04 Jose Vs Novida

Jose vs.
Novida
GR 177374
To implement this particular provision of RA 6657 regarding the adjudication of agrarian
reform matters, the DAR adopted the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, issued on May 30,
1994. Under Section 1, Rule II of the said Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has exclusive
original jurisdiction over the following cases:
(a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the
management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other
agrarian laws;
(b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and payment of just compensation,
fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization payments, and
similar disputes concerning the functions of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP);
xxxx
(f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration
Authority;
(g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct
Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, except
subparagraph (Q) thereof and Presidential Decree No. 815.
xxxx
Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of Republic Act. No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian
laws as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the
Secretary of the DAR.
(h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary
of the DAR.
Subparagraph (f) stated above provides that the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases
involving the issuance, [correction and cancellation of CLOAs and EPs which are] registered
with the Land Registration Authority (the Registry of Deeds).
A study of the above-enumerated grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs shows that
it requires the exercise by the DAR of its quasi-judicial power through its adjudicating arm,
DARAB. Thus, rightly so, the DARAB New Rules of Procedure provide that DARAB has
exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered EPs.
But what about EPs that are unregistered like the one issued to Angelina Rodriguez?
The answer can be found in Administrative Order No. 06-00, issued on August 30, 2000,
which provides for the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases.
These rules were issued pursuant to Sections 49 and 50 of RA 6657. In contrast to the
DARAB Rules of Procedure which govern the exercise of DAR's quasi-judicial function,
Administrative Order No. 06-00 govern the administrative function of the DAR.
Under the said Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, the
Agrarian Reform Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation
of EPs/CLOAs that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds. Thus, Section 2 of the
said Rules provides:
SECTION 2. Cases Covered. - These Rules shall govern cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
DAR Secretary which shall include the following:
a) Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP), including protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage;
b) Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-beneficiaries;
c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP;
d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs)
in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall or
cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet
registered with the Register of Deeds;
e) Exercise of the right of retention by landowner;
xxxx
q) Such other matters not mentioned above but strictly involving the administrative implementation of RA
6657 and other agrarian laws, rules and regulations as determined by the Secretary.
Clearly, the cancellation of EPs that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds falls
within the authority of the Agrarian Reform Secretary or DAR officials duly designated by
him, in the exercise of his/their administrative functions. x x x
Second, even if the Court of Appeals ruling were based on the old DARAB rules (the 1989
DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure) which provided that the DARAB had primary
jurisdiction over "cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT),
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the
administrative correction thereof", we do not agree that the cancellation by the DARAB of
the subject EPs fell within the ambit of mere administrative correction. "Administrative
correction" refers only to the rectification of wrong or insufficient information in the patent
and not to something as substantial as the actual cancellation thereof. The meaning of
"administrative correction" is provided in DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994:
C. The administrative corrections may include non-identification of spouse, corrections

of civil status, corrections of technical descriptions and other matters related to agrarian
reform.
The above pronouncement was reiterated in this ponente's ruling in Heirs of Lazaro
Gallardo v. Soliman: "the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the
cancellation of registered EPs[;] the DAR Secretary, on the other hand, has exclusive
jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of [EPs] or Certificates of Land
Ownership Awards that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds."
Thus, since certificates of title have been issued in the respective names of the respondents
as early as in 1990, the DAR Region I Director had no jurisdiction to cancel their titles; the
same is true with respect to the DAR Secretary. Thus, their respective January 30, 1991 and
August 22, 1995 Orders are null and void; consequently, respondents' EPs and titles subsist,
contrary to petitioners' claim that they have been cancelled. Void judgments or orders have
no legal and binding effect, force, or efficacy for any purpose; in contemplation of law, they
are non-existent.
For the above reasons, it necessarily follows that what petitioners pray for in the instant
Petition i.e. the 1) reinstatement of the January 30, 1991 Order of the DAR Region I Director
and the August 22, 1995 Order of the DAR Secretary which have been voided herein, and 2)
issuance of EPs in their favor are reliefs that this Court may not grant.
Next, as correctly pointed out by the respondents, a review of the instant petition under
Rule 45 is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only
when there are special and important reasons therefor. Moreover, a petition for review
under Rule 45 covers questions of law only. "[T]he jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is
generally limited to reviewing errors of law. This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise
of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and
consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.“

04 Jose Vs Novida

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

04 Jose Vs Novida

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jose vs.

C. The administrative corrections may include non-identification of spouse, corrections

You might also like