Group 3

Administrative Adjudication
Judicial Review
Financing
General Provisions
 Two-fold Jurisdiction of DAR

1. Executive – implementation of agrarian reform

laws

2. Judicial- determination of rights and obligations

of parties
 Quasi-Judicial Powers of DAR
 Primary jurisdiction
o Determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters
Exceptions: those under the jurisdiction of DA and DENR
o If a party files a case with a regular court, it should refer
the matter to DAR to determine the existence of agrarian
dispute.
 Appellate jurisdiction
o over orders and decisions of the Agrarian Reform
Adjudicators
 Quasi-Judicial Powers of DAR
 Hear and decide cases within its jurisdiction
 Administer oaths
 Summon witnesses
 Take testimony
 Issue subpoena ad testificandum or duces
tecum
 Issue writs of execution
 Punish direct or indirect contempt
 Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicators (PARAD)
Agrarian Dispute

Refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements over, whether

leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture,
including disputes concerning in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
It includes any controversy relation to compensation of lands acquired under
this Act and other terms aned conditions of transfer of ownership from
landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries,
whether the disputantsstand in the proximate relation of farm operator and
beneficiary, landowner and tenants, or lessor and lessee. (Section 3 (d), RA 6657)
 Jurisdiction of PARAD
a) The rights and obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation,
and use of all agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657, and other related
agrarian laws
b) The preliminary administrative determination of reasonable and just
compensation of lands acquired under PD No. 27 and the CARP
c) Those cases involving the annulment or rescission of lease contracts or deeds
of sale or their amendments involving lands under DAR or LBP, and the
amendment of titles; as well as EPs issued under PD 266, Homestead Patents,
Free Patents, and miscellaneous sales patents to settlers in settlement and re-
settlement areas under the administration and disposition of the DAR
d) Those cases involving the ejectment and dispossession of tenants and/or
leaseholders
e) Those cases involving the sale, alienation, pre-emption, and redemption of
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARL, as amended or other agrarian
laws
f) Those involving the correction, partition, secondary and subsequent issuances
such as reissuance of lost/destroyed owner’s duplicate copy and reconstitution
of CLOA’s and EP’s
 Jurisdiction of PARAD
g) Those cases involving the review of leasehold rentals and fixing of disturbance
compensation
h) Those cases involving the collection of amortization payments, foreclosure and
similar disputes concerning the functions of the LBP, and payments 7 for lands
awarded under PD No. 27, and R.A. No. 6657, and other related laws, decrees,
orders, instructions, rules, and regulations
i) Those cases involving boundary disputes over lands under DAR and the LBP,
which are transferred, distributed, and/or sold to tenant-beneficiaries
j) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
defunct Court of Agrarian Relations except those cases falling under the proper
courts or other quasi-judicial bodies
k) Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the
Secretary of the DAR
 Philippine Veterans Bank vs Cruz
• PVB received NAfrom the DAR placing under the CARL coverage PVB’s properties located in
Baliwag, Bulacan. Private respondents, as beneficiaries were issued CLOAs.
• PVB filed a Petition before the RTC of Malolos for the annulment of DAR CLOA on the ground
that the subject parcels of land are outside the coverage of the CARP.
• Private respondents filed a Complaint before the DARAB for maintenance of possession
alleging that PVB fenced the properties. The Provincial Adjudicator Sapera ordered PVB to
cease and desist from committing any acts tending to oust, exclude and eject private
respondents from the landholding in question.
• Both public and private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.
• Respondents file before the CA Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a TRO and preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
• The CA denied due course to the petition on the ground that the DARAB has primary and
exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving cancellation of CLOAs provided that the said
certificates must have been registered with the LRA
• MR was filed by the petitioners. The CA made a turnabout of its ruling and resolved to grant
the motion. The EP/CLOA has been entered in the Primary Entry Book of EPs/CLOAs therefore
DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction over cases for their cancellation.
 Philippine Veterans Bank vs Cruz
• The board has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and
appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian
disputes involving the implementation of the CARP under RA 6657,
EO Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, RA 3844 as amended by RA 6389, PD
No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations.
• Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to
cases involving the following:
a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical
engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by
the CARP and other agrarian laws.
...
f) Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT),
Certificate of Landownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the
administrative correction thereof
Heirs of Candido del Rosario vs Monica
del Rosario
• 9,536 sqm of land owned by Pedro Lazaro is
tenanted by Spouses del Rosario
• Monica and Gil del Rosario agreed to file an
application of EP in the name of Monica, and
1/3 portion of the land will be issued to Gil.
• DAR issued the EP to Monica
• Respondents filed amendment of TCT after
Monica refused to cede 1/3 of the subject
land
Heirs of Candido del Rosario vs Monica
del Rosario
• PARAD ordered the partition of the subject land;
and ceded 1/3 of it to the heirs of Gil
• DARAB reversed the PARAD’s decision
– Monica, Candido and Gil are not co-heirs for their
parents are mere tenants of the land
– Tenants may transfer to his successor the right of
landholding
• CA rendered at decision that PARAD and DARAB
had no jurisdiction
– Issue is the amendment of the EP
Heirs of Candido del Rosario vs Monica
del Rosario
• Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of
PARAD and DARAB is limited only to agrarian
disputes and matters or incidents involving
implementation of CARP
• Complaint for partition and amendment are not
agrarian disputes nor does it involve any incident
arising from the implementation of agrarian laws.
• The petitioners and Monica have no tenurial,
leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever
that will bring this controversy within the
jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB.
 Heirs of Jose Cervantes vs Jesus
Miranda
• Arturo Miranda is a holder of CLT covering the
land of Panlilio in Bacolor, Pampanga
• Arturo signed a waiver surrendering his CLT to
Jose Cervantes, his cousin
• In 2002, Jesus Miranda plowed the land through
force and stealth, prompting Jose to file a
complaint at PARAB
– Jose submitted various documentary evidences that
he is the tenant of the land
– He also submitted a certification that Jesus is an
American Citizen
 Heirs of Jose Cervantes vs Jesus
Miranda
• Miranda
– Father and his brothers are the original tenants
– Paid rentals in the 50’s
– Left the country after children have petitioned
him
– Submitted evidences discrediting Jose Cervantes
 Heirs of Jose Cervantes vs Jesus
Miranda
• PARAD ruled in favor of petitioner, relying on
the strength of the latter’s evidences
• DARAB affirmed PARAD
• CA set aside DARAB’s decision for the case
involves forcible entry and unlawful detainer
 Heirs of Jose Cervantes vs Jesus
Miranda
• DARAB has jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and
beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
• Rule II of the 2009 DARAB’s Rules of Procedure states that the
board have primary and exclusive jurisdiction over those cases
involving the ejectment and dispossession of tenants and/or
leaseholders
• Jose was physically dispossessed of the land of which he claims to
be a tenant; and respondent himself claims to be a tenant.
– The resolution of the case then hinges on a determination of who
between Jose’s successors-in-interest and respondent is the true
farmer-beneficiary of the leasehold in question, a matter which is best
resolved by the DARAB and not by the regular courts.
 Certification of BARC
 Prerequisite to filing a complaint before DARAB
(section 53)
o Exceptions:
1. Issue involves valuation of land to determine just compensation
2. One party is a public or private corporation, partnership,
association, or juridical person, or a public officer or employee
and the dispute relates to the performance of his functions
3. Secretary of DAR directly refers to the matter to the DARAB
4. Where the MARO or, in his absence the Senior Agrarian Reform
Program Technologist or Agrarian Reform Program Technologist
certifies the non-existence of the BARC or inability of BARC to
convene
Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicators
 Executive Adjudicator in the Region
 Functions:
1. Administrative supervision over the PARAD
2. Conduct hearing and adjudication of agrarian
disputes within the Region
a) Cases cannot be handled by the PARAD on account of
inhibition, disqualification or when there is no PARAD
designated in the locality
b) Matters of such complexity and sensitivity
c) Preliminary determination of just compensation of lands
valued at 10 to 50 million pesos
d) Hearing on applications for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order
 DARAB
 Has no jurisdiction over:
o Matters pertaining to ownership
o Retention or exemption issues
o Right of way issues
o Identification and classification of landholdings for
agrarian reform coverage
o Matters pertaining to identification of of
beneficiaries
 Jurisdiction for the Determination of
Just Compensation
 Preliminary proceedings of land valuation for
the determination of just compensation for its
acquisition shall be conducted by:
o PARAD when the initial land valuation of the Land
Bank is less than 10M pesos
o RARAD when the initial land valuation of the Land
Bank is 10M pesos to 50M pesos
o DARAB when the initial land valuation of the Land
Bank is above 50M pesos
 Any case shall be decided within 30 days after
it is submitted for resolution. Only 1 motion
for reconsideration is allowed (section 51)
o Any aggrieved party can elevate the ruling of DAR
by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 43
of the Rules of Court within 15 days from the
receipt of the copy thereof (Section 54)
 No restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunction against PARC, DAR and any of its duly
authorized or designated agencies in any case
arising from, necessary to, or in connection with
the application, implementation, enforcement, or
interpretation of this Act and other pertinent
Agrarian Reform Laws (Section 55)
o Prohibition no longer applies when the ruling is
brought to the proper courts
 Special Jurisdiction

•Special Agrarian Courts shall have

original and exclusive jurisdiction to
all petitions for the determination of
just compensation to landowners
and the prosecution of criminal
offenses under this act.
 Appointment of Commissioners
• The SAC or at the instance of any of the
parties, may appoint one or more
commissioners.
• Commissioners shall examine, investigate and
ascertain facts relevant to the dispute.
 Orders of the SAC
• Any issue, question, matter or incident raised
shall be first terminated and decided before
being elevated to the appellate courts
 Appeals
• Remedy from an adverse decision of the SAC
is petition for review within 15 days from
receipt of notice of the decision.
• Remedy from an adverse decision of the Court
of Appeals or DAR is appeal by certiorari
within 15 days from receipt of notice of the
decision.
• 15 day period is non-extendible
 Procedure on Review
• Rules of Court governed the review by COA
and SC.
• Within a period of 15 days from notice, the
COA may require the parties to submit
simultaneous memorandum.
 Preferential Attenion in Courts
• Agrarian Cases shall continue to be heard,
tried and decided into finality,
notwithstanding the expiration of 10-year
period mentioned in Section 5.
 Funding Source
• Just compensation payments to landowners can
only be sourced to Agrarian Reform Fund and
other sources of funding mentioned in Section 63
at the amount of at least 150 Billion Pesos.
• If annual budget for Agrarian Fund is not enough,
just compensation shall be charged against the
debt service program of the National
Government or any unprogrammed item of the
General Appropriations Act.
 Financial Intermediary for the CARP
• Land Bank of the Philippines is the financial
arm of Agrarian Reform Program.
• LBP determines the just compensation in
which the DAR used to make an offer to
landowners.
 Valcurza vs Tamporong
• Casimiro N. Tamparong, Jr. (respondent) is the
registered owner of a landholding with an
area of 412,004 square meters and covered by
Original Certificate of Title . The Sangguniang
Bayan of Villanueva, Misamis Oriental
allegedly passed a Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance classifying respondent’s land from
agricultural to industrial.
• The issue in this case is whether or not, the
reclassification of his land by virtue of the
zoning ordinance divests the CARP the
jurisdiction to acquire it.
• It was held that for a municipal zoning
ordinance to be considered a valid
reclassification and conversion of land it must
follow two requisites.
• 1. the land has been classified in town plans
and zoning ordinances as residential,
commercial or industrial; and
• 2. the town plan and zoning ordinance
embodying the land classification has been
approved by the HLURB or its predecessor
agency prior to 15 June 1988.
• The first requisite was complied with, however
the second one was found that the records of
the case show the absence of HLURB
Certifications approving Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance
• According to this issuance, local governments are
required to submit their existing land use plans,
zoning ordinances, enforcement systems and
procedures to the Ministry of Human Settlements
— one of the precursor agencies of the HLURB —
for review and ratification.
• Hence, it cannot be said that the land is industrial
and outside the ambit of CARP.
 Section 65 – Conversion of Lands
• Conversion is the act of changing the current
use of a piece of land into some other use.
• Change of crops to commercial crops or high
value crops is considered as a conversion in
the use or nature of the land.
 Conversion vs Reclassification
• Conversion – act of changing the current use
of a piece of land into some other use as
approved by the DAR
• Reclassification is the act of specifying how
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non
agricultural uses.
• A mere reclassification of an agricultural land
does not automatically allow the owner to
change its use. The landowner must first
undergo the process of conversion
• Agricultural lands that were already
reclassified as non agricultural prior to June
15, 1988 does not require any conversion
clearance from the DAR.
 Who can apply for conversion
• The beneficiary
• The landowner with respect only to his
retained area which is tenanted.
• The application for conversion can be filed
after the lapse of five (5) years from the award
of the land
Instances when conversion can be filed
• When the land ceases to be economically
feasible for agricultural purposes
• When the locality has become urbanized and
the land will have a greater economic value
for residential, commercial or industrial
purposes.
 Lands that cannot be subject to
conversion
• Those under the NIPAS (National Integrateds
Protected Areas System)
• All irrigated and irrigable lands as determined
by the DA and NIA
• All agricultural lands with irrigation facilities
operated by private organizations
 Areas highly restricted from
conversion
• Irrigable lands not covered by irrigation
projects
• Agro-industrial croplands
• Highlands or lands located 500 meters or
above
• Lands issued with notice of land valuation and
acquisition
• Environmentally critical areas
• Sec 65-A provides for the conversion of public
agricultural lands can be converted into
fishponds and prawn farms only when the
coastal zone is declared suitable for fishpond
development by the provincial government
and the BFAR
• Private agricultural lands can be converted
into fishponds and prawn farms up to a
maximum area of 5 hectares
Section 66 Exemptions from Taxes and
Fees
• Deeds of transfer of ownership to agrarian
reform beneficiaries whether voluntary
transfer or compulsory acquisition are
exempted from capital gains tax and other
applicable taxes.
 Section 71 Bank Mortgages
• The Bank is considered the new land owner, as
mortgagee, if before the deposit of just
compensation:
a) When after the right of redemption has
expired in foreclosure sale
 Rights and Privileges of the bank or
financial institution as new landowner
• Receive all notices, advices, correspondence and
all other communications from the DAR or Land
Bank
• Transact with the DAR or Land Bank regarding all
aspects of subject land transfer claim, to the
exclusion of all other persons
• Be named as the recipient of all cash and bond
deposits
• Receive all the proceeds of subject land transfer
claim, less deductions to which the land may be
liable.
 Section 73 Prohibited Acts and
Omissions
a) Ownership or possession of agricultural lands in
excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings, if
done for the purpose of circumventing the provisions
of the CARL
b) Forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons who are
not qualified beneficiaries under the CARL, if done to
avail of the rights and benefits of the agrarian reform
program
c) Conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural
use, if done with intent to avoid the application of the
CARL to his landholdings and to dispossess his
bonafide tenant farmers
d) Malicious and willful prevention or obstruction of
the implementation of CARP
e) Sale, transfer, conveyance or change of the
nature of lands outside of urban centers and city
limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity
of the CARL, except after final completion of the
appropriate conversion under Section 65
f) Sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of
the right to use or any other usufructuary right over
the land he acquired by virtue of being a
beneficiary, if done to circumvent the CARL
g) Unjustified, willfil and malicious act by a
responsible officer or officers of the government
through the ff.
1) denial of notive and or reply to landowners
2) deprivation of retention rights
3) undue or inordinate delay in the preparation
of claim folders
4) undue delay, refusal or failure in the
payment of just compensation
h) Undue delay or unjustified failure by any
concerned government agency or any government
official or employee to submit the required report
and other documents involving the implementation
of the CARL.
i) Undue delay in the compliance with the
obligation to certify or attest and or falsification
of the Certification or Attestation under Section
7
j) Any other culpable neglect or willful violations
of the provisions of this Act.
 Section 74 Penalties
• Imprisonment of not less than one month to not more than
3 years or a fine not less than Php 1,000 and not more than
Php 15,000 or both at the discretion of the court.
• Provided that the ff. corresponding penalties shall be
imposed for specific violations of the preceding section:
- For subparagraphs a,b,f,g and h – imprisonment of three
years and one day to six years or a fine of not less than Php
1,000 and not more than Php 150,000 or both.
- For subparagraphs c,d,e and i – imprisonment of six years
and one day to twelve years or a fine of not less than
Php200,000 and not more than Php1,000,000 or both