.

l\epuhlic of tbe tlbilippines

~upretne

QCourt

;lantla

EN BANC
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, now represented by
OIC-SEC. NASSER
PANGANDAMAN,
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 173386

- versus -

TRINIDAD VALLEY REALTY &

DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, FRANNIE
GREENMEADOWS PASTURES,
INC., ISABEL GREENLAND
AGRI-BASED RESOURCES,
INC., ISABEL
GREENMEADOWS QUALITY
PRODUCTS, INC., ERNESTO
BARICUATRO, CLAUDIO
VILLO and EFREN NUEVO,
Respondents.
x--------------------~------x

GRACE B. FUA, in her capacity

as the PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN
REFORM OFFICER OF
NEGROS ORIENTAL,
JOSELIDO S. DAYOHA, JESUS
S. DAYOHA and RODRIGO S.
LICANDA,
Petitioners,

G.R. No. 174162

- versus -

TRINIDAD VALLEY REALTY

AND DEVELOPMENT

Decision

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

CORPORATION, FRANNIE
GREENMEADOWS PASTURES,
INC., ISABEL GREENLAND
AGRI-BASED RESOURCES,
INC., ISABEL EVERGREEN
PLANTATIONS INC.,
MICHELLE FARMS, INC.
ISABEL GREENMEADOWS
QUALITY PRODUCTS, INC.,
ERNESTO BARICUATRO,
CLAUDIO VILLO and EFREN
NUEVO,
Respondents.

x---------------------------x
TRINIDAD VALLEY REALTY &
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, FRANNIE
GREENMEADOWS PASTURES,
INC., ISABEL GREENLAND
AGRI-BASED RESOURCES,
INC., ISABEL
GREENMEADOWS QUALITY
PRODUCTS, INC., ERNESTO
BARICUATRO,CLAUDIO
VILLO and EFREN NUEVO,
Petitioners,

- versus -

THE REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES and THE LAND
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY,
Respondents.

G.R. No.183191
Present:
SERENO, C.J.,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE, and
LEONEN,JJ.
Promulgated:
_

,.J}

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 -/k-~

1

x------------------------------------------------~--x
DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

The consolidated petitions before us raise intertwined issues of
jurisdiction over cases involving the implementation of Republic Act No.
6657, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of

Decision

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

1988" (hereinafter, RA 6657). The petitions likewise question whether a

regional trial court may exercise jurisdiction if the case also assails the
constitutionality of administrative orders, regulations and other related
issuances implementing the said law.
The following facts are common to the three cases under
consolidation:
Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, Frannie
Greenmeadows Pastures, Inc., Isabel Greenland Agri-based Resources, Inc.,
Isabel Evergreen Plantations, Inc., Michelle Farms, Inc., Isabel
Greenmeadows Quality Products, Inc., Ernesto Baricuatro, Claudio
Villo, and Efren Nuevo (hereinafter, Trinidad Valley Realty and
Development Corporation, et al.) are the registered owners of a parcel of
land in Vallehermoso, 1 Negros Oriental. The landholding consists of a total
area of 641. 7895 hectares - about 200 hectares thereof are devoted to the
cultivation of sugar cane. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
placed 479.8905 hectares of the said landholding under the coverage of RA
6657 between March 1995 and July 2000. Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs) and Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were
subsequently issued in favor of the agrarian reform beneficiaries. 2
On June 10, 2004, Trinidad Valley Realty and Development
Corporation, et al. filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64,
Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, a Petition for Declaration of
Unconstitutionality Through Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with
Prayer for Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and Restraining Order3 against
the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the DAR, and the beneficiaries
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), docketed as
Special Civil Action No. 04-02-V. In their Petition, Trinidad Valley Realty
and Development Corporation, et al. made the following main allegations:
1. That the DAR committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction when it committed the following acts: it passed
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 and other related
issuances which allowed the DAR to unilaterally choose
beneficiaries other than those intended by the Constitution as
beneficiaries; it subjected Trinidad Valley Realty and
Development Corporation, et al.' s properties to compulsory
acquisition, when it ordered the Land Bank to determine the
valuation of Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation,
et al.' s land without any judicial pronouncement on just
compensation; and, it unilaterally ordered the cancellation of
petitioner's title without court intervention when it issued final

Also referred to as Villahermoso in some parts of the records.

Rollo (G.R. No. 183191), p. 121.
Records, Vol. 1, pp. 7-77.

Decision

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

CLOAs to beneficiaries who are not yet owners of the land and
without any court proceeding.
2. The valuation by Land Bank is not just compensation.
3. The Register of Deeds cannot cancel Trinidad Valley Realty and
Development Corporation, et al.'s title without a court order.
4. The Land Bank, the LRA and the Register of Deeds also
committed grave abuse of discretion when they cooperated to
commit the aforementioned acts. 4
The DAR5 filed its Answer6 asserting that (a) jurisdiction over all
agrarian reform matters is exclusively vested in the DAR; (b) the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules
provides that the power to cancel or annul CLOAs is vested in the DARAB;
and the jurisdiction of the R TC in agrarian reform matters is limited only
to the determination of just compensation and prosecution of all criminal
offenses under RA 6657; (c) the RTC has no jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in agrarian reform cases, which is
vested by Section 54 of RA 6657, in the Court of Appeals (CA); (d) the
transfer of ownership and physical installation of the beneficiaries is
authorized by RA 6657 as laid down in Association of Small Landowners in
the Phils., Inc. v. Hon. Secretary of Agrarian Reform; 7 (e) the petition is
defective in form and substance; and (f) the CLOAs partake of the nature of
a Torrens Title and their validity cannot be collaterally attacked.
Subsequently, Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation,
et al. filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Petition and for Admission of the
Amended Petition8 in order to change the nature of the action from a special
civil action of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to an ordinary action of
annulment of land titles. The DAR, et al. opposed the motion in its
Opposition9 dated July 28, 2004.
On August 13, 2004, the RTC conducted a hearing on the propriety of
admitting the amended petition. On October 26, 2004, it issued the assailed
Order 10 admitting the amended petition and ruling that it had jurisdiction
over the case, viz.:
WHEREFORE, this Court rules and so holds that:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the instant case;

6
7

10

Id. at 42-43.
Joined by private respondents.
Answer with Affirmative Defenses of Lack of Jurisdiction, Etc., records, Vol. 2, pp. 452-463.
256 Phil. 777 ( 1989).
Records, Vol. 2, pp. 508-587. Received by DAR, et al. on July 26, 2004.
Records, Vol. 3, pp. 942-945.
Id. at 1232-1244. Penned by Presiding Judge Mario 0. Trinidad.

tt

Decision

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

2. The Amended Petition is admitted and defendants may file

responsive pleadings or amendments to their original answers
within ten [10] days from receipt hereof; and
3. The plaintiffs have not made out a case for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and/or the writ of preliminary
prohibitory injunction, and therefore the plaintiffs' prayer for
its issuance is denied.
SO ORDERED. I I

In an Urgent Omnibus Motion 12 dated December 2, 2004, LRA, et al.

moved for reconsideration on the ground of lack of merit and jurisdiction.
The DAR similarly filed a Motion for Reconsideration 13 dated December 8,
2004 on the same ground of lack of jurisdiction. Both motions were denied
by the RTC in its Order 14 dated January 7, 2005.
In a petition for certiorari 15 filed with the CA, the Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, and the LRA sought to
annul the subject Order of the R TC on the following grounds: ( 1) the R TC
does not have jurisdiction over the petition and amended petition of Trinidad
Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. in view of Section 54 of
RA 6657; (2) the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the
amended petition; and (3) the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
amended petition as the correct docket and other legal fees had not been
paid.
By Decision 16 and Resolution 17 dated June 28, 2007 and May 21,
2008, respectively, the CA reversed and set aside the Order of the RTC, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant Petition is
hereby GRANTED and the assailed Order of the court a quo is hereby
ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. The court a quo is hereby directed to
DISMISS Civil Action No. 04-02-V, entitled "Trinidad Valley Realty and
Development Corporation, et al. vs. The Honorable Jose Mari B. Ponce, et
al." for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
SO ORDERED. Is

The CA ratiocinated that the R TC did not have jurisdiction over both
the petition and amended petition filed by Trinidad Valley Realty and
Development Corporation, et al. in view of Section 54 of RA 6657 which
clearly provides that it is the CA, and not the RTC, which has jurisdiction
over the case. 19 The CA also reiterated the ruling of this Court in the
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

Id.atl244.
Id. at 1332-1343.
Id. at 1346-1358.
Records, Vol. 4, pp. 1573-1574.
Rollo (G.R. No. 183191), pp. 355-388.
Id. at 120-132.
Id. at 24-27.
Id. at 131.
Id. at 124-129.

Decision

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

landmark case of Association ofSmall Landowners in the Phils., Inc. v. Hon.

Secretary of Agrarian Reform 20 declaring the "Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law" constitutional. Quoting the following portion of the landmark
decision, the CA stressed that the ruling therein has, in effect, foreclosed any
possible attack on the constitutionality of the law, viz.:
By the decision we reach today, all major legal obstacles to the
comprehensive agrarian reform program are removed, to clear the way for
the true freedom of the farmer. We may now glimpse the day he will be
released not only from want but also from the exploitation and disdain of
the past and from his own feelings of inadequacy and helplessness. At last
his servitude will be ended forever. At last the farm on which he toils will
be his farm. It will be his portion of the Mother Earth that will give him
not only the staff of life but also the joy of living. And where once it bred
for him only deep despair, now can he see in it the fruition of his hopes for
a more fulfilling future. Now at last can he banish from his small plot of
earth his insecurities and dark resentments and 'rebuild in it the music and
the dream. ' 21

On the issue of whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion

in admitting the amended petition, the CA declared that while the Rules of
Court allow amendments which substantially alter the nature of the cause of
action in order to serve the higher interest of substantial justice, prevent
delay and promote the objective of the Rules to secure a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding, the admission by the
RTC of the amended petition was not proper and should have been denied. 22
Prescinding from its ruling that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the
original petition, the CA held that the RTC consequently did not have
authority to order the admission of Trinidad Valley Realty and Development
Corporation, et al.' s amended complaint in order for it to acquire jurisdiction
over the subject matter. 23 In view of these dispositions, the CA deemed it
unnecessary to discuss the third issue.
Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. moved
for reconsideration24 and reiterated that judicial review was within the
jurisdiction of the lower court and that the requirements for raising the
constitutionality issues had been complied with. It also stressed that the
amendment of the complaint did not change the cause of the action of
unconstitutionality and that the case was already pending before this Court.
The CA denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that no
new arguments were raised to warrant a reexamination of its ruling on the
issue of the lack of jurisdiction of the RTC. 25 As to the averment of
Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. that the CA' s
assailed June 28, 2007 Decision was already rendered moot and academic by
20
21

22
23
24
25

Supra note 7.
Rollo (G.R. No. 183191), p. 124.
Id. at 129-130.
Id. at 130.
Id. at 462-491.
Id. at 24-27.

Decision

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

a judgment of the RTC dated October 17, 2005 in Civil Case No. 04-013-V,
entitled "Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. v. The
Honorable Rene Villa, in his capacity as Secretary of DAR, et al.," the CA
pointed out that what was challenged in the petition filed before it was
Special Civil Action No. 04-02-V, entitled "Trinidad Valley Realty and
Development Corporation, et al. v. Jose Mari B. Ponce, in his capacity as
Secretary of DAR, et al. " 26 The CA further stated in its assailed Resolution,
viz.:
Be that as it may, it must be emphasized that the subject matter of
the instant petition is the jurisdiction of the court a quo to try and hear
[Special Civil Action] No. 04-02-V. Accordingly, this Court ruled that the
court a quo does not have jurisdiction to try the case.
Granting arguendo that Civil Case No. 04-013-V and [Special
Civil Action] No. 04-02-V are the same, the June 28, 2007 Decision of
this Court cannot be rendered moot and academic by the judgment of the
court a quo in Civil Case No. 04-013-V. As correctly pointed out by the
Office of the Solicitor General, a decision rendered by a court or tribunal
without jurisdiction is null and void; hence, it's as if no decision was ever
rendered by the court a quo.
Accordingly, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby
DENIED. 27

Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. now

appeals to this Court by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari 28 raising
substantially the principal issue of whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the
original and amended petitions.
We shall resolve this issue in consolidation with two other petitions
filed before this Court - G.R. No. 173386 (DAR, et al. v. Trinidad Valley
Realty & Development Corporation, et al.) and G.R. No. 174162 (Grace B.
Fua, in her capacity as Provincial Reform Officer of Negros Oriental, et al.
v. Trinidad Valley Realty & Development Corporation, et al.). Both
petitions stemmed from the assailed Decision29 later issued by the RTC
dated October 17, 2005 - the same RTC Decision that Trinidad Valley
Realty and Development Corporation, et al. had brought to the attention of
the CA in their motion for reconsideration. The RTC Decision was reached
after it issued its assailed Order in Special Civil Action No. 04-02-V - ruling
that it had jurisdiction over the original petition (special civil action of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus) and therefore had the authority to
admit the amended petition (ordinary action of annulment of land titles).
Pre-trial proceeded in the ordinary action which was re-docketed as Civil
Case No. 04-013-V. There being no factual issue involved, the case was
submitted for judgment based on the pleadings. The resulting assailed
judgment on the pleadings declared as unconstitutional and void the
26
27

28
29

Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.

at 25-26.
at 26.
at 33-106.
at 492-605.

Decision

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

following administrative issuances of the DAR and the LRA, Executive

Order No. 405, and other related issuances, viz.:
i.

Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1989 - Registration/Selection

of Beneficiaries - DAR chooses beneficiaries under A.O. No. 10,
Series of 1989 using as its basis, Section 22 of RA 6657 allowing
farmers, farmworkers, or any person who is landless to become a
beneficiary of any private agricultural land.
Under this
Administrative Order, not only farmworkers or farmers working on a
particular land are entitled to become beneficiaries, but any person
who is landless, in short a non-tiller of the land, as long as he is
capable and willing to become such a beneficiary.

11.

Administrative Orders No. 12, Series of 1989, No. 9, Series of 1990

and No. 2, Series of 1996 allows DAR to place under compulsory
coverage all private agricultural land by merely sending a notice of
coverage; these administrative orders covering the same subjects,
supersede one another from its earliest which is A.O. 12, Series of
1989, through Administrative Order No. 9, and polished into its last
reincarnation, Administrative Order No 2, Series of 1996. Under these
Orders, DAR granted itself the following powers which it has
enforced: [1] to compulsorily acquire all private agricultural lands; [2]
to order Land Bank to determine just compensation; and [3] to cancel
the landowner's title and transfer the land to the Republic of the
Philippines [RP];

111.

Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1990 authorizes DAR to

cancel the RP title and issue final titles called Certificate of Land
Ownership Award [CLO As] which in turn it uses as basis to distribute
private agricultural lands covered to beneficiaries;

1v. Joint DAR-LRA Memorandum Circular No. 20, Series of 1997 and
all other previous DAR-LRA Memorandum Circulars are a series of
agreements whereby DAR and the LRA agreed that the Registers of
Deeds under LRA shall cancel landowners' titles upon the request or
directive of DAR. and thereafter register final titles to beneficiaries
called Certificates of Land Ownership A ward;
v.

Executive Order No. 405 promulgated by President Aquino which is

interpreted by DAR as authorizing Land Bank to determine just
compensation;

vi. All other Administrative Orders and related issuances that prescribe
substantially the same procedure as the above-foregoing Orders and
Regulations existing or to be issued by the DAR with the same intent
and effect in prescribing a non-judicial process of land acquisition. 30

The RTC also annulled the CLOAs issued by the DAR and issued a
permanent prohibitory injunction31 restrammg private defendant
beneficiaries, DAR defendants and other entities from exercising acts of
possession, dispossession or ownership over any portion of the subject
property, and preventing the DAR from subjecting the landholdings of
30
31

Id. at 603-604.
In an Order dated April 18, 2006, the RTC granted an Ex-Parte Motion for Enforcement of Writ of
Permanent Injunction filed by Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. Original
Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-5.

Decision

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. under the

coverage of agrarian reform through the implementation of the
administrative orders and issuances. 32
Hence, the Petitions for Review on Certiorari filed in G.R. Nos.
17338633 and 17416234 posing the same intersecting jurisdictional question
in these consolidated cases: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the
original and amended petitions filed by Trinidad Valley Realty and
Development Corporation, et al.
It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a

court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at
the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint. 35
Jurisdiction is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and
cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. It
cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their
act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither
for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being
legislative in character. 36 The nature of an action, as well as which court or
body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations
contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the
ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint,
jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. 37
In the case at bar, the CA has correctly and succinctly synthesized that
both the original petition for the "Declaration of Unconstitutionality
Through Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary
Prohibitory Injunction and Restraining Order" and the amended_ petition for
"Judicial Review Through an Action to Annul Titles, and Mandatory and
Prohibitory Injunctions with Prayer for Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction
and Restraining Order" contain the same allegations, viz.:
x x x that beneficiaries are not those intended by the Constitution
as beneficiaries; that subject properties cannot be subjected to
compulsory acquisition because its farm operations are under labor
administration; that the valuation of the land was not judicially
32
33

34
35

36
37

Rollo (G.R. No. 183191), pp. 600-605.

In G.R. No. 173386, petitioners raised two main issues: that the RTC has no jurisdiction over petitions
for certiorari involving acts of the DAR; and, that the RTC erred in ruling that Trinidad Valley Realty
and Development Corporation, et al. did not resort to forum shopping.
In G.R. No. 174162, petitioners raised the same issues posited in G .R. No. 173386.
DAR v. Paramount Holdings Equities, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 176838, June 13, 2013, p. 8; Pad/an v.
Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 91, 98-99; Bank of Commerce v. Planters
Development Bank, G.R. Nos. 154470-71 and G.R. Nos. 154589-90, September 24, 2012, 681 SCRA
521, 548-549; Mendoza v. Germino, G.R. No. 165676, November 22, 2010, 635 SCRA 537, 544.
Citations omitted.
Mendoza v. Germino and Germino, id., citing Oca v. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 696, 701-702 (2002).
Pad/an v. Dinglasan, supra note 35, citing City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No.
168973, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 102, 119.

Decision

10

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

determined; that the cancellation of petitioners' title over the subject

properties and the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership A ward were
effected without any court intervention; that a case for expropriation
should have been filed in court; and that certain DAR Administrative
Orders are unconstitutional. 38

We also agree with the assessment of the appellate court that these
allegations assail the acts of the DAR in awarding the CLOAs to the
beneficiaries and question the procedure in fixing the compensation - acts
which pertain to the very "application, implementation, enforcement or
interpretation" 39 of RA 6657 or the agrarian reform law and other pertinent
laws on agrarian reform.
Section 54 of RA 6657 leaves no room for doubt that decisions,
orders, awards or rulings of the DAR may be brought to the CA by certiorari
and not with the RTC through an ordinary action for cancellation of title, as
in the instant case:
SECTION 54. Certiorari. - Any decision, order, award or ruling
of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to the
application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this
Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to
the Court of Appeals by certiorari except as otherwise provided in this
Act within fifteen ( 15) days from the receipt of a copy thereof.
The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if
based on substantial evidence. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
40

An examination of the records in the instant case would show that

Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation had actually brought
the matter to the DAR prior to its filing of the original and amended
petitions with the RTC. The following incidents on record reveal an
acknowledgment by Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation
that the case indeed involves issues relating to the application,
implementation, enforcement or interpretation of RA 6657, viz.:

1. Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation had

originally filed a case with the DARAB for Cancellation of CLOA,
Injunction and Damages with prayer for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order. The subject property covered the
same landholding in the instant case covering the same area of
641. 7895 hectares. The case was dismissed by the DAR Provincial
Adjudicator in an Order dated March 31, 1997 on the ground that
the matters raised by Trinidad Valley Realty and Development
Corporation involved the administrative implementation of RA
6657. The case was then treated as a protest against CARP

38
39
40

Rollo(G.R. No.183191),p.125.
Sec. 54, RA 6657.
See Order dated March 17, 2004, issued by then OIC-Secretary Jose Mari B. Ponce, rollo (G.R. No.
174162), Vol. I, pp. 297-302.

Decision

11

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

coverage. It was again dismissed in an Order dated November 19,

1997 for lack ofmerit. 41
2. A Motion for Reconsideration dated December 15, 1997 was filed
seeking for a reversal and exemption of those areas with a slope of
18% and above from CARP coverage. An addendum to the Motion
for Reconsideration dated February 2, 1998 was also filed wherein
Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation manifested,
among others, its voluntary offer to sell to the government a one
hundred-hectare portion of the subject land. For utter lack of merit,
both motions were dismissed by the DAR Regional Director on
August 7, 1998 and the order dated November 19, 1997 was
affirmed. 42
3. On September 25, 1998, an appeal was filed before the Office of
the Secretary. An Appeal Memorandum later filed on November
10, 1998 raised the following issue on whether the subject
landholding was properly subjected to CARP coverage. The Office
of the Secretary denied the appeal for lack of merit in an Order
dated March 17, 2004. The Order stated that the subject lands have
a slope of 18% and were already developed as of June 15, 1988.
Furthermore, the Order also stated that at the time of the resolution
of the Appeal therein, the subject land was already being occupied
by farmer-beneficiaries with their respective CLOAs which cannot
be attacked collaterally. The Order also held that Trinidad Valley
Realty and Development Corporation failed to prove, by
substantial evidence, that the areas that it wanted to be exempted
from CARP coverage due to the 18% slope limitation are nonproductive and less suitable for agricultural use. 43
This Order which was issued by the then DAR OIC-Secretary was not
appealed by protestant Trinidad Valley Realty and Development
Corporation to the CA. This Order is exactly in the nature of any such
"decision, order, award or ruling" of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on
any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or
interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform which
may be brought to the CA by certiorari, except as otherwise provided in RA
6657, within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof - and not to the RTC. It
is also significant to note that in the proceedings before the DAR involving
the protest of Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, the
issue on the unconstitutionality of the subject administrative issuances
promulgated to implement RA 6657 was never raised - an issue that must
have been raised at the earliest possible opportunity.
The jurisdictional shifts on the authority to hear and decide agrarian
reform matters is instructive:
41
42
43

Id. at 298.
Id. at 298-299.
Id. at 299-301.

Decision

12

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

x x x in 1980, upon the passage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,

otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act, the Courts of
Agrarian Relations were integrated into the Regional Trial Courts and the
jurisdiction of the former was vested in the latter courts.
However, with the enactment of Executive Order No. 229, which
took effect on August 29, 1987, the Regional Trial Courts were divested of
their general jurisdiction to try agrarian reform matters. The said
jurisdiction is now vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law,
which took effect on June 15, 1988, contains provisions which evince and
support the intention of the legislature to vest in the Department of
Agrarian Reform exclusive jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters.
Section 50, of said law substantially reiterates Section 17, of
Executive Order No. 229, vesting in the Department of Agrarian Reform
exclusive and original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, to wit:
"SECTION 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.
The DAR is hereby vested with 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)."
In addition, Sections 56 and 57, thereof provide for the designation
by the Supreme Court of at least one (1) branch of the Regional Trial
Court within each province to act as a special agrarian court. The said
special court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction only over
petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners
and the prosecution of criminal offenses under said Act. Said provisions
thus delimit the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts in agrarian cases
only to these two instances. Thus:
"SEC. 56. Special Agrarian Court. - The Supreme
Court shall designate at least one (1) branch of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) within each province to act as a Special
Agrarian Court.
"The Supreme Court may designate more branches
to constitute such additional Special Agrarian Courts as
may be necessary to cope with the number of agrarian cases
in each province. In the designation, the Supreme Court
shall give preference to the Regional Trial Courts which
have been assigned to handle agrarian cases or whose
presiding judges were former judges of the defunct Court
of Agrarian Relations.xx x."
"SEC. 57. Special Jurisdiction. - The Special
Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all
criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall

Decision

13

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts

unless modified by this Act.
"The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all
appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within
thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision."44

The case at bar deals with acts of the DAR and the application,
implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of RA 6657 - issues which
do not involve the "special jurisdiction" of the RTC acting as a Special
Agrarian Court. Hence, when the court a quo heard and decided the instant
case, it did so without jurisdiction.
The Court likewise ruled in the similar case of DAR v. Cuenca 45 that
"[a]ll controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that are also legal
or constitutional in nature." In said case, it was noted that the main thrust of
the allegations in the Complaint was the propriety of the Notice of Coverage
and "not x x x the 'pure question of law' spawned by the alleged
unconstitutionality of EO 405 - but x x x the annulment of the DAR' s
Notice of Coverage." 46 The Court thus held that:
To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of Coverage constitutes the
first necessary step towards the acquisition of private land under the
CARP. Plainly then, the propriety of the Notice relates to the
implementation of the CARP, which is under the quasi-judicial
jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not be ousted from its
authority by the simple expediency of appending an alleged~
constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian. 7
(Emphasis supplied)

The legal recourse undertaken by Trinidad Valley Realty and

Development Corporation, et al. is on all-fours with the remedy adopted by
the private respondents in Cuenca. In this case, Trinidad Valley Realty and
Development Corporation, et al. cloaked the issue as a constitutional
question - assailing the constitutionality of administrative issuances
promulgated to implement the agrarian reform law - in order to annul the
titles issued therein. In Cuenca, private respondents assailed the
constitutionality of EO 45 in order to annul the Notice of Coverage issued
therein. The only difference is that in Cuenca, private respondents directly
filed with the RTC their complaint to obtain the aforesaid reliefs while in
this case, Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. filed
their original petition for certiorari with the RTC after the protest of
Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation against the coverage
of its landholding under CARP was dismissed by the DAR Regional
Director and such dismissal was affirmed by DAR OIC Secretary Jose Mari
44
45
46
47

Rollo (G.R. No. 183191), pp. 127-128.

482 Phil. 208, 211 (2004).
Id. at 223.
Id. at 226.

Decision

14

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

B. Ponce. But in both cases, it is evident that the constitutional angle was
an attempt to exclude the cases from the ambit of the jurisdictional
prescriptions under RA 6657.
The Court further stated in Cuenca 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. "' 48 In the instant case, however, there is hardly any
doubt that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Consequently, it did not have authority to perform any of the following:
order the admission of the amended petition of Trinidad Valley Realty and
Development Corporation, et al., decide the amended petition on the merits,
or issue a permanent prohibitory injunction. In any case, such injunction
issued by the RTC is a nullity in view of the express prohibitory provisions
of the CARP and this Court's Administrative Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 382002 enjoining all trial judges to strictly observe Section 68 of RA 6657,
viz.:
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.

Given our ruling that the R TC lacked jurisdiction over the instant case,
we find no necessity to address the other issues raised in the three
consolidated petitions.
WHEREFORE, the Petition in G.R. No. 183191 is DENIED for lack
of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 88512 dated June 28, 2007 and May 21, 2008, respectively,
are hereby AFFIRMED. The Petitions in G.R. Nos. 173386 and 174162 are
hereby GRANTED. The challenged Order in Special Civil Action No. 0402-V, entitled Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al.
v. Jose Mari B. Ponce, in his capacity as Secretary of DAR, et al. dated
October 26, 2004 and the Decision in Civil Case No. 04-013-V, entitled
Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. v. The
Honorable Rene Villa, in his capacity as Secretary of DAR, et al. dated
October 17, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Guihulngan,
Negros Oriental are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE for lack of
jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros
Oriental is likewise ordered to DISMISS herein Special Civil Action No.
04-02-V and Civil Case No. 04-013-V for lack of jurisdiction. The Writ of
Permanent Prohibitory Injunction dated April 18, 2006 issued by the said
court by virtue of its Order on even date is hereby LIFTED and SET
ASIDE.
48

Id.

15

Decision

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

With costs against the petitioners in G .R. No. 183191.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Associate Justice

~J~~E~O ~~OD.BRI~N'
Associate Justice

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

~a:u~i;?
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

Decision

16

G.R. Nos. 173386, 174162 & 183191

JOSE

CA~A"ENDOZA
As~~~~Jh:tice

h~ /..k~

Associate Justice

ESTELA 'tW PERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice