The Supreme Court held that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) lacked jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the cancellation of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) because no agrarian tenancy relationship existed between the parties. This ruling clarifies that disputes arising from the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, particularly those not involving agricultural tenants, fall under the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary, not the DARAB. The decision underscores the importance of correctly identifying the nature of the dispute to ensure it is addressed by the appropriate administrative body.

Navigating the Agrarian Maze: Whose Court Is It Anyway?

This case revolves around a parcel of land in San Fernando City, La Union, originally owned by Santiago Nisperos. After Santiago and his wife passed away, disputes arose among their heirs regarding the transfer of a portion of the land to Marissa Nisperos-Ducusin, who was issued a CLOA. The heirs of Santiago Nisperos, claiming fraud and lack of consent, filed a complaint with the DARAB seeking to annul the Deed of Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) and the CLOA issued in favor of Marissa. The central legal question is whether the DARAB had the proper jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, considering the nature of the dispute and the relationship between the parties involved.

The petitioners argued that the transfer was fraudulent, alleging that Marissa took advantage of Maria Nisperos’s advanced age to facilitate the transfer. They also claimed that Marissa was not a bona fide beneficiary of the agrarian reform program as she was a minor and not engaged in farming at the time of the VLT. The DARAB initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, annulling the VLT and the CLOA. However, upon appeal, the DARAB reversed its decision, upholding the validity of the VLT and Marissa’s title, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, focused on the jurisdictional issue, emphasizing that the DARAB’s jurisdiction is limited to agrarian disputes. The court cited Section 1, Rule II of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure, which outlines the Board’s primary and exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). This jurisdiction specifically includes cases involving the issuance, correction, and cancellation of CLOAs registered with the Land Registration Authority. However, the mere involvement of a CLOA cancellation does not automatically vest jurisdiction in the DARAB.

The Court reiterated the importance of establishing an agrarian dispute, defining it as any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements over agricultural lands. Quoting Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657, the court stated:

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 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” and includes “any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act 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.”

Building on this principle, the Court referred to Morta, Sr. v. Occidental, emphasizing the necessity of a tenancy relationship between the parties for the DARAB to have jurisdiction. This relationship requires the presence of several indispensable elements, including a landowner and a tenant, agricultural land as the subject matter, consent between the parties, agricultural production as the purpose, personal cultivation by the tenant, and a sharing of the harvest. In this case, the petitioners did not allege any tenancy relationship with Marissa, instead characterizing her as a ward of one of the co-owners, thereby negating the existence of an agrarian dispute.

The Supreme Court emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not by the consent or waiver of the parties. As such, even if the parties did not challenge the DARAB’s jurisdiction, the Court could still address the issue if the lack of jurisdiction was apparent. The court stated:

It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer 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. Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law, and not by the consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the nature or subject matter of the action. Nor can it be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. Moreover, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over the cause of action. The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB does not prevent the court from addressing the issue, especially where the DARAB’s lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint or petition.

The Court, citing Heirs of Julian dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz, further clarified that cases involving the cancellation of CLOAs that do not relate to an agrarian dispute between a landowner and tenants fall under the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. This distinction is crucial in determining the proper forum for resolving such disputes. Here’s a comparison of the jurisdictional boundaries:

Jurisdiction	Type of Dispute	Parties Involved
DARAB	Agrarian disputes relating to tenurial arrangements	Landowner and tenant
DAR Secretary	Cases involving CLOA cancellation in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws	Parties who are not agricultural tenants

In cases where a complaint is filed with the incorrect body, the Court noted that Section 4 of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000, mandates the referral of the case to the proper office. The PARAD should have referred the complaint to the DAR Secretary, but failed to do so.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the DARAB, directing that the complaint be referred to the Office of the DAR Secretary for appropriate action. The Court emphasized the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which prevents courts from preempting the authority of administrative bodies with specialized competence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the DARAB had jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the cancellation of a CLOA when no agrarian tenancy relationship existed between the parties. The Supreme Court ultimately determined that the DARAB lacked jurisdiction.
Who has jurisdiction over CLOA cancellations not involving tenants?	The DAR Secretary has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction, and cancellation of CLOAs in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, particularly when the parties are not agricultural tenants. This is in contrast to the DARAB, which handles agrarian disputes between landowners and tenants.
What is an agrarian dispute?	An agrarian dispute is any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements over agricultural lands, including disputes concerning farmworkers’ associations or the terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries. A key element is the presence of a tenancy relationship.
What are the elements of a tenancy relationship?	The key elements of a tenancy relationship include a landowner and a tenant, agricultural land as the subject matter, consent between the parties, agricultural production as the purpose, personal cultivation by the tenant, and a sharing of the harvest. All these elements must be present to establish a tenancy relationship.
What happens if a case is filed with the wrong agency?	If a case is filed with the wrong agency, such as the DARAB when it lacks jurisdiction, the administrative order mandates the referral of the case to the proper office. This ensures that the case is handled by the appropriate body with the necessary expertise.
Why did the Supreme Court emphasize the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?	The Supreme Court emphasized the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to prevent courts from preempting the authority of administrative bodies with specialized competence. This ensures that the DAR, with its expertise in agrarian matters, has the opportunity to resolve the dispute.
Can parties confer jurisdiction on a tribunal through consent?	No, jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law, not by the consent or waiver of the parties. If a tribunal lacks jurisdiction, the parties cannot confer it through their actions or omissions.
What was the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the DARAB and directed that the complaint be referred to the Office of the DAR Secretary for appropriate action. This ensured that the dispute would be resolved by the proper administrative body.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of correctly identifying the nature of a dispute to ensure it is addressed by the appropriate administrative body. The ruling provides clarity on the jurisdictional boundaries between the DARAB and the DAR Secretary, particularly in cases involving CLOA cancellations. This ensures that agrarian disputes are resolved efficiently and effectively, with the proper expertise and authority.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: HEIRS OF SANTIAGO NISPEROS VS. MARISSA NISPEROS-DUCUSIN, G.R. No. 189570, July 31, 2013