This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-20 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| The issue, however, involving the issuance, recall or cancellation of EPs or CLOAs, is lodged with the DAR,[104] which has the primary jurisdiction over the matter.[105] | |||||
|
2012-12-03 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| While the DARAB may entertain petitions for cancellation of CLOAs, as in this case, its jurisdiction is, however, confined only to agrarian disputes. As explained in the case of Heirs of Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Cruz[16] and reiterated in the recent case of Bagongahasa v. Spouses Cesar Caguin,[17] for the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to an agrarian dispute between the landowners and tenants in whose favor CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary, to wit: The Court agrees with the petitioners' contention that, under Section 2(f), Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs which were registered with the LRA. However, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction in such cases, they must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to whom CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not the DARAB. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||