If the opposing parties to a case involving an agricultural land are not the landlords against their tenants or vice versa, is said case still within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)? This is one of the issues raised and resolved in this case of the heirs of Aling Viring.
Aling Viring was the duly recognized bona fide tenant of landowner Don Luis. Staying with her as immediate members of the farm household were her five children, Dora, Ana, Vera, Tino and Tina. On December 14, 1989, Aling Viring was granted 5 emancipation patents (Nos. 445226-445230) as tenant-beneficiary over the parcels of land of Don Luis after proper investigation pursuant to the operation procedures on the issuance of emancipation patents under the agrarian reform law.
On April 24, 1992, Aling Viring died leaving behind the parcels of agricultural land covered by the said emancipation patents. Following her death, her children as heirs tried to partition the properties. But Dora and her husband Lito refused to agree alleging that they are the exclusive owners of the parcel of land covered by emancipation patent no. 445229. Dora and Lito claimed that they purchased the same in 1991 from the landowner owner himself, Don Luis.
Since efforts toward amicable settlement proved futile, Ana, Vera, Tino and Tina filed with the Provincial Adjudication Board of the Department of Agrarian Reform, an action for annulment of sale of the land covered by emancipation patent 445229 and for the declaration of rights of tenancy.
The Provincial Adjudicator however dismissed the complaint claiming lack of jurisdiction because the action for annulment of sale is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. On appeal to the DARAB, the dismissal was reversed and set aside and a new decision was rendered declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the former landowner Don Luis in favor of Dora and Lito null and void, and directing the partition of the subject landholdings with the assistance of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. Was the DARAB correct?
Yes. Although the opposing parties in this case is not the landlord against his tenants or vice versa, the case still falls within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. All agrarian reform matters including those involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program are within its primary and exclusive jurisdiction. Thus when a case is merely an incident involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) then jurisdiction remains with the DARAB and not with the regular courts. Jurisdiction is determined by considering not only the status or relationship of the parties involved but also the nature of the issues or questions that is the subject matter of the controversy which may be intertwined with the resolution of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. Specifically this may include: (1) the annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands under the administration of the DAR or LBP; (2) those involving the sale alienation, mortgage, foreclosure and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of CARP or other agrarian laws; and (3) those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of emancipation patents registered with the Land Registration Authority (Section 1, Rule II, DARAB Rules of procedure).
The present case clearly involves the annulment of the sale of agricultural land under the coverage of CARP by the former landowner to Dora and Lito which is being contested by Ana, Vera, Tina and Tino who allegedly have tenancy rights over the land. It is quite evident that the resolution of the case depends on a ruling as to the validity of said sale-an issue which is within the jurisdiction and expertise of the DARAB. The case is merely an incident involving the implementation of the CARP as it is founded on the question of who are the actual tenants and eventual beneficiaries of the subject land. Hence, jurisdiction should remain with the DARAB and not the regular courts. And the findings of the DARAB declaring the deed of sale here as null and void and directing the partition of the property should be accorded due respect and finality because it has expertise on the matter (Spouses Carpio vs. Sebastian et. al., G.R. 166108, June 16, 2010)
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net