CASE DIGEST: Bagongahasa vs. Romualdez
G.R. No. 179844:March 23, 2011.
EMERSON B. BAGONGAHASA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JOHANA L. ROMUALDEZ, Respondent. / SPS. CESAR M. CAGUIN AND GERTUDES CAGUIN, ET AL., Petitioners, v. DIETMAR L. ROMUALDEZ, Respondent. / SOTELA D. ADEA, ET AL., Petitioners,v.SPS. DANIEL AND ANA ROMUALDEZ, ET AL., Respondents.
NACHURA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondents are absolute and lawful owners of separate parcels of lands situated in Sitio Papatahan, Paete, Laguna. However, sometime in 1994 and 1995, the then Secretary of Agrarian Reform declared the property to be part of the public domain, awarded the same to the Defendants and forthwith issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to the respective petitioners.
As absolute and lawful owners thereof, the respondents also maintain that they have not been notified of any intended coverage thereof by the DAR; that to the best of their knowledge, there is no valuation being conducted by the Land Bank of the Philippines and the DAR involving the property; that there was no compensation paid and that the DAR-CENRO Certification shows that the landholdings have 24-32% slopes and therefore exempt from CARP coverage. Petitoners defend that they are farmer beneficiaries of the subject properties, covered by Proclamation No. 2280 which reclassifies certain portion of the public domain as agricultural land and declares the same alienable and disposable for agricultural and resettlement purposes.
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) ruled in favor of respondents. Upon appeal, however, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) held that the complaints filed were virtual protests against the CARP coverage, to which it has no jurisdiction. The DARAB further held that, while it has jurisdiction to cancel the Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs), which had been registered with the Register of Deeds (RD) of Laguna, it cannot pass upon matters exclusively vested in the DAR Secretary. Moreover, the DARAB ruled that the assailed CLOAs having been registered in 1994 and 1995 became incontestable and indefeasible. The CA reversed then partially amended its decision. The CA, invoking Section 1 (1.6), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure held that the DARAB has the exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate cases involving correction, partition, and cancellation of Emancipation Patents and CLOAs which are registered with the Land Registration Authority (LRA), as in this case. The petitioners appealed, arguing, among others, that the CA erred in undermining the issue of jurisdiction as the case is cognizable by the Regional Director and not by the PARAD and/or the DARAB.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the DARAB has jurisdiction over the petition of the CLOAs
HELD:
The petition is granted.
REMEDIAL & CIVIL LAW: Jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Awards.
InHeirs of Julian dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz, the Court ruled 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. In Spouses Teofilo Carpio and Teodora Carpio v. Ana Sebastian, et.al., this Court held that even if the parties therein did not have tenancy relations, the DARAB still has jurisdiction. However, the said case must be viewed with particularity because, based on the material allegations of the complaint therein, theincident involved the implementation of the CARP, as it was founded on the question of who was the actual tenant and eventual beneficiary of the subject land. Hence, this Court held therein that jurisdiction should remain with the DARAB and not with the regular courts. However, this case is different. Respondents complaint was bereft of any allegation of tenancy and/or any matter that would place it within the ambit of DARABs jurisdiction.
However, this Court refuses to rule on the validity of the CARP coverage of the subject properties and the issuance of the assailed CLOAs. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction was initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. The Office of the DAR Secretary is in a better position to resolve the particular issue of non-issuance of a notice of coverage, being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.
Petition is GRANTED, and the decision of the CA is REVERSED.
EMERSON B. BAGONGAHASA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JOHANA L. ROMUALDEZ, Respondent. / SPS. CESAR M. CAGUIN AND GERTUDES CAGUIN, ET AL., Petitioners, v. DIETMAR L. ROMUALDEZ, Respondent. / SOTELA D. ADEA, ET AL., Petitioners,v.SPS. DANIEL AND ANA ROMUALDEZ, ET AL., Respondents.
NACHURA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondents are absolute and lawful owners of separate parcels of lands situated in Sitio Papatahan, Paete, Laguna. However, sometime in 1994 and 1995, the then Secretary of Agrarian Reform declared the property to be part of the public domain, awarded the same to the Defendants and forthwith issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to the respective petitioners.
As absolute and lawful owners thereof, the respondents also maintain that they have not been notified of any intended coverage thereof by the DAR; that to the best of their knowledge, there is no valuation being conducted by the Land Bank of the Philippines and the DAR involving the property; that there was no compensation paid and that the DAR-CENRO Certification shows that the landholdings have 24-32% slopes and therefore exempt from CARP coverage. Petitoners defend that they are farmer beneficiaries of the subject properties, covered by Proclamation No. 2280 which reclassifies certain portion of the public domain as agricultural land and declares the same alienable and disposable for agricultural and resettlement purposes.
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) ruled in favor of respondents. Upon appeal, however, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) held that the complaints filed were virtual protests against the CARP coverage, to which it has no jurisdiction. The DARAB further held that, while it has jurisdiction to cancel the Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs), which had been registered with the Register of Deeds (RD) of Laguna, it cannot pass upon matters exclusively vested in the DAR Secretary. Moreover, the DARAB ruled that the assailed CLOAs having been registered in 1994 and 1995 became incontestable and indefeasible. The CA reversed then partially amended its decision. The CA, invoking Section 1 (1.6), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure held that the DARAB has the exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate cases involving correction, partition, and cancellation of Emancipation Patents and CLOAs which are registered with the Land Registration Authority (LRA), as in this case. The petitioners appealed, arguing, among others, that the CA erred in undermining the issue of jurisdiction as the case is cognizable by the Regional Director and not by the PARAD and/or the DARAB.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the DARAB has jurisdiction over the petition of the CLOAs
HELD:
The petition is granted.
REMEDIAL & CIVIL LAW: Jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Awards.
InHeirs of Julian dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz, the Court ruled 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. In Spouses Teofilo Carpio and Teodora Carpio v. Ana Sebastian, et.al., this Court held that even if the parties therein did not have tenancy relations, the DARAB still has jurisdiction. However, the said case must be viewed with particularity because, based on the material allegations of the complaint therein, theincident involved the implementation of the CARP, as it was founded on the question of who was the actual tenant and eventual beneficiary of the subject land. Hence, this Court held therein that jurisdiction should remain with the DARAB and not with the regular courts. However, this case is different. Respondents complaint was bereft of any allegation of tenancy and/or any matter that would place it within the ambit of DARABs jurisdiction.
However, this Court refuses to rule on the validity of the CARP coverage of the subject properties and the issuance of the assailed CLOAs. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction was initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. The Office of the DAR Secretary is in a better position to resolve the particular issue of non-issuance of a notice of coverage, being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.
Petition is GRANTED, and the decision of the CA is REVERSED.
