Heirs of Latayan

8/28/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 776
CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

____________________

G.R. No. 201652. December 2, 2015.*

HEIRS OF SIMEON LATAYAN, namely: LEONIDES Q.
LATAYAN, ARIEL Q. LATAYAN, and ETHEL Q. LATAYAN-
AMPIL, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, LEONIDES Q.
LATAYAN, petitioners, vs. PEING TAN, JOHNNY TAN,
HERMINIGILDO CASALAN, WEBINO VILLAREAL,
DIOSCORO MOLO, DAMACINO BAYAWA, EDGAR NARITA,
YOLANDA NARITA, POLICRONIA CAPIONES, ANDRES
LOZANO, GREGORIO YAGAO, EMILIANO GUMATAY, JESUS
ALCONTIN, ADANI DULAUON, MARIO PEREZ, LARRY
CIMAFRANCA, FELIXBERTO BULADACO, CIPRIANO AHIT,
BUENAVENTURA BACALSO and SALDE ES-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Simeon Latayan vs. Tan
PIA,** respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; The court or tribunal

must look at the material allegations in the complaint, the issues or
questions that are the subject of the controversy, and the character of the
relief prayed for in order to determine whether the nature and subject
matter of the complaint is within its jurisdiction.—This Petition will not
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e265e574843ae15af003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/21
prosper. The jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the nature and subject
matter of an action is conferred by law. The court or tribunal must look at
the material allegations in the complaint, the issues or questions that are the
subject of the controversy, and the character of the relief prayed for in order
to determine whether the nature and subject matter of the complaint is
within its jurisdiction. If the issues between the parties are intertwined with
the resolution of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or
tribunal, the dispute must be addressed and resolved by the said court or
tribunal.
Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; The doctrine of
primary jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority
to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with
an administrative body of special competence.—While this Court does
indeed seek to expeditiously resolve the case at bench in compliance with its
constitutionally-mandated duty, the well-settled principle of primary
jurisdiction, as stressed in Bagongahasa v. Romualdez, 646 SCRA 338
(2011), must likewise be observed thus: While it is true that the PARAD and
the DARAB lack jurisdiction in this case due to the absence of any tenancy
relations between the parties, lingering essential issues are yet to be resolved
as to the alleged lack of notice of coverage to respondents as landowners
and their deprivation of just compensation. Let it be stressed that while these
issues were discussed by the PARAD in his decision, the latter was precisely
bereft of any jurisdiction to rule particularly
_______________
** The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, the Provincial

Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO),
and the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform who were originally
impleaded as respondents were no longer indicated in the caption and dropped as
respondents pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 3

in the absence of any notice of coverage for being an ALI case. Let it
also be stressed that these issues were not met head-on by petitioners. At
this juncture, the issues should not be left hanging at the expense and to the
prejudice of respondents. 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 doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve
a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is 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 — an ALI case — being primarily the
agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter. The power to
determine such issue lies with the DAR, not with this Court.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
L & J Tan Law Firm for petitioners.
DEL CASTILLO,*** J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the April 29, 2011
Decision2 and the April 18, 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 02756-MIN. The CA
_______________
*** Designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2281 dated November
13, 2015.
1 Rollo, pp. 5-28.
2 Id., at pp. 30-44; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and
concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Edgardo T. Lloren.
3 Id., at pp. 45-47; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and
concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Zenaida T. Galapate-
Laguilles.


affirmed the May 9, 2005 Decision4 and the January 6, 2009

Resolution5 of the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication
Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 10403, which reversed the
July 10, 2000 Decision6 and the September 13, 2000 Resolution7 of
the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) in DARAB Case
No. XI-1589-DC-99 which nullified respondents’ Certificates of
Land Ownership Award (CLOAs).
Factual Antecedents

On January 31, 2000, Simeon Latayan (Simeon), represented by
his son and attorney-in-fact, Leonides Latayan, filed an Amended
Complaint8 before the PARAD Davao City, for cancellation of the
CLOAs issued to respondents, docketed as DARAB Case No. XI-
1589-DC-99. Simeon alleged that he is the registered owner of two
adjoining lots covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-14201
and T-14202 comprising 23.1488 hectares. He contended that the
titles to the subject lots were unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled

without his consent or knowledge, and without notice and placed
under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) sans payment of just compensation. After the compulsory
acquisition, the subject lots were divided and distributed to
respondents. Simeon claimed that the subject properties are exempt
from the CARP because they had been fully developed into an agro-
industrial estate, are within the 1,000-meter strip of the highway, and
are currently leased as a
_______________
4 DARAB Records, pp. 330-334; penned by Assistant Secretary Augusto P.

Quijano and concurred in by Assistant Secretaries Lorenzo R. Reyes, Edgar A. Igano,
and Defin B. Samson.
5 Id., at pp. 356-357; penned by Assistant Secretary Augusto P. Quijano and
concurred in by Assistant Secretaries Ambrocio B. De Luna, Defin B. Samson, and
Edgar A. Igano.
6 Id., at pp. 166-170; penned by Regional Adjudicator Norberto P. Sinsona.
7 Id., at pp. 231-233.

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 5

commercial farm to the Southern Tropical Fruits, Incorporated

(STFI). Moreover, Simeon argued that respondents could not be
properly considered as farmers-beneficiaries as they never occupied
the subject lots nor introduced improvements therein; that if
anything, respondents merely wanted to use the law to unlawfully
divest him of his proprietary rights to the subject lots, and enjoy the
improvements he had introduced and replace him as STFI’s lessor.
Simeon thus prayed that respondents’ CLOAs be cancelled and that
a preliminary mandatory injunction be issued in his favor to
maintain him in his peaceful and lawful possession of the subject
lots, over which he in due course of law had indeed been lawfully
issued certificates of title.
In their Amended Answer,9 respondents denied that Simeon’s
titles were unilaterally or arbitrarily cancelled. They insisted that, on
the contrary, Simeon’s titles were duly and properly cancelled in
accordance with law. They claimed that Simeon was properly
furnished a copy of Notice of Coverage; was invited to a conference
to discuss the inclusion of the subject properties under the CARP;
and was sent a copy of a Notice to Acquire and Notice of Land
Valuation. They also asserted that Simeon’s landholdings is
extensive, about 93 hectares of which is agricultural land. They also
averred that only a portion of the subject lots is within the highway’s
1,000-meter strip. Finally, they claimed that they were identified by
the proper authorities as qualified beneficiaries. In sum, they opined

that Simeon’s titles to the subject lots were properly cancelled and
their CLOAs duly issued.
Ruling of the PARAD

On July 10, 2000, the PARAD rendered a Decision10 in favor of
Simeon. The PARAD noted that Simeon was never notified of the
coverage by CARP of his properties and that he
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 22-30.

9 Id., at pp. 48-51.
10 Id., at pp. 166-170.


learned of the same only when he filed with the Department of

Agrarian Reform (DAR) a petition for exemption of his
landholdings from the operation of the CARP. According to the
PARAD, that was the first time Simeon learned that his properties
would be taken over by the so-called farmers-beneficiaries. The
PARAD concluded that Simeon was denied due process since there
was no observance of the procedural steps for the proper
implementation of the CARP Law. Thus, the cancellation of
Simeon’s titles was unwarranted.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered:
1. Declaring the compulsory coverage on the land of the
complainant [Simeon] a complete nullity and further declaring
the CLOAs issued thereon null and void;
2. Ordering the MARO of Baguio District, Davao City, to
re-document and cover the area anew under compulsory
coverage, properly observing the administrative guidelines on
the matter.
SO ORDERED.11

Respondents moved for reconsideration12 which was denied in
the Resolution13 of September 13, 2000.
Proceedings before the DARAB

Respondents filed an appeal with the DARAB.14

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e265e574843ae15af003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False While the 5/21
Respondents filed an appeal with the DARAB.14 While the

appeal was pending, Simeon died and was substituted by his
_______________
11 Id., at p. 170.
12 Id., at pp. 173-177.
13 Id., at pp. 231-233.
14 Id., at pp. 246-254.

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 7

sons, Leonides and Ariel, and his daughter, Ethel, herein

petitioners.
In its May 9, 2005 Decision,15 the DARAB set aside the PARAD
Decision and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The
DARAB held —

The issues however in this case partakes the nature [of]
agrarian law, which are purely administrative in nature.
Hence, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Honorable DAR Secretary. As correctly noted [by] the
[PARAD] there was no proper observance of administrative
processes in terms of coverage as well [as] the identification
of farmer[s]-beneficiaries. These issues [fall] squarely under
the jurisdiction of the Honorable DAR Secretary as mandated
by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000, which
include the following:
1) classification and identification of landholdings under
the CARP, including protests [or] oppositions thereto and
petitions for lifting of coverage;
2) identification, qualification or disqualification of
potential farmer[s]-beneficiaries.
Having ruled that the issues are administrative in nature,
this Board for that matter has no recourse but to respect the
primary jurisdiction of the administrative agency. x x x
Jurisdiction is conferred by law. x x x
x x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered[,] the decision of the
[PARAD] is SET ASIDE and the case is DISMISSED for lack
of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.16

_______________
15 Id., at pp. 330-334.

16 Id., at pp. 330, 332-333.


Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration17 which was

denied in the January 6, 2009 Resolution.18
Proceedings before the CA

Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the DARAB’s judgment to the
CA via a Petition for Review.19 But in the assailed Decision dated
April 29, 2011,20 the CA upheld the DARAB with modification. The
CA ruled:
Verily, the case at bar does not concern an agrarian dispute

as there is no established tenancy relationship between
petitioners’ father and [respondents]. Neither is the case one
for just compensation, contrary to petitioners’ assertion. It
originated as an action for cancellation of CLOAs registered
with the Register of Deeds, thus seemingly cognizable at the
initial stage by the PARAD and thereafter by the DARAB.
However, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction in such cases,
they must relate to an agrarian dispute between [the]
landowner and [the] tenants to whom [the] CLOAs have been
issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the
issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the
DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform
laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural
tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and
not of the DARAB. Moreover, it involves issues with respect
to the classification and identification of landholdings for
coverage under the agrarian reform program, and the
identification, qualification or disqualification of private
respondents as farmer[s]-beneficiaries. These issues are not
cognizable by the PARAD and the DARAB, but by the DAR
Secretary because these are Agrarian Law Implementation
(ALI) Cases.
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 351-355.

18 Id., at pp. 356-357.
19 CA Rollo, pp. 4-28.
20 Rollo, pp. 30-44.

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 9

In the present case, the DAR Secretary a[p]proved CLOAs

Nos. CL-3731 and CL-3729 in favor of [respondents] in the
exercise of his administrative powers and in the
implementation of the agrarian reform laws. The approval was
based on the investigation of the MARO, over whom the DAR
Secretary has supervision and control. The DAR Secretary
also had the authority to withdraw the CLOA[s] upon a
finding that the same is contrary to law and DAR orders,
circulars and memoranda. The resolution of such issues by the
DAR S[e]cretary will entail the application and
implementation of agrarian reform laws, x x x as well as the
implementing orders, circulars and rules and regulations
issued by the DAR. x x x
Without doubt, the DARAB committed no reversible error
when it set aside the decision of the PARAD and dismissed
the case recognizing that jurisdiction over the matters
involved is rightly vested with the DAR Secretary.
Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal is not
affected by the defenses or theories set up by the defendant or
respondent in his answer or motion to dismiss. x x x
Jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the
status or the relationship of the parties but also the nature of
the issues or questions that is the subject of the controversy.
The proceedings before a court or tribunal without
jurisdiction, including its decision, are null and void, hence,
susceptible to direct and collateral attacks. x x x
x x x x
It is axiomatic that void judgments never become final and
executory and cannot be the source of any right whatsoever.
x x x
x x x x
Thus, since the PARAD had no subject matter jurisdiction
over the complaint for annulment of CLOAs brought before it,
the PARAD’s decision dated 10 July 2000 invalidating the
compulsory coverage on the land of [Simeon] and annulling
the CLOAs issued to private respondents has not yet attained
finality.

10

It should be made clear that this Court is constrained to

limit the resolution of this petition [to] the key issue of which,
as between the DARAB and the DAR Secretary, has
jurisdiction to resolve the merits of DARAB Case No. 10403.
Having recognized the DAR Secretary’s exclusive jurisdiction
over that case, the Court believes that the merits of the case
are best left for the DAR Secretary to determine. The DAR
Secretary is in a better position to resolve the issues on the
validity of the coverage, and the qualification of private
respondents as the identified farmer[s]-beneficiaries for the
subject properties, being the agency lodged with such
authority inasmuch as it possesses the necessary expertise on
the matter. The Court adopts such attitude of restraint in
deference to a coequal branch, the Executive Branch of
Government, [to] which the DAR Secretary belongs.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The Court
AFFIRMS the decision of the DARAB in Case No. 10403
WITH MODIFICATION. The dismissal of DARAB Reg.
Case No. XI-1589-DC-99 for lack of jurisdiction is without
prejudice to its refiling in accordance with DAR
Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000, within thirty (30)
days from the finality of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.21

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in
its Resolution22 of April 18, 2012.
Proceedings before this Court

Hence, the present recourse, with petitioners now contending
that:

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT IT IS THE
DAR SECRETARY AND NOT THE [DARAB] WHICH
HAS
_______________
21 Id., at pp. 39-43. Emphasis supplied.

22 Id., at pp. 46-47.

11
VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 11

JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING

CANCELLATION OF CLOAS[,] JUST COMPENSATION,
ETC. SAID RULING IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE
[THE] EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 OF
REPUBLIC ACT 6657 AND THE JURISPRUDENCE
PROMULGATED BY [THE] HONORABLE SUPREME
COURT, WHICH EXPRESSLY CONFERRED EXCLUSIVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UPON THE DARAB TO
HEAR CASES OF THIS NATURE.23
Petitioners’ Arguments

In their Petition24 and Memorandum,25 petitioners contend that
the CA erred in ruling that the DAR Secretary has jurisdiction over
the instant controversy given that Section 50 of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, Sections 1 and 2, Rule II of the 1994
DARAB Rules of Procedure, and jurisprudence all clearly confer
such jurisdiction upon the DARAB; that the instant case is already
beyond the coverage of DAR Administrative Order (AO) 06-00,
cited by the CA and the DARAB, since the subject CLOAs had
already been registered; that a statute must prevail over an
administrative regulation; that since the DARAB had already validly
acquired jurisdiction over the case at the time of the filing of the
complaint, then the jurisdiction so acquired is not affected by any
subsequent law or rule that grants another body or tribunal
jurisdiction; that the resolution of the issue of just compensation in
agrarian reform land cases is a judicial function hence, the CA erred
in concluding that the issues at hand “[partake] the nature of
agrarian law, which [is] purely administrative in nature.” Petitioners
thus pray for the reversal of the assailed dispositions. They also pray
that the DARAB be ordered to assume jurisdiction over the instant
case and resolve the same.
_______________
23 Id., at pp. 13-14.

24 Id., at pp. 5-28.
25 Id., at pp. 98-114.

12

Respondents’ Arguments

In their Comment26 and Appeal Memorandum,27 respondents
maintain that the instant case does not pertain to the fixing of just
compensation; that the cancellation by the PARAD of Simeon’s
certificates of title to the subject lots and the issuance of CLOAs in

favor of the aforenamed farmers-beneficiaries involved questions
regarding the validity of the coverage of the subject lots under the
CARP, vis-à-vis the qualifications of the identified farmers-
beneficiaries, hence, within the DAR Secretary’s exclusive and
primary jurisdiction; that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at
any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal; that
the DAR Secretary has jurisdiction over the instant case pursuant to
Section 2, Rule I and Section 6, Rule II of DAR AO 06-00 in
relation to Sections 49 and 50 of the CARP; that indeed as held in
Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz and Leonora Talaro v. Heirs of Alberto
Cruz,28 cases involving cancellation of CLOAs issued to
nonagricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the
DAR Secretary; that the case law rulings cited by petitioners are
inapplicable to this case, as Simeon’s original case did not pertain to
tenancy relations, nor to any intra-corporate controversy, much less
to a joint venture agreement; and finally, that Magno v. Francisco29
cited by petitioners actually declared that it is the DAR Secretary
that has jurisdiction over issues relating to landowners’ retention
rights and land exemptions from agrarian reform coverage.

This Court’s Ruling

This Petition will not prosper.
_______________
26 Id., at pp. 68-80.

27 Id., at pp. 116-141.
28 512 Phil. 389; 475 SCRA 743 (2005).
29 630 Phil. 391; 616 SCRA 402 (2010).

13
VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 13

The jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the nature and

subject matter of an action is conferred by law. The court or
tribunal must look at the material allegations in the complaint,
the issues or questions that are the subject of the controversy,
and the character of the relief prayed for in order to determine
whether the nature and subject matter of the complaint is
within its jurisdiction. If the issues between the parties are
intertwined with the resolution of an issue within the
exclusive jurisdiction of a court or tribunal, the dispute must
be addressed and resolved by the said court or tribunal.30

The Amended Complaint filed with the PARAD on January 31,

2000, contained the following averments:

5. That [Simeon’s] titles were unilaterally and arbitrarily
cancel[l]ed by the [PARO, MARO, DAR Regional Director,
and [the] Register of Deeds] in favor of [respondents] by
granting them two (2) Certificate[s] of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA) Nos. CL-3731 and CL-3729 under the [CARP], but
without the actual consent, notice, fixing of just compensation,
and payment to the landowner, to the latter’s prejudice.
x x x x
a. That the fixing of just compensation by the DAR was
not expressly consented to by [Simeon] who, as the
landowner, was without actual and personal notice that the
entire area of TCT Nos. T-14201 and
T-14202 were placed under the CARP. Hence, the x x x
summary actions in cancel[l]ing the two (2) titles of [Simeon]
should not be sanctioned by this Board.
6. That the [respondents] were never in occupation of
any part or portion of the area covered by TCT Nos. T-14201
and T-14202 as the alleged farmer[s-]
_______________
30 Valcurza v. Tamparong, Jr., G.R. No. 189874, September 4, 2013, 705 SCRA
128, 135, citing Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz and Leonora Talaro v. Heirs of Alberto
Cruz, supra note 28 at pp. 400-401; p. 756, and Soriano v. Bravo, 653 Phil. 72, 89-90;
638 SCRA 403, 422 (2010).

14

beneficiaries of the land or as farmworkers who have farmed

or developed the area in any manner and by reason of which
they have to be regarded by the DAR as qualified beneficiaries
under the CARP.
a. Admittedly, the entire area of the land has been fully
developed and leased as a commercial farm such that there
was never an occasion that [respondents] had, by themselves,
made any agricultural improvements inside the entire area
which would qualify them as farmers-beneficiaries.
[b]. The most of what may be said of the [respondents’
claims] as farmers-beneficiaries is that they are illegal
occupants of the area who are not the qualified farmers-
beneficiaries x x x [contemplated] under the agrarian laws.
[c]. The truth is that the entire area of the said two (2)
titles comprising 23.1488 hectares is already fully and
comprehensively developed by [Simeon] and his family into
an agro-industrial estate by way of tilling, cultivating and
preparing the land and planting and devoting [the] same, on
rotation basis, to papaya, banana and pineapple, and putting
up or allowing the putting up of a packing plant inside the said
area, and with the entire area leased by [Simeon] and his
family to [STFI], long before [respondents’] incredible and
preposterous claim of being farmers-beneficiaries inside the
area [covered by] TCT Nos. T-14201 and T-14202.
x x x x
[c]. That [respondents] who, all along, merely intended to
succeed to [Simeon’s] improvements have, in fact, just wanted
to continue the existing lease of the STFI over the entire area
covered by the said two (2) titles, to the actual detriment and
prejudice of [Simeon] and his family.
x x x x
7. That the [PARO, MARO, DAR Regional Director, and
Register of Deeds], in applying the CARP to the entire area of
the subject titles under TCT Nos. T-14201

15
VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 15

and T-14202, have exceeded or otherwise abused their

authority.
a. The entire area covered by said titles is beside the road
and/or within the 1,000-meter strip from the highway, already
existing and fully developed as an agro-industrial estate or
land which is virtually EXCLUDED from the application of
the CARP by virtue of [PD 399], the pertinent provision of
which provides, to quote:
x x x
LIMITING THE USE OF A STRIP OF ONE
THOUSAND METERS OF LAND ALONG ANY
EXISTING, PROPOSED OR ONGOING PUBLIC
HIGHWAY OR ROAD UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT
SHALL HAVE [MADE] A COMPETENT STUDY AND
HAVE FORMULATED A COMPREHENSIVE AND
INTEGRATED LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
x x x
Section 3. Likewise, all lands owned by private persons
within the strip of one thousand meters along existing,
proposed or ongoing public highways or road shall first be
available for human settlement sites, land reform, relocation
of squatters from congested urban areas, tourism
development, agro-industrial estates, environmental protection

and improvement, infrastructure and other vital projects in
support of the socio-economic development program of the
government. The owners of these lands shall not develop or
otherwise introduce improvements thereon without previous
approval from the proper government agency, who shall in
this case be the Chairman of the Human Settlements and
Planning Commission.
x x x
b. That the above cited law clearly provides [for] the
applicable instances under which private lands located within
the strip of one thousand meters along existing, proposed or
ongoing public highways or road shall first be devoted or
made available for.

16

c. Admittedly, the entire adjoining and contiguous area

covered by TCT Nos. T-14201 and T-14202 which comprises
x x x about 23.1488 is already [a] fully developed agro-
industrial estate, complete with packing plant, and as
evidenced by the continuing [lease] of the entire area to
[STFI] in consonance [with] such purpose[s] and no other.
d. That the entire area of TCT Nos. T-14201 and T-14202
which is beside the road and/or within the 1,000-meter strip
from the highway and, at the same time, a fully developed
agro-industrial estate cannot, therefore, be subjected to CARP
anymore, by sheer force of provision of law under [PD 399],
and should be deemed to be EXCLUDED from the coverage
of the CARP.31

In essence, Simeon’s Amended Complaint sets forth the
following: (1) that he was not notified that the subject lots had been
placed under the CARP; (2) that he did not expressly consent to the
fixing of just compensation; (3) that the DAR had no justifiable basis
for considering the respondents as farmers-beneficiaries since the
latter were neither in occupation of the subject lots nor farmworkers
who farmed or developed the pertinent area; (4) that with his family
(the present petitioners), he (Simeon) had fully developed the
subject lots into a commercial farm and agro-industrial estate and
had leased the same to STFI; (5) that respondents are illegal
occupants or squatters thereon, and are not qualified farmers-
beneficiaries; that respondents merely intended to enjoy the
improvements he (Simeon) introduced thereon, and to continue his
lease with STFI; (6) that the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO), the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), the DAR
Regional Director, and the Register of Deeds abused their authority

by applying the CARP to the entirety of the subject lots; (7) that the
subject lots are excluded from CARP coverage pursuant to
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 399 because these lots are located
beside the road
_______________
31 DARAB Records, pp. 23-27. Emphasis supplied.

17
VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 17

and/or within the 1,000-meter strip from the highway, apart from
being an already existing and fully developed agro-industrial estate.
What is more, Simeon’s Amended Complaint did not raise the issue
of tenurial relationship between him and the aforenamed
respondents. Significantly, the Amended Complaint concluded with
this prayer —

WHEREFORE, premises considered and in view of the
foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction be ordered issued by the Honorable
Board after the posting of the necessary bond sufficient in
amount by the complainant as determined by the Honorable
Adjudicator, during the pendency of the above entitled case, in
order to preserve the status quo or the last peaceful
circumstance prior to the controversial issuance of the
questionable two (2) [CLOAs] by [the PARO, MARO, DAR
Regional Director, and Register of Deeds] in favor of
[respondents], and also in order not to render moot and
academic the final judgment of the Honorable Board in the
instant case; and that after trial on the merits and/or due
evaluation of the facts and laws involved in this case, that —
1. The pertinent CLOA Nos. CL-3731 and
CL-3729 be CANCEL[L]ED, RECALLED,
NULLIFIED, VOIDED or otherwise SET ASIDE and
with the previous two (2) titles which are TCT Nos. T-
14201 and T-14202, covering the entire area of 23.1488
hectares involved in this instant case, be ordered
declared REINSTATED, REVIVED or otherwise
RESTORED in full legal force and effect.
Complainant prays for reliefs as may be deem[ed] just and
equitable under the premises.32

Considering that herein petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest (i.e.,
Simeon) sought to cancel respondents’ registered CLOAs on the
grounds: (1) that no agrarian dispute was involved in
_______________
32 Id., at pp. 28-29.

18

this case; (2) that the subject lots are exempt from CARP
coverage; and (3) that due process of law was not observed when the
original petitioner (Simeon) was divested of the ownership of the
subject lots: it thus stands to reason that it is the DAR Secretary that
has jurisdiction to resolve the controversy pursuant to applicable
law, rules, and jurisprudence.
Both illuminating and instructive are these pronouncements by
this Court that bear with particular relevance on the petition at bench
—
Section 1, Rule II of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure,
the rule in force at the time of the filing of the petition,
provides:
Section 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and
Appellate Jurisdiction.—The Board shall have primary
and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate,
to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes
involving the implementation of the [CARP] under [RA
6657], Executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, [RA
3844] as amended by [RA 6389], [PD 27] and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include
but not be limited to cases involving following:
x x x
f) Those involving the issuance, correction and
cancellation of [CLOAs] and Emancipation Patents
(EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration
Authority;
x x x
While the DARAB may entertain petitions for cancellation
of CLOAs, as in this case, its jurisdiction is, however,
confined only to agrarian disputes. As explained in the case of
Heirs of Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Cruz and reiterated in the recent
case of Bagongahasa v. Spouses Cesar Caguin, for the
DARAB to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to
an agrarian dispute between the landowners and tenants in
whose favor CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary.
x x x

19
VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 19

x x x x
As defined in Section 3(d) of [RA 6657], an agrarian
dispute relates to “any controversy relating to tenurial
arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or
otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including
disputes concerning farmworkers’ associations or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such
tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired under the said Act and other
terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from
landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and
tenant, or lessor and lessee.”
x x x x
To be sure, the tenurial, leasehold, or agrarian relations
referred to may be established with the concurrence of the
following: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee; 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 lessee; and
6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant
or agricultural lessee. x x x
In this case, a punctilious examination reveals that
petitioner’s allegations are solely hinged on the erroneous
grant by the DAR Secretary of CLOA No. 00122354 to
private respondents on the grounds that she is the lawful
owner and possessor of the subject lot and that it is exempt
from the CARP coverage. In this regard, petitioner has not
alleged any tenurial arrangement between the parties, negating
the existence of any agrarian dispute and consequently, the
jurisdiction of the DARAB. Indisputably, the controversy
between the parties is not agrarian in nature and merely
involves the administrative implementation of the agrarian
reform program which is cognizable by the DAR Secretary.
Section 1,

20

Rule II of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure clearly

provides that “matters involving strictly the administrative
implementation of [RA 6657], and other agrarian reform laws
and pertinent rules, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and
cognizable by the DAR Secretary.”
Furthermore, it bears to emphasize that under the new
law, [RA 9700], x x x which took effect on July 1, 2009, all
cases involving the cancellation of CLOAs and other titles
issued under any agrarian reform program are now within
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the DAR
Secretary. Section 9 of the said law provides:
Section 9. Section 24 of [RA 6657], as amended,
is further amended to read as follows:
x x x
All cases involving the cancellation of registered
emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership
award, and other titles issued under any agrarian
reform program are within the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR.
Consequently, the DARAB is bereft of jurisdiction to
entertain the herein controversy, rendering its decision null
and void. Jurisdiction lies with the Office of the DAR
Secretary to resolve the issues of classification of landholdings
for coverage (whether the subject property is a private or
government[-]owned land), and identification of qualified
beneficiaries. Hence, no error can be attributed to the CA in
dismissing the case without prejudice to its refiling x x x.33
_______________
33 See Sutton v. Lim, G.R. No. 191660, December 3, 2012, 686 SCRA 745, 752-
754, 756-757, citing Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz and Leonora Talaro v. Heirs of
Alberto Cruz, supra note 28, and Bagongahasa v. Romualdez, 661 Phil. 686, 695-698;
646 SCRA 338, 349 (2011). Emphasis supplied.

21
VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 21

And while this Court does indeed seek to expeditiously resolve

the case at bench in compliance with its constitutionally-mandated
duty, the well-settled principle of primary jurisdiction, as stressed in
Bagongahasa v. Romualdez,34 must likewise be observed thus:

While it is true that the PARAD and the DARAB lack

jurisdiction in this case due to the absence of any tenancy
relations between the parties, lingering essential issues are yet
to be resolved as to the alleged lack of notice of coverage to
respondents as landowners and their deprivation of just
compensation. Let it be stressed that while these issues were
discussed by the PARAD in his decision, the latter was
precisely bereft of any jurisdiction to rule particularly in the
absence of any notice of coverage for being an ALI case. Let
it also be stressed that these issues were not met head-on by
petitioners. At this juncture, the issues should not be left
hanging at the expense and to the prejudice of respondents.
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 doctrine of primary jurisdiction
does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to
resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is 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 — an ALI case — being primarily the agency
possessing the necessary expertise on the matter. The power to
determine such issue lies with the DAR, not with this Court.

Hence, even as this Court affirms the CA’s dismissal of the
instant case without prejudice, this Court also sees fit to de-
_______________
34 Id., at pp. 696-697; pp. 350-351.

22

lete the qualification that petitioners’ refiling of this case be made

“in accordance with [DAR AO 06-00], within 30 days from the
finality of [the] decision.”35 In the event that petitioners shall indeed
opt to refile this case, the DAR Secretary shall resolve the matter
pursuant to the laws, rules, and jurisprudence applicable at the time
of the commencement of the action.
IN VIEW OF ALL OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition is
DENIED. The Decision dated April 29, 2011 and Resolution dated
April 18, 2012, of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
02756-MIN dismissing without prejudice DARAB Case No. XI-
1589-DC-99 due to lack of jurisdiction of the Department of

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that the condition that its refiling be made in
accordance with Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative
Order No. 6, Series of 2000, be DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr.,*** Perez,**** Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

modification.
Notes.—The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has been

increasingly called into play on matters demanding the special
competence of administrative agencies even if such matters are at
the same time within the jurisdiction of the courts. (San Miguel
Properties, Inc. vs. Perez, 705 SCRA 38 [2013])
_______________
35 Rollo, p. 43.
*** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2282 dated November 13,
2015.
**** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2301 dated December 1,
2015.

23
VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 23

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such

that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and
knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is
supplied by the courts even if the matter may well be within their
proper jurisdiction. (The Province of Aklan vs. Jody King
Construction and Development Corp., 711 SCRA 60 [2013])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Heirs of Latayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Latayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Latayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/28/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 776

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; The court or tribunal

** The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, the Provincial

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 3

Secretary is in a better position to resolve the particular issue of non-

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

afﬁrmed the May 9, 2005 Decision4 and the January 6, 2009

titles to the subject lots were unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled

4 DARAB Records, pp. 330-334; penned by Assistant Secretary Augusto P.

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 5

commercial farm to the Southern Tropical Fruits, Incorporated

the proper authorities as qualiﬁed beneﬁciaries. In sum, they opined

Ruling of the PARAD

8 Id., at pp. 22-30.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

learned of the same only when he ﬁled with the Department of

Proceedings before the DARAB

Respondents ﬁled an appeal with the DARAB.14

Respondents ﬁled an appeal with the DARAB.14 While the

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 7

sons, Leonides and Ariel, and his daughter, Ethel, herein

15 Id., at pp. 330-334.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petitioners ﬁled a Motion for Reconsideration17 which was

Proceedings before the CA

Verily, the case at bar does not concern an agrarian dispute

17 Id., at pp. 351-355.

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 9

In the present case, the DAR Secretary a[p]proved CLOAs

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Simeon Latayan vs. Tan

It should be made clear that this Court is constrained to

Proceedings before this Court

21 Id., at pp. 39-43. Emphasis supplied.

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 11

JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING

23 Id., at pp. 13-14.

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

certiﬁcates of title to the subject lots and the issuance of CLOAs in

26 Id., at pp. 68-80.

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 13

The jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the nature and

The Amended Complaint ﬁled with the PARAD on January 31,

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

beneﬁciaries of the land or as farmworkers who have farmed

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 15

and T-14202, have exceeded or otherwise abused their

development, agro-industrial estates, environmental protection

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

c. Admittedly, the entire adjoining and contiguous area

Regional Director, and the Register of Deeds abused their authority

31 DARAB Records, pp. 23-27. Emphasis supplied.

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 17

grounds: (1) that no agrarian dispute was involved in

32 Id., at pp. 28-29.

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 776, DECEMBER 2, 2015 19

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Velasco, Jr.,* Perez,** Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.