Title
Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
Case
G.R. No. 100091
Decision Date
Oct 22, 1992
CMU's land, used for educational and agricultural research, exempt from CARP; no tenant-landlord relationship with complainants; DARAB lacked jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100091)

Overview of the Case

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to nullify the proceedings and decision of the DARAB dated September 4, 1989, and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 20, 1990, which ordered the segregation of 400 hectares of CMU land and its inclusion in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for distribution to beneficiaries. CMU contends that the DARAB lacked jurisdiction over this case.

Background of the Central Mindanao University

CMU is an agricultural educational institution established to address the public demand for agricultural training in Mindanao. Its land encompasses 3,080 hectares, set aside by Proclamation No. 476 issued by former President Carlos P. Garcia in 1958, to serve as its campus. Over the years, CMU has undergone various expansions, leading to significant increases in enrollment, necessitating responsible land use and growth.

The Development of Agrarian Programs

In the early 1980s, CMU initiated programs allowing faculty and employees to cultivate parts of its land, structured under agreements that explicitly stated no landlord-tenant relationships existed. Despite participants, including complainants like Alvin Obrique, receiving assistance and land for agricultural projects, the agreements emphasized that such use was temporary and for specific purposes aligned with CMU's educational objectives.

DARAB's Findings

DARAB found the private respondents were not tenants nor landless peasants and thus not eligible under CARP. The agency concluded that their claims to CMU land were unfounded, as evidence indicated the arrangements with CMU were contractual and not indicative of tenancy.

Key Questions Raised by CMU

CMU raised critical questions concerning DARAB's jurisdiction to address the tenants' status and the validity of the Court of Appeals' ruling that upheld DARAB's decision. Specifically, CMU contested whether the land designated for educational purposes could be subjected to CARP's coverage, given its status as an educational institution.

Analysis of Land Use Definition Under CARP

The court examined the definitions utilized by DARAB regarding land use and relevance to educational institutions. Section 10 of RA 6657 provides exemptions for lands directly required for school sites and agricultural experimentation. The court contended that CMU's land was essential for its operations and future expansion, which should exempt it from agrarian reform mandates.

Jurisdictional Concerns and DARAB's Authority

While acknowledging DARAB's jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, the court stated that this authority is limited to properties that fal

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.