Lawyerly

GR No. 183142

2009-09-17

ROSITA A. MONTANEZ v. PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR OF LA CASTELLANA

VELASCO JR., J.

Corollary to the exhaustion rule is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a basic postulate which precludes courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[24]

GR No. 169589

2009-06-16

JOAQUIN SOLIMAN v. PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

NACHURA, J.

Tenants are defined as persons who in themselves and with the aid available from within their immediate farm households cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent, for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or money or both under the leasehold tenancy system.[43]

GR No. 181525

2009-03-04

P'CARLO A. CASTILLO v. MANUEL TOLENTINO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

[23] Bautista v. Mag-isa, G.R. No. 152564, September 13, 2004, 438 SCRA 259.

GR No. 127965

2009-01-20

FRANCISCO SALAZAR v. REYNALDO DE LEON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Therefore, the Court could only rule that the dispute herein between respondent as landowner and petitioner as tenant is agrarian in nature falling within the jurisdictional domain of the DARAB. This is in line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which precludes the regular courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has been lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[47]

GR No. 150635

2008-09-11

DR. ROSALINA G. HILARIO v. MODESTO PRUDENTE

NACHURA, J.

The finding of the RTC, which was affirmed by the CA, was that the controversy between the parties pertains to or arises from an agrarian relationship and/or the implementing law thereof. The subject landholding was placed under the CARP pursuant to a notice of coverage and raised therein was the issue of identification of the respondents as farmer-beneficiaries of said landholding. Petitioner protested the identification of the respondents as farmer-beneficiaries made by the MARO which was denied by the PARO. After the denial of her protest, petitioner filed the ejectment case with the MTC. Given these undisputed facts, petitioner cannot now impugn the jurisdiction of the DAR or the DARAB over the controversy considering the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. We take the occasion to reiterate what has been explained in Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. de Villena:[9]

GR No. 169691

2008-07-23

PEDRITO SALMORIN v. DR. PEDRO ZALDIVAR

CORONA, J.

Salmorin's attempt to persuade us by way of a certification coming from the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee attesting that he was a bona fide tenant of Zaldivar deserves scant consideration. Certifications issued by municipal agrarian reform officers are not binding on the courts. This rule was articulated in Bautista v. Mag-isa vda. de Villena: [16]

GR No. 178266

2008-07-21

PEOPLE v. SAMUEL

NACHURA, J.

In the instant case, the RTC failed to consider that what is lodged before it is a criminal case for estafa involving an alleged misappropriated amount of P80,000.00 -- a subject matter over which the RTC clearly has jurisdiction. Notably, while the RTC has criminal jurisdiction conferred on it by law, the DARAB, on the other hand, has no authority to try criminal cases at all. In Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. de Villena,[23] we outlined the jurisdiction of the DARAB, to wit:For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

GR No. 153595

2007-11-23

CORNELIO DE JESUS v. MOLDEX REALTY

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

To begin with, the MARO Certification merely said that petitioners Cornelio de Jesus, Servillano Herrera, Jacinto Herrera, Florencio Linquico, Maria Baltazar, Leticia Española, Alberto Gojo-Cruz, Pablo Gener, Hilario Gener, Felipe Gener and Oscar Diaz were "non-registered/non-legitimate (but actual tillers)."[12] Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert a tiller or farmworker into an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws.[13] Moreover, the settled rule is that certifications issued by municipal agrarian reform officers are not binding on the courts. In a given locality, the certifications or findings of the secretary of agrarian reform (or of an authorized representative) concerning the presence or the absence of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties are merely preliminary or provisional; hence, such certifications do not bind the judiciary.[14]

GR NO. 154490

2006-09-19

SPS. ROMULO AND GUILLERMA CUBA v. MANUEL V. CUENCO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Clearly, Civil Case No. 431 is an action by the landowner to oust his tenant from the latter's home lot. We thus rule that the dispute is agrarian in nature falling within the jurisdictional domain of the DARAB. This is in line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which precludes the regular courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has been lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[15]

GR NO. 157491

2006-06-20

SPS. PROCESO AMURAO AND MINERVA AMURAO v. SPS. JACINTO VILLALOBOS AND HERMINIGILDA VILLALOBOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Indeed, section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199, provides that 'all cases involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or the settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landlord and tenant ... shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.' This jurisdiction does not require the continuance of the relationship of landlord and tenant - at the time of the dispute. The same may have arisen, and often times arises, precisely from the previous termination of such relationship. If the same existed immediately, or shortly, before the controversy and the subject-matter thereof is whether or not said relationship has been lawfully terminated, or if the dispute springs or originates from the relationship of landlord and tenant, the litigation is (then) cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations . . . . In the case at bar, petitioners' claim that the tenancy relationship has been terminated by the Kasulatan is of no moment. As long as the subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the termination of the relationship, or if the dispute originates from such relationship, the case is cognizable by the DAR, through the DARAB. The severance of the tenurial arrangement will not render the action beyond the ambit of an agrarian dispute.[24]

GR NO. 140319

2006-05-05

RODOLFO HERMOSO v. C.L. REALTY CORPORATION

GARCIA, J.

Vis-a-vis petitioners' jurisdictional challenge, it may be stated that the DAR, through its adjudication arm, i.e., the DARAB and its regional and provincial adjudication boards, exercises quasi-judicial functions and jurisdiction on all matters pertaining to agrarian dispute or controversy and the implementation of agrarian reform laws.[11] In Nuesa vs. Court of Appeals,[12] the Court, citing the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, stated that the DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction "to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of all the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program [CARP] under R.A. 6657, E.O. Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, R.A. 3844, as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations." The Court made a similar pronouncement on the jurisdiction of DARAB in Bautista vs. Mag-isa Vda. De Villa.[13] Under Section 1(f) of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, such jurisdiction of the DARAB includes cases involving "the issuance, correction and cancellation of ... (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority." Surely, such jurisdiction cannot be deemed to disappear the moment a certificate of title is issued. For, such certificates are not modes of transfer of property but merely evidence of such transfer. Needless to state, there can be no valid transfer of title should the CLOA on which it was grounded is void.

GR No. 167748

2005-11-08

HEIRS OF RAFAEL MAGPILY v. HERMINIGILDO DE JESUS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Tenants are defined as persons who in themselves and with the aid available from within their immediate farm households cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent; for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or money or both under the leasehold tenancy system.[21]

GR NO. 132477

2005-08-31

JOSE LUIS ROS v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It being settled that jurisdiction over conversion of land is vested in the DAR, the complaint for injunction was correctly dismissed by the trial and appellate courts under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This Court, in Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. De Villena,[27] found occasion to reiterate the doctrine of primary jurisdiction -

	GR No. 183142 2009-09-17	ROSITA A. MONTANEZ v. PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR OF LA CASTELLANA VELASCO JR., J.
Corollary to the exhaustion rule is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a basic postulate which precludes courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[24]
	GR No. 169589 2009-06-16	JOAQUIN SOLIMAN v. PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NACHURA, J.
Tenants are defined as persons who in themselves and with the aid available from within their immediate farm households cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent, for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or money or both under the leasehold tenancy system.[43]
	GR No. 181525 2009-03-04	P'CARLO A. CASTILLO v. MANUEL TOLENTINO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[23] Bautista v. Mag-isa, G.R. No. 152564, September 13, 2004, 438 SCRA 259.
	GR No. 127965 2009-01-20	FRANCISCO SALAZAR v. REYNALDO DE LEON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Therefore, the Court could only rule that the dispute herein between respondent as landowner and petitioner as tenant is agrarian in nature falling within the jurisdictional domain of the DARAB. This is in line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which precludes the regular courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has been lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[47]
	GR No. 150635 2008-09-11	DR. ROSALINA G. HILARIO v. MODESTO PRUDENTE NACHURA, J.
The finding of the RTC, which was affirmed by the CA, was that the controversy between the parties pertains to or arises from an agrarian relationship and/or the implementing law thereof. The subject landholding was placed under the CARP pursuant to a notice of coverage and raised therein was the issue of identification of the respondents as farmer-beneficiaries of said landholding. Petitioner protested the identification of the respondents as farmer-beneficiaries made by the MARO which was denied by the PARO. After the denial of her protest, petitioner filed the ejectment case with the MTC. Given these undisputed facts, petitioner cannot now impugn the jurisdiction of the DAR or the DARAB over the controversy considering the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. We take the occasion to reiterate what has been explained in Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. de Villena:[9]
	GR No. 169691 2008-07-23	PEDRITO SALMORIN v. DR. PEDRO ZALDIVAR CORONA, J.
Salmorin's attempt to persuade us by way of a certification coming from the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee attesting that he was a bona fide tenant of Zaldivar deserves scant consideration. Certifications issued by municipal agrarian reform officers are not binding on the courts. This rule was articulated in Bautista v. Mag-isa vda. de Villena: [16]
	GR No. 178266 2008-07-21	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL NACHURA, J.
In the instant case, the RTC failed to consider that what is lodged before it is a criminal case for estafa involving an alleged misappropriated amount of P80,000.00 -- a subject matter over which the RTC clearly has jurisdiction. Notably, while the RTC has criminal jurisdiction conferred on it by law, the DARAB, on the other hand, has no authority to try criminal cases at all. In Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. de Villena,[23] we outlined the jurisdiction of the DARAB, to wit:For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
	GR No. 153595 2007-11-23	CORNELIO DE JESUS v. MOLDEX REALTY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To begin with, the MARO Certification merely said that petitioners Cornelio de Jesus, Servillano Herrera, Jacinto Herrera, Florencio Linquico, Maria Baltazar, Leticia Española, Alberto Gojo-Cruz, Pablo Gener, Hilario Gener, Felipe Gener and Oscar Diaz were "non-registered/non-legitimate (but actual tillers)."[12] Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert a tiller or farmworker into an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws.[13] Moreover, the settled rule is that certifications issued by municipal agrarian reform officers are not binding on the courts. In a given locality, the certifications or findings of the secretary of agrarian reform (or of an authorized representative) concerning the presence or the absence of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties are merely preliminary or provisional; hence, such certifications do not bind the judiciary.[14]
	GR NO. 154490 2006-09-19	SPS. ROMULO AND GUILLERMA CUBA v. MANUEL V. CUENCO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Clearly, Civil Case No. 431 is an action by the landowner to oust his tenant from the latter's home lot. We thus rule that the dispute is agrarian in nature falling within the jurisdictional domain of the DARAB. This is in line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which precludes the regular courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has been lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[15]
	GR NO. 157491 2006-06-20	SPS. PROCESO AMURAO AND MINERVA AMURAO v. SPS. JACINTO VILLALOBOS AND HERMINIGILDA VILLALOBOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indeed, section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199, provides that 'all cases involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or the settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landlord and tenant ... shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.' This jurisdiction does not require the continuance of the relationship of landlord and tenant - at the time of the dispute. The same may have arisen, and often times arises, precisely from the previous termination of such relationship. If the same existed immediately, or shortly, before the controversy and the subject-matter thereof is whether or not said relationship has been lawfully terminated, or if the dispute springs or originates from the relationship of landlord and tenant, the litigation is (then) cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations . . . . In the case at bar, petitioners' claim that the tenancy relationship has been terminated by the Kasulatan is of no moment. As long as the subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the termination of the relationship, or if the dispute originates from such relationship, the case is cognizable by the DAR, through the DARAB. The severance of the tenurial arrangement will not render the action beyond the ambit of an agrarian dispute.[24]
	GR NO. 140319 2006-05-05	RODOLFO HERMOSO v. C.L. REALTY CORPORATION GARCIA, J.
Vis-a-vis petitioners' jurisdictional challenge, it may be stated that the DAR, through its adjudication arm, i.e., the DARAB and its regional and provincial adjudication boards, exercises quasi-judicial functions and jurisdiction on all matters pertaining to agrarian dispute or controversy and the implementation of agrarian reform laws.[11] In Nuesa vs. Court of Appeals,[12] the Court, citing the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, stated that the DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction "to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of all the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program [CARP] under R.A. 6657, E.O. Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, R.A. 3844, as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations." The Court made a similar pronouncement on the jurisdiction of DARAB in Bautista vs. Mag-isa Vda. De Villa.[13] Under Section 1(f) of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, such jurisdiction of the DARAB includes cases involving "the issuance, correction and cancellation of ... (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority." Surely, such jurisdiction cannot be deemed to disappear the moment a certificate of title is issued. For, such certificates are not modes of transfer of property but merely evidence of such transfer. Needless to state, there can be no valid transfer of title should the CLOA on which it was grounded is void.
	GR No. 167748 2005-11-08	HEIRS OF RAFAEL MAGPILY v. HERMINIGILDO DE JESUS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Tenants are defined as persons who in themselves and with the aid available from within their immediate farm households cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent; for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or money or both under the leasehold tenancy system.[21]
	GR NO. 132477 2005-08-31	JOSE LUIS ROS v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It being settled that jurisdiction over conversion of land is vested in the DAR, the complaint for injunction was correctly dismissed by the trial and appellate courts under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This Court, in Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. De Villena,[27] found occasion to reiterate the doctrine of primary jurisdiction -

EUGENIO BAUTISTA v. SUSANA MAG-ISA VDA. DE VILLENA