Case Summary (G.R. No. 221484)
Factual Background
Robustum Agricultural Corporation was the registered owner of a 50,000-square meter parcel of agricultural land in Silay City per Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-15256. The subject land formed part of a larger 300,000-square meter estate formerly titled to Puyas Agro, Inc. On December 5, 2013, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer II Teresita R. Mabunay transmitted to petitioner a copy of a notice of coverage and advised that, as a transferee of a portion of the mother estate, petitioner would be included as an “alternative land owner and payee” for purposes of documentation, valuation, and payment of compensation under CARP.
Notices of Coverage and DAR Communications
The DAR issued a further notice of coverage dated June 11, 2014 identifying the mother estate, the subject land, and other agricultural lands as subject to agrarian reform. That notice was published in the Philippine Star on June 12, 2014. Petitioner refused to accept the Transmittal and the attached notice of coverage sent in December 2013.
Petition and Grounds for Relief
On August 14, 2014, Robustum Agricultural Corporation filed a petition for quieting of title and declaratory relief against Department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines in the RTC of Silay City. The petition challenged the efficacy of the DAR’s notice of coverage on two grounds. First, petitioner argued that the DAR’s publication in a newspaper was not proper service because DAR AO No. 07-11 prescribed personal service as the primary means. Second, petitioner asserted that even if publication were proper, the notice was ineffective as against the subject land because it was not posted on the property and on the city or barangay bulletin board for seven days as required by Section 19 of DAR AO No. 07-11. Petitioner sought a declaration that the subject land was free from CARP coverage and injunctive relief preventing DAR and LBP from acting pursuant to the notice of coverage.
Respondents' Plea of Lack of Jurisdiction
Both DAR and LBP answered and moved to dismiss for lack of RTC jurisdiction. They contended that the petition raised issues that belong to the DAR’s exclusive original jurisdiction over implementation of agrarian reform matters under Section 50 of RA No. 6657. They relied on precedent and DAR’s regulatory scheme to show that challenges to notices of coverage are agrarian implementation matters within DAR’s quasi-judicial competence.
Trial Court Ruling
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction by Order dated June 11, 2015. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated September 28, 2015. The RTC held that the issues raised by the petition pertained to agrarian law implementation and thus fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Appeal and Petitioner’s Principal Legal Argument
Petitioner appealed directly to the Supreme Court. It argued that Section 30 of RA No. 9700 limited the DAR’s jurisdiction to agrarian implementation cases that were pending on June 30, 2014 and thereby extinguished the DAR’s authority over cases filed after that cut-off date. Petitioner maintained that because its petition was filed after June 30, 2014, jurisdiction properly lay with the regular courts and not with the DAR.
Supreme Court’s Threshold Interpretation of Section 30 of RA No. 9700
The Court construed Section 30 of RA No. 9700 as an authorizing provision that permits the DAR to continue to process, decide, and execute any case or proceeding involving implementation of RA No. 6657 that remained pending on June 30, 2014. The Court held that the provision did not vest jurisdiction in regular courts over matters otherwise within the DAR’s exclusive competence. Instead, Section 30 preserved the DAR’s authority to conclude proceedings that were already pending as of that date.
Legal Background: RA No. 9700 and the Extension of CARP
The Court explained that RA No. 9700 amended RA No. 6657 to extend the period for land acquisition and distribution up to June 30, 2014 and to set priorities for completion. The Court observed that although Section 7 as amended directed completion by June 30, 2014, Section 30 qualified that directive by allowing pending proceedings to proceed to finality beyond that date. The Court reasoned that “proceeding involving the implementation” is broad enough to include the entire compulsory acquisition and distribution process.
Procedure for Compulsory Acquisition and the Role of Notices of Coverage
The Court recited the statutory scheme under Section 16 of RA No. 6657 for compulsory acquisition and the DAR’s regulatory framework, including DAR AO No. 12, 1989, subsequent amendments, and DAR AO No. 07-11. The Court explained that DAR regulations treat the issuance of a notice of coverage as the commencement of a compulsory acquisition proceeding. A notice of coverage informs the registered landowner of DAR’s determination that the land is subject to CARP, sets out remedies, and triggers the periods for protest or petition to lift coverage. The Court noted that service and posting requirements in DAR AO No. 07-11 are necessary to vest DAR with jurisdiction over the owner and the land.
Existence of a Pending Compulsory Acquisition Proceeding Prior to June 30, 2014
The Court found as fact that two notices of coverage affecting the subject land were issued before June 30, 2014: the notice referenced in the December 5, 2013 Transmittal of NOC and the notice dated June 11, 2014 and published in the Philippine Star on June 12, 2014. The Court concluded that, at the latest, a proceeding for compulsory land acquisition and distribution against the mother estate and the subject land had been initiated on June 11, 2014 and therefore was pending as of June 30, 2014.
DAR's Continued Authority and the Doctrine of Necessary Implication
The Court held that the statutory grant in Section 30 of RA No. 9700 to conclude pending agrarian proceedings necessarily includes the incidental powers required to effectuate that grant. Applying the doctrine of necessary implication, the Court reasoned that the DAR’s authority to complete proceedings pending on June 30, 2014 must include the continued exercise of its quasi-judicial powers under Section 50 of RA No. 6657 to determine agrarian implementation controversies that arise in those proceedings.
Proper Forum for Challenges to Notices of Coverage
The Court reiterated precedent, notably Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca, holding that questions regarding the propriety or efficacy of a notice of coverage concern the implementation of CARP a
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 221484)
Parties and Posture
- Robustum Agricultural Corporation was the petitioner and registered owner of the subject land under TCT No. T-15256.
- Department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines were the respondents in the RTC action and in this appeal.
- The case was appealed as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court from orders of the RTC, Branch 69, Silay City.
Key Facts
- The subject land measured fifty thousand square meters and formed part of a mother estate of three hundred thousand square meters formerly owned under TCT No. T-7703 by Puyas Agro, Inc.
- On December 5, 2013, the DAR, through PARO II Teresita R. Mabunay, issued a transmittal dated December 5, 2013 furnishing a copy of a notice of coverage and stating that petitioner would be included as an "alternative land owner and payee."
- The DAR issued another notice of coverage dated June 11, 2014 which was published in the June 12, 2014 issue of the Philippine Star.
Notices and Service
- The DAR transmittal of December 5, 2013 advised petitioner of the earlier notice of coverage and informed it of DAR procedures including inclusion as payee and limitations on retention rights.
- Petitioner refused to receive the December 5, 2013 transmittal and attached notice of coverage.
- The June 11, 2014 notice of coverage was effected by newspaper publication in accordance with the DAR practice when other service means fail or as provided by DAR regulations.
Pleadings and Relief Sought
- On August 14, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for quieting of title and declaratory relief before the RTC of Silay City challenging the efficacy of the DAR notice of coverage.
- Petitioner prayed for a declaration that the subject land was free from CARP coverage and for injunctive relief restraining DAR and LBP from actions pursuant to the published notice of coverage.
- DAR and LBP filed answers and raised a jurisdictional objection based on the DAR’s exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian implementation matters.
Statutory Framework
- Republic Act No. 6657 governs the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and provides the procedures for compulsory acquisition in Sec. 16 and vests the DAR with quasi-judicial powers in Sec. 50.
- Republic Act No. 9700 extended and reformed CARP and contains Sec. 30 permitting cases or proceedings involving implementation pending on June 30, 2014 to proceed to finality beyond that date.
- DAR A.O. No. 07-11 (2011 Revised Rules) governs issuance, service, and posting of notices of coverage, including Sec. 15 on issuance and related provisions on service and posting.
- DAR A.O. No. 03-17 (2017 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation) provides that petitions to lift notice of coverage commence at the DAR Municipal Office and prescribes filing periods in Sec. 12.2.
Procedural History
- The RTC, Branch 69, Silay City dismissed petitioner’s RTC petition for lack of jurisdiction by Order dated June 11, 2015.
- The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Order dated September 28, 2015.
- Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition in the Supreme Court and the Court issued the present decision.
Issues Presented
- Whether Section 30 of RA No. 9700 limited the DAR’s exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian implementation matters so as to vest regular courts with jurisdiction over agrarian cases filed after June 30, 2014.
- Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for quieting of title and declaratory relief for lack of jurisdiction.