondent DARAB.

    The petitioner LEDC filed its present petition for certiorari and prohibition which seeks to annul the aforesaid
    Order of public respondent DARAB, and to prohibit respondents herein or persons acting on their behalf
    from implementing or enforcing said order. The CA dismissed this petition.

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law
    2S AGRA Case Digests
    ISSUE/S Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction to grant private respondents who are beneficiaries of an
    agrarian reform program or tenants of adjoining landholdings a right of way over petitioners’ network
    of private roads intended for their exclusive use.
    RULING/S No. The DARAB has no jurisdiction over such issue. "For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there
    must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties." In Heirs of Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals,
    citing Morta, Sr. vs. Occidental, the Court held :

    "For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In
    order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable
    elements to wit:
    1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
    2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
    3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
    4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
    5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
    6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee."

    Obviously, the issue of a right of way or easement over private property without tenancy relations is
    outside the jurisdiction of the DARAB. This is not an agrarian issue. Jurisdiction is vested in a court of
    general jurisdiction.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the CA is set aside.

    NOTES

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law

    You might also like