Title
Supreme Court
Concha vs. Rubio
Case
G.R. No. 162446
Decision Date
Mar 29, 2010
Land dispute under CARP: tenants challenged CLOA issuance, claiming tenancy rights. SC ruled DARAB lacks jurisdiction; beneficiary selection is DAR's administrative function, upholding petitioners' CLOAs.

Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 8108, 10299)

Applicable Law

The underlying legal framework guiding this case is anchored on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) of 1988, along with relevant administrative issuances and prior administrative decisions that delineate the jurisdiction of various bodies within the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) concerning the selection and identification of eligible beneficiaries under CARP.

Initiation of the Agrarian Dispute

The land in question was seized under the Compulsory Acquisition Scheme of CARP, following a Notice of Coverage sent to landowners on June 16, 1993, which identified potential beneficiaries, including both petitioners and respondents. The determination of beneficiaries soon became contentious, with respondents filing a complaint in March 1995 asserting their rights as tenants and beneficiaries while disputing the eligibility of petitioners based on their claims of voluntary relinquishment.

Administrative Proceedings and Decisions

The dispute saw movements through various administrative bodies, beginning with the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD), which initially dismissed the respondents' claims on grounds that they had waived their rights as tenants. However, upon appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) contradicted PARAD’s decision and ordered the cancellation of petitioner-issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs), asserting that voluntary surrender from beneficiaries must be corroborated by evidence establishing advantageous conditions for such relinquishment.

Court of Appeals Rulings

The case reached the Court of Appeals, which, in its early rulings, found in favor of the petitioners, only to later reverse its decision upon reconsideration, reinstating DARAB’s findings. The CA emphasized the significance of the initial tenurial relationships and contractual agreements that established the respondents’ purported claims as tenants over the land.

Jurisdictional Issues

Central to the findings was the question of jurisdiction concerning the DARAB and its ability to decide on matters relating to the identification of CARP beneficiaries. The Supreme Court asserted that the identification and selection of beneficiaries fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary, which is a function that cannot be arbitrated by the DARAB. The Court reaffirmed that administrative actions regarding beneficiary selection should remain strictly a prerogative of the DAR.

Supreme Court Findings

The Supreme Court granted the petitioners' request, effectively reversing the Court of Appeals' amended decision that reinstated the DARAB decision. The Court underscored the lack of jurisdiction exercised by DARAB in determining beneficiary eligibility, thereby reinfo

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.