This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, the Regional Trial .Courts (RTCs) have not been completely divested of jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters.[21] Section 56 of RA 6657 confers "special jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are RTCs designated by the Court — at least one (1) branch within each province — to act as such. As Special Agrarian Courts (SACs), these RTCs have, according to Section 57 of the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over "all-petitions for the determination of just compensation to land-owners" and "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under . . [the] Act."[22] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The DARAB has been created and designed to exercise the DAR's adjudicating functions.[46] And just like any quasi-judicial body, DARAB derives its jurisdiction from law, specifically RA 6657, which invested it with adjudicatory powers over agrarian reform disputes[47] and matters related to the implementation of CARL. We need not belabor that DARAB's jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Doronilla property, cannot be conferred by the main parties, let alone the intervening farmer-beneficiaries claiming to have "vested rights" under PD 27. As earlier discussed, the process of land reform covering the 1,266 hectares of the Araneta estate was not completed prior to the issuance of Proclamation 1637. So the intervenors, with the exception of the 79 tenant-beneficiaries who were granted CLTs, failed to acquire private rights of ownership under PD 27 before the effective conversion of the Doronilla property to non-agricultural uses. Hence, the Doronilla property, being outside of CARP coverage, is also beyond DARAB's jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2010-01-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court may accord cogency to LBP's argument, but for the fact that the Provincial Adjudicator a quo and eventually the DARAB affirmed the new property valuation made by the LBP. By virtue of such affirmatory action, the DAR has, in effect, approved the PhP 3,426,153.80-LBP valuation, DARAB being the adjudicating arm of DAR.[19] Lest it be overlooked, the DARAB has primary jurisdiction to adjudicate all agrarian disputes, inclusive of controversies relating to compensation of lands under the CARP Law,[20] as the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function.[21] As aptly observed by the DARAB, there is no way that such amended valuation would go down as it is the landowners who have exhibited opposition to the valuation. | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[33] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the DAR concerns the (1) determination and adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform; (2) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and (3) approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural use. The DAR, in turn, exercises this jurisdiction through its adjudicating arm, the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board (DARAB).[34] | |||||
|
2007-03-12 |
|||||
| At any rate, whoever is declared to be the rightful owner of the land, the case cannot be considered as tenancy-related for it still fails to comply with the other requirements. Assuming arguendo that Josefina Opiana-Baraclan is the owner, then the case is not between the landowner and tenant. If, however, Morta is the landowner, Occidental cannot claim that there is consent to a landowner-tenant relationship between him and Morta. Thus, for failure to comply with the above requisites, we conclude that the issue involved is not tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB.[51] In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[52] the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the following: (a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform; (b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems; and (c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial and other non-agricultural uses.[53] | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[28] reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental[29] and Heirs of the late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals,[30] this Court decreed: Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it states that the program | |||||
|
2005-03-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Orders Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario,[21] this Court cited Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that: The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Again in David v. Rivera,[22] this Court pointed out that the jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters is now expressly vested in the DAR through the DARAB. Indeed, Section 50 of R.A. 6657 confers on the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate agrarian reform matters. In the process of reorganizing the DAR, Executive Order No. 129-A created the DARAB to assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure enumerates the cases falling within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[23] reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental[24] and Heirs of the late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals,[25] this Court decreed: Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it states that the program | |||||