December 13, 1996
DAR OPINION NO. 136-96
Dir. Eugenio B. Bernardo
Regional Director
DAR Region III
San Fernando, Pampanga
Dear Director Bernardo:
This refers to your letter requesting for clarification as to who should handle the cases filed before the DARAB and also cases pending with the DAR arising from conflict of claims, tenancy relationship, etc. within the Rev. Crisostomo Estate which is under DAR's administration and control, situated in Cabanatuan City and Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. You state that jurisdiction over the residential and commercial areas of the said Estate should be under the jurisdiction of the DAR whereas, the agricultural portion of the estate having tenancy problems be placed under the jurisdiction of the DARAB.
At the outset, under the DARAB New Rules of Procedure it provides that the Board shall have jurisdiction over all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the CARP and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. However, matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the 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.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, jurisdiction is clearly delineated. Thus problem on tenancy relationship in the agricultural portion of the estate is under the DARAB's jurisdiction while jurisdiction over the commercial and residential areas of the estate is cognizable by the Regional Director or in other words to be resolved administratively for instance, petition for conversion of the part of the estate to commercial or residential use.
Under this situation, the lawyers of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office should attend to all cases arising from the Crisostomo Estate whether pending before the RD or RARAB.
Please be guided accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LORENZO R. REYES
OIC-Undersecretary
LAFMA
Copy furnished:
OSEC
Doc. No. 96050251