This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-04 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| 1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessees; 2) The subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) There is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) The purpose of the agricultural relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessees; and 6) The harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[35] Thus, the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered CLOAs relating to an agrarian dispute between landowners and tenants. However, in cases concerning the cancellation of CLOAs that involve parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees cases related to the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations - the jurisdiction is with the DAR, and not the DARAB.[36] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| However, it is not enough that the controversy involves the cancellation of a CLOA registered with the Land Registration Authority for the DARAB to have jurisdiction. What is of primordial consideration is the existence of an agrarian dispute between the parties.[23] | |||||