April 30, 1998

DAR OPINION NO. 56-98

Atty. Ferdinand N . Paguyo

Chief, Legal Division

DAR Provincial Office

San Fermin, Cauayan

Isabela

Dear Atty. Paguyo:

Your letter dated 17 March 1998 informing this Office of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court and Order issued, by the DAR Secretary in the case "Arturo Mejia vs. Filomena Gabayan, et al." involving the exemption/exclusion of a parcel of land (TCT No. T-75164) from the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27, states the following, to wit:

1.         that in 1992, plaintiff Arturo Mejia filed with the DAR a Petition for Exemption/Exclusion involving the subject property and that the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer issued a Resolution in 1993 denying said petition for lack of merit; granting petitioner to retain five (5) hectares pursuant to R.A. No. 6657; maintaining the tenant-tiller in the retained area; maintaining the coverage of the excess area as well as the CLTs/EPs issued to the tenant-tiller; and directing the MARO concerned to cause the preparation of the Leasehold Contracts between the parties with respect to the retained area;

2.         that on 23 May 1995, the Regional Director issued an Order reversing said Resolution exempting the land covered by TCT No. T-75164 from Operation Land Transfer; recalling/cancelling CLTs/EPs issued, generated in the name of the tenants therein, if any; directing the petitioner to maintain the tenants therein in the peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective farmlots and to execute with them Leasehold Contracts in accordance with R.A. No. 3844 as amended; and authorizing the petitioner to withdraw from the LBP any amortization payments deposited by the tenants therein and be considered as lease rentals of their respective farmlots;

3.         that plaintiff not satisfied. with the Order of the DAR Regional Director has appealed the same with the Secretary, and that pending appeal he filed another case with the Regional Trial Court which was decided in his favor on January 25, 1995;

4.         that an 27 December 1996, the Office of the DAR Secretary issued an Order modifying the Order of the Regional Director;

5.         that in view of the foregoing facts, plaintiff filed a Petition for Certiorari against the DAR Secretary and private defendants but wan dismissed by the Court of Appeals and which dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme Court;

6.         that on March 2, 1998, the DAR Legal Division filed a Petition with the DARAB for the implementation of the Order of the DAR Secretary as the Regional Trial Court is insisting in the implementation of its Decision contrary to the Decision ref the DAR Secretary; and

7.         that on 3 March 1998, the DARAB issued a STATUS QUO ORDER as against the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the RTC dated March 9, 1998 of which both Orders contradict one another.

Against the foregoing backdrop, Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 or CARL provides that the DAR is vented with the power to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction aver all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. Likewise, Section 55 thereof provides that no court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of CARP and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform. Taken together, said legal provisions clearly manifest the legislative intent of empowering the DAR with the jurisdiction to try all cases involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program.

As regards the implementation of final and executory order issued by the DAR Secretary, Executive Order No. 129-A provides that the Regional Office within its administrative region is responsible for the implementation of laws, policies, plans, programs, projects, rules and regulations of the Department. Moreover, Department M.C. No. 10, Series of 1994 in relation with DAR M.C. No. S, 1994 provides that the Order/Resolution of the Secretary an cases arising from the administrative implementation of Agrarian Reform Law shall be sent to the field office for purposes of implementation. It is therefore clear that the Regional Director is tasked to implement final and executory DAR Orders/Resolutions involving cases within his region.

In view of the foregoing, we hereby advise that prior to the filing of any petition before the DARAB or other proper forum, a careful study of pertinent laws, rules and regulations must first be made and efforts be discreetly undertaken, in order to avoid unnecessary delay or undue derailment in the proper and successful implementation of the Secretary's Order in particular, and the Program in general.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning

Copy furnished:

1.      The Regional Director

            DAR Region II

           Tuguegarao, Cagayan

2.      PARO Ronald B. Dela Rosa

           DAR-Provincial Office

           San Fermin, Cauayan, Isabela