September 2, 1998

DAR OPINION NO. 82-98

MR. GEORGE S. IMPERIAL

10 Road 25, Project 8

Quezon City

Dear Mr. Imperial:

This refers to your letter requesting for opinion on the queries posed therein, to wit:

1. Does the PARAD have the jurisdiction to annul the Order of Retention issued by the Regional Director which Order was issued pursuant to his authority in the administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657, after all the procedural and substantive requirements have been complied with, the Order having become final and executory and an implementation Order had already been issued, and without the express referral to it by the Regional Director nor the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform?

2.  The spouses Petitioners Avelino and Priscilla Ignacio who were not party litigants in the original case for retention assert that they have the right to seek DARAB's intervention, despite the fact that they bought the landholdings from the farmer-beneficiaries within the period prohibited by law, and were able to cancel the Emancipation Patents (EPs) issued by the DAR to the farmer-beneficiaries illegally and turn them to TCTs and convert the fully irrigated land into a subdivision without a DAR Clearance. Does the PARAD have jurisdiction to hear this case inspite of the fact that the Titles to this land are now TCTs and not Emancipation Patents?

You state that on 27 March 1997, applicant Purificacion Santos Imperial filed her application for retention under R.A. No. 6657 with the Department of Agrarian Reform; that after an investigation was conducted by the MARO of Pulilan, Bulacan, a hearing was held and attended by farmer-beneficiaries, namely: Pasencia Adriano, Ceferino Sison, Cesar de Guzman, Teodoro San Andres and Procopio de Guzman; that the right of the landowner was extensively discussed and explained to the farmer-beneficiaries without any opposition on their part; that on 29 July 1997, the MARO endorsed the pertinent documents regarding the application for retention of Purificacion Imperial to the PARO at Baliuag, Bulacan, recommending approval thereof; that an Order of Retention was issued on 02 October 1997 by OIC-Regional Director Renato F. Herrera, copy furnished the farmer-beneficiaries concerned; that no motion or appeal was filed by the farmer-beneficiaries within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, hence, an Implementation Order was issued on 10 November 1997 by the Regional Director.

On 02 October 1997, the farmer-beneficiaries, except for Cesar de Guzman, filed a motion to set aside the Order of Retention; Position Papers of the parties were submitted and on 16 April 1998, the Regional Director issued an Order affirming his Order of Retention dated 02 October 1997 and declaring the case as closed; that on 08 May 1998, Procopio de Guzman together with Real Estate Developers, Spouses Avelino and Priscilla Ignacio, who were not party litigants in the original case for retention, filed with the DARAB a case nullifying the Order of the Regional Director with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Injunction; that subsequently on the following day, the other farmer-beneficiaries filed the same case which are now both pending with the DARAB.

Anent your first query, the answer is in the negative. The New DARAB Rules of Procedure excludes from its jurisdiction, matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and agrarian laws and regulations which are deemed to be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the DAR Secretary (Section 1(g), Rule II).

As regards your second query, the DARAB has the jurisdiction to try cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Landownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority. Accordingly, questions concerning titles (TCTs) derived from Emancipation Patents issued by the DAR, especially if there are allegations of illegalities or irregularities in the transfer of the subject landholdings and subsequent alleged conversions, shall likewise fall under the jurisdiction of the DARAB (Section 1(f), Rule II of the New DARAB Rules of Procedure and DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994). The issue of whether or not the landholdings in issue could be transferred shall, however, be cognizable by the DAR Regional Director or the Secretary pursuant to Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1998 since the same involves the administrative implementation of the agrarian reform program. On the other hand, criminal offenses, if any, that may have been committed in the instant case shall fall under the jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian Courts pursuant to Section 57 of RA. No. 6657.

Corollary to the foregoing, it bears stressing here the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995, specifically, Item II. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 thereof, copy of which is herewith attached.

Thank you for writing us. We wish to add, however, that the foregoing opinion does not constitute a decision in any case that may be pending involving the same issue.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) DANILO T. LARA

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning