JURISPRUDENCE ON JURISDICTION OVER AGRARIAN CASES

1. BETWEEN MTC AND CAR (Now DARAB)

A. AGUSTIN RIVERA VS. NEMESIO DAVID. G.R. NO. 157307; February 27, 2006

Doctrines/Features:

A. Existence of prior AGRICULTURAL TENANCY RELATIONSHIP characterizes the controversy as an

"AGRARIAN DISPUTE";

B. Sec. 21, Republic Act No. 1199 provides that "all cases involving the dispossession of a tenant by
the landlord or by a third party and/or the settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the
relationship of landlord and tenant. . . . shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court
of Agrarian Relations."

B. In the case of Vda. de Arejola vs. Camarines Sur Reg. Agricultural School, et al., 110 SCRA 517
(1960), the Supreme Court explained the phrase "by a third party" in Section 21 of RA 1199 (Ejectment;
Violation; Jurisdiction. "all cases involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landholder or by a
third party ) The Supreme Court held that when no tenancy relationship between the contending
parties exist, the Court of Agrarian Relations has no jurisdiction", "The law governing agricultural
tenancy, RA 1199 explains that tenancy relationship is a "juridical tie" which arises between a landholder
and a tenant once they agree expressly or impliedly to undertake jointly the cultivation of land
belonging to the former, etc."

C. The issue of ownership cannot be settled by the DARAB since it is definitely outside its
jurisdiction. Whatever findings made by the DARAB regarding the ownership of the land are not
conclusive to settle the matter. The issue of ownership shall be resolved in a separate proceedings
before the appropriate trial court between the claimants thereof. (Jaime Morta, Sr., et al., vs. Jaime
Occidental, et al., G.R. No. 123417, (June 10, 1999) (Note the Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Davide
Jr.,)

D. Where there are no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever between the parties
that could bring a controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform laws, the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board has no jurisdiction. (Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. CA, 327 SCRA
293).

2. BETWEEN RTC AND DAR/DARAB

DAR VS. ROBERTO CUENCA, et al., G.R. No. 154112, September 23, 2004.

A. All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even through they raise
questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the
DAR, since the law has granted it special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matter.

B. In view of the foregoing, there is no need to address the other points pleaded by respondent in
relation to the jurisdictional issue. We need only to point that in case of doubt, the jurisprudential trend
is for courts to refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters that demand the special
competence of administrative agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in character,
as in this case.

C. Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it follows that the RTC
of La Carlota City (Branch 63) was devoid of authority to issue the assailed Writ of Preliminary
Injunction. That Writ must perforce be stricken down as a nullity. Such nullity is particularly true in the
light of the express prohibitory provisions of the CARP and this Court's Administrative Circular Nos. 29-
2002 and 38-2002. These Circulars enjoin all trial judges to strictly observe Section 68 of RA 6657, which
reads:

"Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. No injunction, restraining
order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program."

ALSO:

Supreme Court Circulars on Jurisdiction Re: Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

1. Office of Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 79-2003, June 12, 2003. Utmost Caution, Prudence
and Judiciousness in the issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writs of Preliminary Injunction by
Justice Presbetero J. Velasco;

2. Office of Court Administrator Circular (OCA) No. 23, 2004 dated Feb. 13, 2004 by Justice Presbetero
J. Velasco Reiteration of Circular Regarding Temporary Restraining Order, Writs of Preliminary
Injunction Prohibition and Mandamus over cases under CARP.

3. Adm. Circular No. 38, 2002 by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Implementation of Sec. 68, RA 6657
on Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference No injunction, restraining order,
prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by lower courts, against DAR, DENR and DOJ in the
implementation of the CARP.

4. Adm. Circular No. 29-2002 Avoidance of Conflict of Jurisdiction over cases under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

3. BETWEEN DAR AND DARAB

A. ON ORDER OF EXECUTION ERNESTO INGLES, ET. AL. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL., G.R. NO.
125202, JAN. 31, 2006

Doctrines/Features:

A. Thus, the functions of the DAR Regional Director are purely administrative, that is, to put into
operation agrarian laws and fill out the details necessary for their implementation, and not adjudicatory.

B. On the other hand, when a dispute arises between parties affected by the operation of agrarian
laws, the controversy should be settle in an adversarial proceeding before the DARAB, the quasi judicial
arm of the DAR function becomes judicial or quasi judicial in nature when the exercise thereof involves
the determination of rights and obligations of the parties.
C. In issuing the questioned Order of Execution, the DAR Regional Director overstepped the limits of
his office and crossed the realm of adjudication. While the orders sought to be implemented merely
directed the survey of the areas to be excluded from the CARP, the Order of Execution, however,
included the search for a relocation site for the benefit of farmers who would be affected by the order
of exemption and the determination of appropriate disturbance compensation. Thus, the DAR Regional
Director turned what was supposed to be an administrative process into an adjudicatory proceeding.
The relocation of occupants is normally conducted with the issuance of a writ of demolition, an act
which is within the competence of the DARAB.

B. ON CANCELLATION OF EPs/CLOAs HEIRS OF JULIAN DE LA CRUZ VS. OF ALBERTO CRUZ, G.R. NO.
162890, November 22, 2005:

Doctrines/Features:

A. The Court agrees with the petitioner's contention that, under Section 2 (f), Rule II of the DARAB
Rules of Procedures, 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 case, they must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to whom 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 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

B. Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an "agrarian dispute" as "any controversy relating to
tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to
agricultural, 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 this Act and
other terms and condition of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other
agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operation
and beneficiaries, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee."

In Morta, Sr. v. Occidental (G.R. 123417, 10 June 1999, 308 SCRA 167), this Court held that there
must be a tenancy relationship between the parties for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case. It is
essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) that the parties are the landowner and
the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3)
that there is consent between the parties to the relationship (4) that the purposes of the relationship is
to bring about agricultural production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.

C. In Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals, we held that the jurisdiction of the Department of
Agrarian Reform is limited to the following: a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of
agrarian reform; b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and c) approval
and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential,
commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses. (Morta, Sr. vs. Occidental, 308 SCRA 167).
4. BETWEEN DARAB and SAC

A. "It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, Section II, the original and exclusive jurisdiction
given to the courts to decide petition for determination of just compensation has already been
transformed into an appellate jurisdiction. It only means that, in accordance with settled principle of
administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in
a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the CARP, but
such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.

"The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and exclusive", because the
question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the
administrative determination. For the matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final
and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the
guarantors of the legality of administrative action" (Phil. Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
132767, January 18, 2000).

B. It is the DARAB which has the authority to determine the initial valuation of lands involving
agrarian reform although such valuation may only be considered preliminary as the final determination
of just compensation is vested in the courts. (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 321
SCRA 629).

C. Nothing contradictory between the provisions of Sec. 50, R.A. 6657 granting the Department of
Agrarian Reform primary jurisdiction (administrative proceeding) to determine and adjudicate "agrarian
reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform" which includes the determination of questions of just compensation, and the
provisions of Sec. 57, R.A. 6657 granting Regional Trial Courts "original and exclusive jurisdiction"
(judicial proceeding) over (1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowner, and
(2) prosecutions of criminal offenses under Republic Act No. 6657. (Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322
SCRA 139).

D. It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, Sec. 11, the original and exclusive jurisdiction given to
the courts to decide petitions for determination of just compensation has thereby been transformed
into an appellate jurisdiction. (Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322 SCRA 139).

E. The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and exclusive" because the
question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the
administrative determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final
and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are
the guarantors of the legality of administrative action. (Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322 SCRA 139).

F. We do not agree with petitioner's submission that the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over
respondent's petition for determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the
administrative proceedings before the DARAB. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the
landowner filed an action for the determination of just compensation without waiting for the
completion of the DARAB's re-evaluation of the land. The court nonetheless held therein that the SAC
acquired jurisdiction over the action for the following reason.
It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has 'original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners'. This 'original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative
officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court of the review of
administrative decision. Thus, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of
adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Sec. 57 that the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to
the Adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be
contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would be void., Thus, direct resort to the SAC by private respondent is
valid.

It would be well to emphasis that the taking of property under R.A. No. 6657 is an exercise of the power
of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or determination of just compensation in
eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not
with administrative agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of respondent's petition
for determination of just compensation. (LBP vs. LEONILA P. CELADA, G.R. CASE NO. 164876, January 23,
2006).

1. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, vs. PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS EQUITIES, INC., JIMMY

CHUA, ROJAS CHUA, BENJAMIN SIM, SANTOS C. TAN, WILLIAM C. LEE and STEWART C. LIM,
Respondents.

REYES, J.:

This resolves the Petition for Review1 filed by petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to assail
the Decision2 dated Oct8ber 12, 2006 and Resolution3 dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89693, which granted Paramount Holdings Equities, Inc., Jimmy Chua, Rojas Chua,
Benjamin Sim, Santos C. Tan, William C. Lee and Stewart C. Lim's (respondents) appeal from the rulings
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 12284.

The Antecedents

The case stems from the petition4 docketed as DARAB Case No. R 0403-0009-02, filed with the Office of
the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) by the DAR through Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO)
Felixberto Q. Kagahastian. The petition sought to nullify the sale to the respondents of several parcels of
land, with details of the sale as follows:

Vendee Title No. Area Covered New Title Vendor

Jimmy C. Chua and

Rojas Chua T-37140 71,517 square

meters T-196706 Golden Mountain

Agricultural Development

Corporation

Paramount
Holdings Equities, Inc. T-37141 14,634 sq m T-196705 Golden Mountain

Agricultural Development

Corporation

Paramount

Holdings Equities,

Inc. T-37139 17,203 sq m T-196704 Golden Mountain

Agricultural Development

Corporation

William C. Lee and

Steward C. Lim T-37137 68,078 sq m T-196707 Green Mountain

Agricultural Development

Corporation

Benjamin Sim and

Santos C. Tan T-37138 66,114 sq m T-196708 Green Mountain

Agricultural Development

Corporation

The PARO argued that the properties were agricultural land yet their sale was effected without DAR
Clearance as required under Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. No. 6657), otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Allegedly, the PARO came to know of the transactions only
after he had received a directive from the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to investigate the matter,
following the latters receipt of a letter-request from persons5 who claimed to be the tenant-farmers of
the properties previous owners.6

The respondents opposed the petition, contending that since the matter involves an administrative
implementation of R.A. No. 6657, the case is cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, not the
DARAB. They also sought the petitions dismissal on the grounds of prescription, litis pendentia, res
judicata and forum shopping.

The Ruling of the PARAD

On October 16, 2002, Provincial Adjudicator Virgilio M. Sorita (PA Sorita) issued a Resolution7 dismissing
the petition for lack of jurisdiction. He explained:
Petitioner further argued that the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
includes and is not limited to those involving sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, preemption and
redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of CARP or other agrarian laws. These provisions
were originally lifted from Presidential Decree 946. The emphasis is on the phrase under the coverage of
CARP or other agrarian laws which definitely refers to land already placed under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program under R.A. 6657, lands already placed under Presidential Decree 27, landed
estate acquired by Land Bank of the Philippines and administered by the Department of Agrarian Reform
pursuant to the Provision of R.A. 3844 as amended and lands under the Settlement and Resettlement
Project also administered by the Department of Agrarian Reform for the simple reason that disputes and
controversies arising from these areas are agrarian reform matters. It does not include the sale,
disposition or alienation of private lands not administered by the DAR to private individuals such as in
this instant case.

Petitioner also argued that jurisdiction of the Adjudication Board also covers violation of the Rules and
Guidelines in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. This is true but such
violation is only confined to violations committed by beneficiaries of the program not like in the instant
case, otherwise, jurisdiction lies on the Regional Trial Court acting as Special Agrarian Court as clearly
provided by law.8 (Underscoring ours)

Furthermore, PA Sorita cited the absence of any showing that the petition was filed with the knowledge
and authority of the Solicitor General, as the official counsel of the government being the aggrieved
party in the dispute.

The DARs motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the filing of an appeal with the DARAB.

The Ruling of the DARAB

The DARAB granted the appeal via a Decision9 dated August 18, 2004. The dispositive portion of the
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is hereby REVERSED and/or SET ASIDE. A new
judgment is rendered nullifying the Deeds of Sale in question dated September 5, 1989 and ordering the
Register of Deeds of Laguna to cancel the aforesaid Deeds of Sale, as well as the Transfer Certificates of
Title issued to the respective private respondents concerned.
SO ORDERED.10

Contrary to the findings of PA Sorita, the DARAB ruled that: first, the failure of the parties to the sale to
obtain the required clearance indicates that their transactions were fraudulent;11 second, the PARO had
the personality to file the petition even in the absence of the Solicitor Generals assistance, citing
Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2001 (Circular No. 2), and the policy of DAR to "acquire and
distribute all lands covered by RA 6657, including those subject of illegal transfers x x x";12 and third,
the DARAB has the jurisdiction over the case, since its jurisdiction under Circular No. 2 covers the
cancellation of deeds of conveyance and corresponding transfer certificates of title over agricultural
lands.13

The denial14 of the respondents motion for reconsideration led to the filing of a petition with the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

On October 12, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed Decision,15 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The appealed Decision (dated August 18, 2004) and
Resolution (dated March 16, 2005) of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board-Central
Office, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Petition in DARAB Case
No. R-0403-0009-02 is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.16

The CA emphasized that the DARABs jurisdiction over the dispute should be determined by the
allegations made in the petition. Since the action was essentially for the nullification of the subject
properties sale, it did not involve an agrarian suit that is within the DARABs jurisdiction.

DARs motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution17 dated January 10, 2007. Hence, this
petition.

The Present Petition

The Court has issued on June 6, 2007 a Resolution18 denying the petition on the following grounds: (a)
DARs failure to attach proof of service of the petition upon the CA as required by Section 3, Rule 45 in
relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court; (b) the DARs failure to accompany the petition
with clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed CA decision and resolution,
in violation of Sections 4(d) and 5 of Rule 45, in relation to Section 5(d) of Rule 56; (c) the petition was
prepared by the DAR Region IV-Legal Assistance Division without the concurrence of the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG); and (d) the petition failed to sufficiently show that the appellate court
committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise by
the Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

On October 15, 2007,19 the Court resolved to grant DARs motion to reconsider the dismissal, after it
filed its compliance and the OSG, its appearance and manifestation that it was adopting the petition and
motion for reconsideration filed by DAR.

On December 10, 2008, the Court again resolved to deny the petition on the ground of the OSGs failure
to obey a lawful order of the Court, following its failure to file the required reply despite the Courts
grant of its several motions for extension.20 On April 20, 2009, the Court resolved to grant DARs motion
for reconsideration and accordingly, reinstate the petition.21

The main issue for the Courts resolution is: Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction over the dispute
that seeks the nullification of the subject properties sale.

This Courts Ruling

The Court answers in the negative.

The jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited under the law, as it was created under Executive Order (E.O.)
No. 129-A specifically to assume powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian
reform cases under E.O. No. 229 and E.O. No. 129-A.22 Significantly, it was organized under the Office of
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The limitation on the authority of it to mere agrarian reform matters
is only consistent with the extent of DARs quasi-judicial powers under R.A. No. 6657 and E.O. No. 229,
which read:

SECTION 50 [of R.A. No. 6657]. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.The DAR is hereby vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

SECTION 17 [of E.O. No. 229]. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.The DAR is hereby vested with quasi-
judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of Agriculture (DA).

Thus, Sections 1 and 2, Rule II of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, which was adopted and
promulgated on May 30, 1994 and came into effect on June 21, 1994, identify the specific extent of the
DARABs and PARADs jurisdiction, as they read:

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 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic
Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic
Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree 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;

b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and payment of just compensation, fixing
and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization payments, and similar disputes
concerning the functions of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP);

c) The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands
under the administration and disposition of the DAR or LBP;

d) Those cases arising from, or connected with membership or representation in compact farms,
farmers cooperatives and other registered farmers associations or organizations, related to lands
covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and redemption of
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws;

f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award
(CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;

g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of
Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, except sub-paragraph (q) thereof
and Presidential Decree No. 815.

It is understood that the aforementioned cases, complaints or petitions were filed with the DARAB after
August 29, 1987.

Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by
pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.

h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of the
DAR.

SECTION 2. Jurisdiction of the Regional and Provincial Adjudicator.The RARAD and the PARAD shall
have concurrent original jurisdiction with the Board to hear, determine and adjudicate all agrarian cases
and disputes, and incidents in connection therewith, arising within their assigned territorial jurisdiction.
(Emphasis supplied)

Consistent with the aforequoted legal provisions, we emphasized in Heirs of Candido Del Rosario v. Del
Rosario23 that the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to cases involving agrarian
disputes, including incidents arising from the implementation of agrarian laws. Section 3(d) of R.A. No.
6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this manner:

(d) Agrarian dispute refers 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 R.A. 6657 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.

Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government
agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material
allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of whether the petitioner or
complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs."24 Upon the Courts perusal of the records, it has
determined that the PAROs petition with the PARAD failed to indicate an agrarian dispute.

Specifically, the PAROs petition failed to sufficiently allege any tenurial or agrarian relations that affect
the subject parcels of land. Although it mentioned a pending petition for coverage filed with DAR by
supposed farmers-tillers, there was neither such claim as a fact from DAR, nor a categorical statement or
allegation as to a determined tenancy relationship by the PARO or the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The
PAROs petition merely states:

3.3 That the Provincial Office only came to know very recently about such transaction when the Office
received on two separate occasions a memorandum directive dated 22 October and 25 April 2002 from
the Office of the DAR Secretary to investigate and if warranted file a corresponding petition for
nullification of such transaction anent the petition for coverage of the actual occupants farmers-tillers
led by spouses Josie and Lourdes Samson who informed the Office of the DAR Secretary about such
transaction. x x x25 (Emphasis ours)

It is also undisputed, that even the petition filed with the PARAD failed to indicate otherwise, that the
subject parcels of land had not been the subject of any notice of coverage under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Clearly, the PAROs cause of action was merely founded on the
absence of a clearance to cover the sale and registration of the subject parcels of land, which were
claimed in the petition to be agricultural.

Given the foregoing, the CA correctly ruled that the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the PAROs petition.
While the Court recognizes the legal requirement for clearances in the sale and transfer of agricultural
lands, the DARABs jurisdiction over such disputes is limited by the qualification under Rule II, Section 1,
paragraphs (c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, which read:

c) The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands
under the administration and disposition of the DAR or LBP;
xxxx

e) Those involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre emption and redemption of
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws. (Emphasis ours)

Even Circular No. 2 cited in the Decision26 dated August 18, 2004 on the authority of the PARO to file
petitions with the PARAD in case of illegal transfers presupposes the fulfillment of the conditions in the
cited Section 1, paragraphs (c) and (e), Rule II of the DARAB Rules and Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657. The
pertinent provisions of Circular No. 2 read:

SECTION 4. Operating Procedures.The procedures for annulment of deeds of conveyance executed in

violation of RA 6657 are as follows:

xxxx

b) The Chief, Legal Division, of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office, shall have the following
responsibilities:

xxxx

2. If there was illegal transfer, file a petition for annulment of the deed of conveyance in behalf of the
PARO before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). The petition shall state the material
facts constituting the violation and pray for the issuance of an order from the PARAD directing the ROD
to cancel the deed of conveyance and the TCT generated as a result thereof. As legal basis therefor, the
petition shall cite Section 50 of RA 6657 and Rule II, Section 1(c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of
Procedure;

xxxx

6. In the event of an adverse decision or a denial of the petition, file a Notice of Appeal within the 15-
day reglementary period with the DARAB, and, thereafter, transmit the records of the case to the
Director, Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), for prosecution of the appeal.
Clearly, not every sale or transfer of agricultural land would warrant DARABs exercise of its jurisdiction.
The law is specific that the property must be shown to be under the coverage of agrarian reform laws.
As the CA correctly ruled:

It is easily discernable x x x that the cause of action of the DAR sufficiently established a suit for the
declaration of the sale of the subject landholdings null and void (in violation of Administrative Order No.
1, Series of 1989). Obviously, it does not involve an agrarian suit, hence, does not fall under the
jurisdiction of the DARAB. It must be emphasized that, "(t)here must be a tenancy relationship between
the party litigants for the DARAB to validly take cognizance of a controversy." (Suarez vs. Saul, 473 SCRA
628). Also, it is necessary that the controversy must relate 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," (Section 3 (d),
Chapter I in relation to Section 50, Chapter XII, R.A. 6657 and Section 1, Rule II, DARAB Rules of
[Procedure]). Here, an allegation to declare null and void a certain sale of a landholding does not ipso
facto make the case an agrarian dispute.27 (Emphasis ours)

Our finding on the DARABs lack of jurisdiction over the PAROs petition renders it needless for the Court
to discuss the other issues that are raised in the petition. In any case, the Court finds it worthy to discuss
that the original petition remains dismissible on the merits.

Even during the proceedings before the PARAD, the respondents have raised the pendency with the
Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna of Civil Case No. B-5862, an appeal from the decision of the
Municipal Trial Court of Santa Rosa, Laguna in Civil Case No. 2478. The records indicate that when the
matter was elevated to the CA via the petition docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 68110, the appellate court
declared the subject properties to have long been reclassified from "agricultural" to "industrial". Thus,
the CA Decision dated September 23, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 68110 reads in part:

As to the nature of the subject lands, the tax declarations of real property, the annual receipts for real
estate taxes paid, and zoning ordinance, providing for the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Sta.
Rosa, Laguna, have always classified the lands as "industrial". Moreover, as certified by the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Office of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, there is no record of tenancy or written agricultural
leasehold contract with respect to the subject lands, nor are the same covered by Operation Land
Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27. Thus, for being industrial in nature, the subject lands are outside the ambit
of existing agricultural tenancy laws.28 (Citations omitted)

An appeal from the CAs decision was denied by the Court in a Resolution dated June 18, 2003.29
The Housing Land Use Regulatory Board has affirmed through a Certification30 dated May 22, 1991 that
the zoning ordinance referred to was approved on December 2, 1981. Thus, the respondents correctly
argued that since the subject properties were already classified as "industrial" long before the effectivity
of the CARL, their sale could not have been covered by the CARP and the requirement for a clearance.
Significantly, DAR failed to refute said allegation, which the Court finds duly supported by documents
that form part of the case records.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 12, 2006 and
Resolution dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89693 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

2. DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES INC. EMPLOYEES AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE

(DEARBC),Petitioner,- versus - JESUS SANGUNAY and SONNY LABUNOS,

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Resolutions[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 01715, which dismissed the petition filed by Del Monte Philippines Inc. Employees
Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative (DEARBC), challenging the May 12, 2006 Decision[3] of the
Central Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). For lack of
jurisdiction, the DARAB reversed and set aside the ruling of the DARAB Regional Adjudicator
(Adjudicator) who ordered the respondents to peacefully vacate certain portions of the subject
landholding.[4]

The Court is now urged to rule on the issue of jurisdiction of regular courts over petitions for recovery of
possession vis--vis the original, primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) and the DARAB over agrarian disputes and/or agrarian reform implementation as provided for
under Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. 6657).

The Facts

The property subject of this case is a portion of an entire landholding located in Sankanan, Manolo
Fortich, Bukidnon, with an area of 1,861,922 square meters, more or less, covered by Original Certificate
of Title No. AO-3 [Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)].[5] The said landholding was awarded to
DEARBC, an agrarian cooperative and beneficiary under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP). Subsequently, DEARBC leased a substantial portion of the land to Del Monte Philippines, Inc.
(DMPI) under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6657 through a Growers Contract dated February 21, 1989.

On July 7, 1998, DEARBC filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Specific Performance with
Damages[6] with the DARAB Region 10 Office against several respondents, among whom were Jesus
Sangunay (Sangunay) and Sonny Labunos (Labunos).

Essentially, DEARBC claimed that both Sangunay and Labunos illegally entered portions of its property
called Field 34. Sangunay utilized approximately one and a half (1 ) hectare portion[7] where he planted
corn, built a house and resided from 1986 to the present. Labunos, on the other hand, tilled an area of
approximately eight (8) hectares where he planted fruit trees, gmelina, mahogany and other crops as a
source of his livelihood.[8] Both respondents refused to return the parcels of land notwithstanding a
demand to vacate them. This illegal occupation resulted in the deprivation of the proper and reasonable
use of the land and damages.

On December 11, 1990, the Adjudicator ruled in favor of DEARBC on the ground that the respondents
failed to present proof of ownership over the subject portions of the landholding. According to the
Adjudicator, their bare allegation of possession, even prior to the award of the land to DEARBC, did not
suffice as proof of ownership. Thus:

In the series of hearing conducted by this Adjudicator and in the position papers submitted by some of
the defendants, none of them was able to present proof, either documentary or otherwise, that they
owned the areas they respectively occupied and cultivate[d], or that their occupation and cultivation
was with the consent and authority of the complainant.

X x x against all reasons, the fact remains that their occupation and cultivation thereof, granting it is
true, have not been validated by the DAR and they were not among the identified FBs over the said
subject landholding.[9]

Aggrieved, respondents elevated the case to the DARAB Central Office before which Sangunay filed his
position paper. He claimed that the subject property was located along the Maninit River and was an
accrual deposit. He inherited the land from his father in 1948 and had since been in open, public,
adverse, peaceful, actual, physical, and continuous possession thereof in the concept of an owner. He
cultivated and lived on the land with the knowledge of DEARBC. Sangunay presented Tax Declaration
No. 15-018 and Real Property Historical Ownership issued by the Municipal Assessor of Manolo Fortrich,
showing that he had declared the property for taxation purposes long before DEARBC acquired it. In
sum, Sangunay asserted that, as a qualified farmer-beneficiary, he was entitled to security of tenure
under the agrarian reform law and, at any rate, he had already acquired the land by prescription.

For his part, Labunos reiterated the above arguments and added that the subject portion of the
landholding was previously owned by one Genis Valdenueza who sold it to his father, Filoteo, as early as
1950. Like Sangunay, he asserted rights of retention and ownership by prescription because he had been
in open, public, adverse, peaceful, actual, physical, and continuous possession of the landholding in the
concept of an owner.[10]

In its May 12, 2006 Decision,[11] the DARAB dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the
issue of ownership of the subject land classifies the controversy as a regular case falling within the
jurisdiction of regular courts and not as an agrarian dispute.[12] Thus:

X x x the plaintiff-appellees cause of action is for the recovery of possession and specific performance
with damages with respect to the subject landholding. Such cause of action flows from the plaintiff-
appellees contention that it owns the subject landholding. On the other hand, defendant-appellants
refuted and assailed such ownership as to their respective landholdings. Thus, the only question in this
case is who owns the said landholdings. Without doubt, the said question classified the instant
controversy to a regular case. At this premise, We hold that the only issue to be resolved by this Board is
whether or not the instant case presents an agrarian dispute and is therefore well within Our
jurisdiction.

xxx

In the case at bar, petitioner-appellants wanted to recover x x the subject landholding on the premise of
ownership xxx. Defendants-appellants assail such allegations saying that the landholdings are accrual
deposits and maintaining their open, peaceful and adverse possession over the same. Indubitably, there
assertions and issues classify the present controversy as a regular case. As such, clearly, this Board has
no jurisdiction to rule upon the instant case. Obviously, the dispute between the parties does not relate
to any tenurial arrangement. Thus, this Board has no jurisdiction over the same.

DEARBC challenged the DARAB Decision in the CA through a petition for review filed under Rule 43 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure. In its Resolution dated June 27, 2007,[13] the CA dismissed the petition for
procedural infirmities in its verification, certification and attachments, viz:
1) The Verification and Certification is defective due to the following reasons:

a) There is no assurance that the allegations in the petition are based on personal knowledge
and in authentic records, in violation of Section 4 par. (2), Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure;

b) The Community Tax Certificate Nos. of the affiant therein are not indicated;

c) The affiant is not authorized to sign the same for and in behalf of the petitioner cooperative;

2) The attached copies of the Motion for Reconsideration filed before the DARAB Quezon City and the
Complaint filed before the DAR, Region XD, and the Decision and Resolution rendered therein are mere
plain photocopies, in violation of Sec. 6 par. (c), Rule 43, supra.

In a motion for reconsideration, DEARBC invoked substantial compliance with the pertinent procedural
rules, pointing to the attached Secretarys Certificate as sufficient proof of authority given to the
President and Chairman of the Board, Dennis Hojas (Hojas), to represent DEARBC. On August 24,
2007,[14] the CA denied the motion because DEARBC failed to attach a copy of the board resolution
showing Hojas authority to file the petition. This was a fatal error that warranted dismissal of the
petition, according to the appellate court.

Hence, this petition for review.

With regard to the dismissal of the case by the CA on technical grounds, the Court is of the view that it
was correct. DEARBC clearly failed to comply with the rules which mistake was a fatal error warranting
the dismissal of the petition for review. However, it has been the constant ruling of this Court that every
party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his
cause, free from constraints of technicalities.[15] Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to
expedite the resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of the
rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice must be
avoided.[16] Thus, the Court opts to brush aside the procedural flaw and resolve the core issue of
jurisdiction as it has been discussed by the parties anyway.
Position of the Parties

DEARBC claims that the action it filed for recovery of possession falls within the jurisdiction of the
DARAB because it partakes of either a boundary dispute, a correction of a CLOA or an ouster of an
interloper or intruder found under Section 1 of Rule 11 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure[17] and
Administrative Order 03 Series of 2003.[18] Under those rules, any conflict involving agricultural lands
and the rights of beneficiaries is within the jurisdiction of the DARAB.

In his Comment,[19] Labunos argues that only questions of law may be resolved in appeals under Rule
45 and that it is the decision of the CA which must be challenged and not the DARAB decision. On the
merits, he cites cases where this Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited only to agrarian
disputes and other matters relating to the implementation of the CARP. The subject land has not been
transferred, distributed and/or sold to tenants, and it is obvious that the complaint is not for the
correction of a title but for the recovery of possession and specific performance. Issues of possession
may be dealt with by the DARAB only when they relate to agrarian disputes. Otherwise, jurisdiction lies
with the regular courts.

Sangunay prays that he be declared as the owner of the land, particularly his area in Field 34, based on
the following grounds: 1] that the tax receipts and Tax Declaration No. 15-018 were issued in his name;
2] that R.A. No. 6657 provides that farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the
distribution of privately-owned lands must be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from
the public domain (to which the subject land as an accretion belongs); and 3] that acquisitive
prescription had set in his favor.

The Courts Ruling

The Court finds no merit in the petition.

Where a question of jurisdiction between the DARAB and the Regional Trial Court is at the core of a
dispute, basic jurisprudential tenets come into play. It is the rule that the jurisdiction of a tribunal,
including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition
or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed
for[20] irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs.[21] In
the same vein, jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is not affected by the pleas
or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction will
become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.[22]
Under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657[23] and as held in a string of cases, the DAR is vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program.[24] The
DARAB was created, thru Executive Order No. 109-A, to assume the powers and functions with respect
to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Hence, all matters involving the implementation of agrarian
reform are within the DARs primary, exclusive and original jurisdiction. At the first instance, only the
DARAB, as the DARs quasi-judicial body, can determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases,
controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the CARP.[25] An agrarian
dispute refers 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 this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership from landowner 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.[26]

The following allegations were essentially contained in the complaints filed separately against the
respondents before the DARAB with some variance in the amount of damages and fees prayed for:

1. The complainant is an agrarian cooperative duly registered and organized under the laws of
the Republic of the Philippines xxx.

2. Complainant is an awardee of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), situated at

Limbona, Bukidnon under Original Certificate of Title A-3 as evidenced by Certificate of Land Ownership
Award (CLOA) xxx.

xxxx

5. The defendant illegally entered and tilled the land owned by the complainant, inside the portion of
Field 34, with an area of one and a half (1 ) hectares, more or less, located at Sankanan, Manolo Fortrich,
Bukidnon xxx.

xxxx

8. Demands were made by the complainant for the defendant to vacate the premises but the latter
adamantly refused and did not vacate the area xxx.
9. The defendant has caused actual damages in the amount of xxx in the form of back rentals and an
estimated amount of xxx brought about by the defendant for all his unlawful acts towards the land and
the owner of the land.

10. To recover the possession of the land and to protect and vindicate its rights, the complainant was
compelled to engage the servces of a legal counsel x x x

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Board, that a
decision be rendered:

Ejecting the defendant from the subject landholding and/or causing him to cede possession of the land
to complainant. [Emphasis ours]

xxxx

Verily, all that DEARBC prayed for was the ejectment of the respondents from the respective portions of
the subject lands they allegedly entered and occupied illegally. DEARBC avers that, as the owner of the
subject landholding, it was in prior physical possession of the property but was deprived of it by
respondents intrusion.

Clearly, no agrarian dispute exists between the parties. The absence of tenurial arrangements, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, cannot be overlooked. In this case, no juridical tie of
landownership and tenancy was alleged between DEARBC and Sangunay or Labunos, which would so
categorize the controversy as an agrarian dispute. In fact, the respondents were contending for the
ownership of the same parcels of land.[27]

This set of facts clearly comprises an action for recovery of possession. The claim of being farmer-
beneficiaries with right of retention will not divest the regular courts of jurisdiction, since the pleas of
the defendant in a case are immaterial.
The ruling in DAR v. Hon. Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc.[28] is inapplicable to the
present case. The complaint in Abdulwahid impugn(ed) the CARP coverage of the landholding involved
and its redistribution to farmer beneficiaries, and (sought) to effect a reversion thereof to the original
owner, Yupangco and essentially prayed for the annulment of the coverage of the disputed property
within the CARP. The dispute was on the terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landlord to
agrarian reform beneficiaries over which DARAB has primary and exclusive original jurisdiction, pursuant
to Section 1(f), Rule II, DARAB New Rules of Procedure.[29]

Although the complaint filed by DEARBC was similarly denominated as one for recovery of possession, it
utterly lacks allegations to persuade the Court into ruling that the issue encompasses an agrarian
dispute.

DEARBCs argument that this case partakes of either a boundary dispute, correction of a CLOA, and
ouster of an interloper or intruder, as

found under Section 1, Rule 11 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure,[30] is unavailing. Nowhere in the
complaint was the correction or cancellation of the CLOA prayed for, much less mentioned. DEARBC
merely asserted its sole ownership of the awarded land and no boundary dispute was even hinted at.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Support Services to Stakeholders Secs. 36 to 39 of RA 6657

Section 36. Funding for Support Services. In order to cover the expenses and cost of support services,
at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all appropriations for agrarian reform shall be immediately set
aside and made available for this purpose.n addition, the DAR shall be authorized to package proposals
and receive grants, aid and other forms of financial assistance from any source.

Section 37. Support Services to the Beneficiaries. The PARC shall ensure that support services to
farmers-beneficiaries are provided, such as:

(a) Land surveys and titling;

(b) Liberalized terms on credit facilities and production loans;

(c) Extension services by way of planting, cropping, production and post-harvest technology transfer, as
well as marketing and management assistance and support to cooperatives and farmers organizations;

(d) Infrastructure such as access trails, mini-dams, public utilities, marketing and storage facilities; and

(e) Research, production and use of organic fertilizers and other local substances necessary in farming
and cultivation.

The PARC shall formulate policies to ensure that support services to farmer-beneficiaries shall be
provided at all stages of land reform.

The Bagong Kilusang Kabuhayan sa Kaunlaran (BKKK) Secretariat shall be transferred and attached to the
LBP, for its supervision including all its applicable and existing funds, personnel, properties, equipment
and records.

Misuse or diversion of the financial and support services herein provided shall result in sanctions against
the beneficiary guilty thereof, including the forfeiture of the land transferred to him or lesser sanctions
as may be provided by the PARC, without prejudice to criminal prosecution.

Section 38. Support Services to Landowners. The PARC with the assistance of such other government
agencies and instrumentalities as it may direct, shall provide landowners affected by the CARP and prior
agrarian reform programs with the following services:

(a) Investment information financial and counseling assistance;

(b) Facilities, programs and schemes for the conversion or exchange of bonds issued for payment of the
lands acquired with stocks and bonds issued by the National Government, the Central Bank and other
government institutions and instrumentalities;

(c) Marketing of LBP bonds, as well as promoting the marketability of said bonds in traditional and non-
traditional financial markets and stock exchanges; and
(d) Other services designed to utilize productively the proceeds of the sale of such lands for rural
industrialization.

A landowner who invests in rural-based industries shall be entitled to the incentives granted to a
registered enterprise engaged in a pioneer or preferred area of investment as provided for in the
Omnibus Investment Code of 1987, or to such other incentives as the PARC, the LBP, or other
government financial institutions may provide.

The LBP shall redeem a landowners LBP bonds at face value, provided that the proceeds thereof shall
be invested in a BOI-registered company or in any agri-business or agro-industrial enterprise in the
region where the landowner has previously made investments, to the extent of thirty percent (30%) of
the face value of said LBP bonds, subject to guidelines that shall be issued by the LBP.

Section 39. Land Consolidation. The DAR shall carry out land consolidation projects to promote equal
distribution of landholdings, to provide the needed infrastructures in agriculture, and to conserve soil
fertility and prevent erosion.

Prohibited Acts and Omissions under Sec. 73 of RA 6657

Section 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. The following are prohibited:

(a) The ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act, of
agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or
juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries.

(b) The forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons who are not qualified beneficiaries under this Act to
avail themselves of the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform Program.

(c) The conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any non-agricultural use with intent to
avoid the application of this Act to his landholdings and to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land
tilled by them.

(d) The willful prevention or obstruction by any person, association or entity of the implementation of
the CARP.
(e) The 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 this Act. The date of the registration of the deed
of conveyance in the Register of Deeds with respect to titled lands and the date of the issuance of the
tax declaration to the transferee of the property with respect to unregistered lands, as the case may be,
shall be conclusive for the purpose of this Act.

(f) The 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, in order to circumvent the provisions of this
Act.