Updates Darab Rules

48
By: ASEC. Augusto P. Quijano DARAB

Transcript of Updates Darab Rules

Page 1: Updates Darab Rules

By: ASEC. Augusto P. Quijano

DARAB

Page 2: Updates Darab Rules

1. LEGAL BASIS OF THE DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE

1.a. Section 49, RA No. 6657:

“Rules and Regulations-The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and regulations whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act. Said rules shall take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national newspapers of several circulation.”

Page 3: Updates Darab Rules

1.b. Section 50, Republic Act No. 6657:

“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 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): XXX”

Page 4: Updates Darab Rules

1.c. Section 34, Executive Order No. 129-A

“Implementing Authority of the

Secretary.

The Secretary shall issue orders, rules and regulations and other issuances as may be necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of this Executive Order.”

Page 5: Updates Darab Rules

1.d. Section 17, Executive Order No. 229

“Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.

The DAR is hereby vested with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and DA.”

Page 6: Updates Darab Rules

2. Evolution of Jurisdiction on Agrarian Cases

Rule: The jurisdiction of court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of an action. 2.a. Section 12. Presidential

Decree No. 946 vested the then Court of Agrarian Relations with original exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving rights granted and obligations imposed by presidential issuance promulgated in relation to the agrarian reform program.

Page 7: Updates Darab Rules

3. Section 17, Executive Order No. 229 - Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DENR and the DA. (Note: Sec 50, RA 6657 substantially reiterates Section 17, EO 229 while Sections 56 and 57 provide for the designation of at least one branch of the RTC in each province as a Special Agrarian Court. (Tiongson vs. CA, 214 SCRA 197)

2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 - Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. The Courts of Agrarian Relations were integrated into the Regional Trial Courts and the jurisdiction of the former was vested in the latter courts.

Page 8: Updates Darab Rules

3.“QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE DAR. (DARAB OR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, SEC. 50 RA 6657)-

3.a. Primary Jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate Agrarian Reform Matters: and Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over all matter involving the implementation of agrarian reform; except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Machete vs CA, 250 SCRA 176 (1995)

3.b. DARAB has JURISDICTION over Agrarian Disputes: (Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB, 215 SCRA 96)

Page 9: Updates Darab Rules

4. DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE:4.a. DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure Effectivity –February 6, 1989;

4.b.DARAB New Rules of Procedure

Effectivity – June 22, 1994

4.c.DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedure

Effectivity- February 8, 2003

3.b.1. Agrarian Dispute – refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or indications of such tenurial arrangements. (Par. D, Sec. 3, RA 6657) (Isidro vs. CA, 228 SCRA 503)

Page 10: Updates Darab Rules

5. CASES UNDER THE PRIMARY AND EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE DARAB

Sec. 1, Rule II. 2003 DARAB of Procedure. They are as follows:

5.a. Cases involving rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management cultivation and use of all agricultural lands (Caballes vs. DAR, 168 SCRA 259 (1988; Oarde vs. CA, 280 SCARA 235 (1997);

5.b.Preliminary administrative determination of just compensation; (Executive Order No. 405.);

Page 11: Updates Darab Rules

5.c.Annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR or LBP;

5.d.Ejectment and dispossession of tenants/leaseholders:

5.e.Sale, alienation, pre-emption, and redemption of agricultural lands;

5.f.Correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent issuances of registered CLOAs and EPs;

5.g.Review of leasehold rentals;5.h.Collection of amortizations on

payments for lands awarded under PD No. 27, including payment for residential, commercial and industrial lots within settlement and resettlement areas;

Page 12: Updates Darab Rules

5.i.Annulment or rescission of lease contracts and deeds of sale and the cancellation or amendments of titles of lands under the administration of DAR, homestead patents, free patents, miscellaneous sales patents, to setters in settlement and resettlement areas;

5.j.Boundary disputes;5.k.Determination of title of agricultural lands

where the issue is raised in an agrarian dispute;5.l.Cases previously falling under the original

and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12; PD No. 946;

5.m.Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of DAR.

Page 13: Updates Darab Rules

6. AGRARIAN LAW IMPLEMENTATION CASES Sec. 3. Rules 11, 2003 DARAB Rules of

Procedure and Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000. These cases are exclusively cognizable and under the exclusive prerogative of the Office of the Secretary of DAR.

6.a.Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of CLOAs and EPs, including protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of such coverage;

6.b.Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or disqualification of potential/actual farmer-beneficiaries;

Page 14: Updates Darab Rules

6.c.Subdivision surveys of land under CARP;

6.d.Recall, or cancellation of provisional lease rentals, Certificates of Land Transfers (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall, or cancellation of EPs or CLOAs not yet registered with Register of Deeds;

6.e.Exercise of the right of retention by the landowner;

Page 15: Updates Darab Rules

6.f.Application for exemption from coverage under Section 10 of RA 6657;

6.g.Application for exemption pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion NO. 44 (1990);

6.h.Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for livestock, swine, and poultry raising;

6.i.Cases of exemption/exclusion of fish pond and prawn farms from the coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881;

6.j.Issuance of Certificate of exemption for land subject Voluntary Officer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for agricultural purposes;

Page 16: Updates Darab Rules

6.k.Application for conversion of agricultural land to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non agricultural uses and purposes including protests or oppositions thereto;

6.l.Determination of the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries to homelots;

6.m.Disposition of excess area of the tenants/farmer-beneficiary’s landholdings;

6.n.Increase in area of tillage of a tenant/farmer-beneficiary;

3.o.Conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR and its predecessors; or

Page 17: Updates Darab Rules

6.p.Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR.

7. SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT (SAC) The Supreme Court shall designate at least one

(1) branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) within each province to act as Special Agrarian Court.

Section 56 of R.A. No. 6657 confers “special jurisdiction” on “Special Agrarian Courts”. These Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts have, according to Sec. 57 of the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and (b) the prosecution of all criminal offenses under the Act. (Machete vs. CA, 250 SCRA 176)

Page 18: Updates Darab Rules

7.a.Just Compensation” is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, that the measure is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. The word “just” is used to intensify the  meaning of the word “compensation” to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (1989).

Page 19: Updates Darab Rules

7.b. “The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less “original and exclusive”, because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. For the matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of administrative action” (Phil. Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000).

Page 20: Updates Darab Rules

“It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, Section II, the original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide petition for determination of just compensation has already been transformed into an appellate jurisdiction.

It only means that, in accordance with settled principle of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the CARP, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts (ibid).

Page 21: Updates Darab Rules

7.c. Nothing contradictory between the provisions of Sec. 50, R.A. 6657 granting the Department of Agrarian Reform primary jurisdiction (administrative proceeding) to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform"   which

Page 22: Updates Darab Rules

includes the determination of questions of just compensation, and the provisions of Sec. 57, R.A. 6657 granting Regional Trial Courts "original and exclusive jurisdiction” (judicial proceeding) over (1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowner, and (2) prosecutions of criminal offenses under Republic Act No. 6657. (Philippine Veterans Bank vs. CA, 322 SCRA 139). 

Page 23: Updates Darab Rules

The DAR has original, exclusive, jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, except on the aspects of (a) just compensation; and (b) criminal jurisdiction over which regular courts have jurisdiction. (Vda. De Tangub vs. CA, 191 SCRA 885)

Where there are no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever between the parties that could bring a controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform laws, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has no jurisdiction. (Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. CA, 327 SCRA 293).

Page 24: Updates Darab Rules

7.d.Supreme Court Circulars on Jurisdiction - Re: Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

7.d.1.Office of Court Administrator Circular No. 79-2003, June 12, 2003 issuance of TROs & Writs of Preliminary Injunction (P.I.) – Presbetero .J. Velasco;

7.d.2.Office of Court Adm. Circular No. 23, 2004. Feb.13, 2004 Presbetero J. Velasco - Reiteration of Circular Regarding TROs, Writs of Preliminary Injunction (PI), Prohibition & Mandamus over cases under CARP.

Page 25: Updates Darab Rules

7.d.3. Adm. Circular No. 38, 2002 Chief Justice (CJ) Hilario G. David – Implementation of Sec. 68, RA 6657 – Immunity of Gov’t Agencies from Undue Interference – No injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by lower courts, against DAR, DAR, DENR & DOJ in the implementation of the CARP.”

7.d.4. Adm. Circular No. 29-2002 – Avoidance of Conflict of Jurisdiction over cases under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

Page 26: Updates Darab Rules

E.2. Elements of Tenancy

The leading cases are the following, to wit:

8.a. Bernas vs. CA, 225 SCRA 119 -- Consent of the lawful possessor creates tenancy; 8.b. Castillo vs. CA, 205 SCRA 229 (1993) A hollowblock maker or piggery/poultry owner cannot claim tenancy on land which is not devoted to agricultural production; 8.c. Tiongson vs. CA, 214 SCRA 197 – Tenancy is created by the consent of the true and lawful landholder through lawful means and not by imposition or usurpation

Page 27: Updates Darab Rules

8.d. Zamoras vs. Su, Jr. 184 SCRA 248 (1990) An overseer cannot be a tenant because of the absence of personal cultivation. Also in Matienzo vs. Servidad, 107 SCRA 276 (1981). There is no tenancy because of the absence sharing arrangement with an overseer. 8.e. Caballes vs. DAR, 168 SCRA 254 (1988). Agricultural production is not present. Respondent is only a caretaker who cannot qualify to be a tenant.

Note: Latay vs. Banog, 16 SCRA 88, the SC considered a caretaker as a tenant.

Page 28: Updates Darab Rules

8.f. Teodoro vs. Macaraeg, 27 SCRA 7 (1969). Where there is sharing of the produce or rental payment tenancy exist.

9. EJECTMENT OF TENANTS FOR NON-PAYMENT OF LEASE RENTALS.

9.a. Par.6, Sec. 36, RA 3844 – The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due, Provided, x x x 9.b. Presidential Decree No. 816 (October 21, 1976) penalized any agricultural lessee on rice and corn lands under PD 27 who deliberately refuses or continue to refuse to pay rentals or

Page 29: Updates Darab Rules

amortization when they are due and remain unpaid within a period of two years.

9.c. Section 38. Statute of Limitation - Application to Sec. 36. RA 3844.

9.d. Roxas y Cia vs. Hon. Jose R. Cabatuando, et. al., 1 SCRA 1106 – The mere failure of a tenant to pay the landholder’s share does not necessarily give the latter right to eject the former when there is lack of deliberate intent in the part of the tenant to pay, or there is failure of crop due to fortuitous event.

Page 30: Updates Darab Rules

10 RIGHT OF REDEMPTIONS:Spouses Eligio P. Mallari et al.

vs. Ignacio Arcega, et al. [G.R. No. 106615. March 20, 2002]

Ignacio Arcega et. al, vs. Honorable Norberto C. Ponce et. al. [G.R. No. 108591. March 20, 2002].

Spouses Eligio P. Mallari et. al., vs. Ignacio Arcega et al. [G.R. 109452. March 20, 2002]

Spouses Eligio P. Mallari et. al., vs. Ignacio Arcega et. al., [G.R. No. 109978. March 20, 2002]

Spouses Eligio P. Mallari et. al., vs. Ignacio Arcega, et al. [G.R. No. 139379. March 20, 2002]

Page 31: Updates Darab Rules

The appellate court correctly ruled that it is not necessary for the lessee to make a tender of payment and/or consignation of the amount of redemption price, and that a certification issued by the Land Bank that it will finance the redemption of the property in question is sufficient. . . .” 

Page 32: Updates Darab Rules

"Section 11 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, is a provision on the lessee's right of pre-emption and provides that: `. . . If the agricultural lessee agrees with the terms and condition of the sale . . . [he] must either tender payment of, or present a certificate from the Land Bank that it shall make payment . . . on the price of the landholding to the agricultural lessor. If the latter refuses to accept such tender or presentment, he may consign it with the court . . . ' True, said provision does not appear in Section 12 thereof, which refers to the lessees' right of redemption. However, there is no doubt that within the context of the Code and in line with this Court's exhortation that a liberal interpretation of the Code's provisions is imperative, to give it full force and effect to its clear

Page 33: Updates Darab Rules

intent, the lessee-preemptioner and the lessee-redemptioner have the same rights and are in the same footing and category insofar as the availment of the facilities of the Land Bank and the Ministry of Agrarian Reform are concerned. Moreover, it is explicitly provided in Section 12 that `the Department of Agrarian Reform shall initiate while the Land Bank shall finance, said redemption as in the case of preemption.' Hence, it is not necessary for tenants redemptioners to make a tender of payment and/or consignation of the redemption price. A certification from the Land Bank to finance the redemption when presented will suffice. . . .

Page 34: Updates Darab Rules

11. VALUATION OF LANDS UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27

11.a. The value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one half (2-1/2) times the AVERAGE HARVEST OF THREE NORMAL CROP YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PROMULGATION OF THIS DECREE. 11.b. LBP vs. CA and Jose Pascual, G.R. No. 128557, Dec. 29, 1990- The Supreme Court decided not to apply the 6% increment to the valuation because the Court of Appeals affirmed the PARAD’s use

Page 35: Updates Darab Rules

of the 1992 Gross Selling Price in the valuation of the private respondents lands following the ruling the Court of Appeals in the case of Galeon vs. Pastoral, CA-G.R. No. 23168. 11. c. Rolando Sigre vs. CA and Lilia Y. Gonzales, 387 SCRA 15 and LBP vs. CA and Lilia Gonzales, 387 & SCRA 15.

DOCTRINES 11.c.1. “The power of subordinate legislation allows administrative bodies to implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by “filing in” the details, and all that is required is that the regulation should be  germane to the objects

Page 36: Updates Darab Rules

and purposes of the law and that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law. One such administrative regulation is DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6. As emphasized in De Chavez v. Zobel, emancipation is the goal of P.D. 27, i.e., freedom from the bondage if the soil by transferring to the tenant-farmers the ownership of the land they’re tilling.”

Page 37: Updates Darab Rules

11.c.2 Since DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6 essentially sought to accomplish the noble purpose of P.D. 27 it is therefore valid and has the force of law.-The rationale for the Circular was, in fact, explicitly recognized by the appellate court when it stated that "(T)he main purpose of the circular is to make certain that the lease rental payments of the tenant-farmer are applied to his amortizations on the purchase price of the land x x x. The circular was meant to remedy the situation where the tenant-farmer's lease rentals to landowner

Page 38: Updates Darab Rules

were not credited in his favor against the determined purchase price of the land, thus making him a perpetual obligor for said purchase price. "Since the assailed Circular essentially sought to accomplish the noble purpose of P.D. 27, it is therefore valid. Such being the case, it has the force of law and is entitled to great respect.

Page 39: Updates Darab Rules

11.c.3. The Court cannot see any "irreconcilable conflict" between P.D. No. 816 and DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6. Enacted in 1975, P.D. No. 816 provides that the tenant-farmer (agricultural lessee) shall pay lease rentals to the landowner until the value of the property has been determined or agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR. On the other hand, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6, implemented in 1978, mandates that the tenant-farmer shall pay to LBP the lease rental after the value of the land has been determined.

Page 40: Updates Darab Rules

11.c.4. Both Memorandum Circular No. 6 and P.D. 816 were issued pursuant to and in implementation of P.D. 27. These must not be read in isolation, but rather, in conjunction with each other. Private respondent, however, “split hairs,” so to speak, and contends that the Curso case is premised on the assumption that the Circular implements P.D. 816, whereas it is expressly stated in the Circular that it was issued in implementation of P.D 27, These must not be read in isolation, but rather, in conjunction with each other. Under P.D. 816, rental payments shall be made to the landowner. After the value of the land has been determined/established, then the tenant-farmers shall pay their amortizations to the LBP, as provided in DAR Circular No. 6. Clearly, there is no inconsistency between them. Au contaire, P.D. 816 and DAR Circular No. 6

Page 41: Updates Darab Rules

supplement each other insofar as it sets the guidelines for the payment of lease rentals on the agricultural property.

11.c.5. That P.D. 27 does not suffer any constitutional infirmity is a judicial fact that has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court in a number of cases. As early as 1974, in the aforecited case of De Chavez v. Zobel, 24 P.D. 27 was assumed to be constitutional, and upheld as part and parcel of the law of the land, viz.:"There is no doubt then, as set forth expressly therein, that the goal is emancipation. What is more, the decree is now part and parcel of the law of the land according to the revised Constitution itself. Ejectment therefore of petitioners is simply out of the question. That would be to set at naught an express mandate of the Constitution. Once it has spoken, our duty

Page 42: Updates Darab Rules

is clear; obedience is unavoidable. This is not only so because of the cardinal postulate of constitutionalism, the supremacy of the fundamental law. It is also because any other approach would run the risk of setting at naught this basic aspiration to do away with all remnants of a feudalistic order at war with the promise and the hope associated with an open society. To deprive petitioners of the small landholdings in the face of a presidential decree considered ratified by the new Constitution and precisely in accordance with its avowed objective could indeed be contributory to perpetuating the misery that tenancy had spawned in the past as well as the grave social problems thereby created. There can be no justification for any other decision then whether predicated on a juridical norm or on the traditional role assigned to the judiciary of implementing and not thwarting fundamental policy goals.“

Page 43: Updates Darab Rules

11.c.6. The determination of just compensation under P.D. No. 27, like in Section 16 (d) of R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law, is not final or conclusive. – unless both the landowner and the tenant-farmer accept the valuation of the property by the Barrrio Committee on Land Production and the DAR, the parties may bring dispute to court in order to determine the appropriate amount of compensation a task unmistakably within the prerogative of the court. This is evident from the succeeding paragraph of Section 2 of E.O. 228:

Page 44: Updates Darab Rules

". . . In the event of dispute with the landowner regarding the amount of lease rental paid by the farmer beneficiary, the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Barangay Committee on Land Production concerned shall resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days from its submission pursuant to Department of Agrarian Reform Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973, and other pertinent issuances. In the event a party questions in court the resolution of the dispute, the landowner's compensation shall still be processed for payment and the proceeds shall be held in trust by the Trust Department of the Land Bank in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 hereof, pending the resolution of the dispute before the court."

Page 45: Updates Darab Rules

11.c.7. The Court need not belabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law operates distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers all public and private agricultural land including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture as provided for in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229; 36 while, P.D. 27 covers rice and corn lands.

Page 46: Updates Darab Rules

12. EXECUTION OF THE ADJUDICATORS DECISION PENDING APPEAL TO THE BOARD. 

12.a. Section 2, Rule XX 2003 DARAB Rules “Execution Pending Appeal. Any motion for execution of the decision of the adjudicator pending appeal shall be filed before the Board which may grant the same upon meritorious grounds, upon the posting of a sufficient bond in the amount conditioned for the payment of damages which the aggrieved party may suffer, in the event that the final order or decision is reversed on appeal, provided that the bond requirement shall not apply if the movant is a farmer-beneficiary/pauper litigant.” 

Page 47: Updates Darab Rules

12.b. Section 3, Rule XX 2003 DARAB Rules “Execution when issued; Exception. On Motion of the prevailing party or motu proprio, the Board or the adjudicator shall order execution of an order or decision that has already became final and executory.” 

“Appeal shall not stay the execution of a decision or order except when the ejectment of a tenant farmer, agricultural lessee or tiller, settler, or amortizing owner-cultivator is directed.” 

“When the decision is based on an amicable settlement or compromise agreement, the same shall be immediately executory.”

Page 48: Updates Darab Rules