Case Digest (G.R. No. 201652)
Facts:
In Heirs of Simeon Latayan v. Peing Tan, G.R. No. 201652, December 02, 2015, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court, resolved whether the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) or the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR Secretary) had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs).Petitioners are the Heirs of Simeon Latayan (Leonides Q. Latayan, Ariel Q. Latayan and Ethel Q. Latayan-Ampil), substituted for Simeon after his death; respondents are the private individuals who received CLOAs. The proceedings below also involved the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), and issues implicating the Office of the DAR Secretary.
On January 31, 2000, Simeon filed an amended complaint before the PARAD in Davao City (DARAB Case No. XI-1589-DC-99) seeking cancellation of CLOAs issued to respondents and reinstatement of his Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), alleging lack of notice, absence of consent to fixing of just compensation, nonqualification of the alleged beneficiaries, and that the land was an already-developed agro‑industrial estate (partly within a 1,000‑meter road strip) exempt from CARP. Respondents answered, asserting that notices were given, the properties were properly covered, and they were identified as qualified beneficiaries.
The PARAD rendered a Decision dated July 10, 2000 declaring the compulsory coverage null and void and cancelling the CLOAs for lack of due process; a September 13, 2000 Resolution denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration. Respondents appealed to the DARAB. While the appeal was pending Simeon died and his heirs were substituted.
In its May 9, 2005 Decision, the DARAB set aside the PARAD decision and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the controversy involved administrative implementation issues (classification/identification of land and beneficiaries) falling within the primary jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary under DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000. A January 6, 2009 DARAB resolution denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated April 29, 2011 (and a Resolution of April 18, 2012 denying reconsideration), the CA affirmed the DARAB's dismissal with modification, holding that the matter did not present an agrarian dispute (no tenancy relationship) and that issues involving issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs where no agrarian dispute exists are administrative and cognizable by the DAR Secretary; the CA nevertheless conditioned the dismissal by allowing re-filing in accordance with DAR AO No. 6-00...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the DARAB had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for cancellation of CLOAs in DARAB Case No. 10403 (i.e., whether the controversy was an agrarian dispute within DARAB’s exclusive original jurisdiction).
- Whether the DAR Secretary has exclusive original jurisdiction over cancellation of registered CLOAs (and related questions of coverage and qualification of beneficiaries), such that the courts must defer under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and petitioner...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)