PREPARED BY: JUDE VINCENT FONTILON

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THROUGH ITS PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM

OFFICER OF DAVAO CITY, AND THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF
CALINAN, DAVAO CITY, Petitioners, v. WOODLAND AGRO-DEVELOPMENT,
INC., Respondent.
G. R. No. 188174

June 29, 2015

DECISION
SERENO, C.J.:
This Petition for Review under Rule 45 seeks the nullification of the Decision 1 dated 2 February
2009 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City Branch 14 (RTC) and its Order 2 dated 8
May 2009 in Special Civil Case No. 30855-2005. The RTC nullified the Notice of Coverage (NOC)
dated 11 December 2003 and Notice of Acquisition (NOA) dated 5 October 2004 issued by
petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) over a portion of a parcel of land owned by
respondent Woodland Agro-Development. Inc. (Woodland). The court also denied DARs Motion
Reconsideration.3chanrobleslaw

for

The issue before this Court is whether Republic Act No. 8532 (R.A. 8532) authorized the DAR to
issue Notices of Coverage and Acquisition after 15 June 1998, or beyond the 10-year
implementation period provided for in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. 6657) or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), which states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 5. Schedule of Implementation. The distribution of all lands covered by this Act shall
be implemented immediately and completed within ten (10) years from the effectivity
thereof.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Court rules that R.A. 8532 extended the term of the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under the CARL. Consequently, the NOC dated 11 December
2003 and NOA dated 5 October 2004 issued over the portion of respondents land are valid.
Antecedent Facts
Woodland is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. T-113207 with an area of 10.0680 hectares located at Subasta, Calinan, Davao
City.4On 11 December 2003, the DAR issued an NOC 5 placing 5.0680 hectares under the
coverage

of

the

CARL

for

having

exceeded

the

retention

limit 6 provided

by

law.

TCT No. T-113207 was canceled, and a new title covering 5.0680 hectares was issued in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines. 7 Thereafter, on 14 February 2005, Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) were issued in favor of five farmer beneficiaries. 8chanrobleslaw
On 3 March 2005, Woodland filed with the RTC a Complaint 9 for Declaratory Relief, Annulment
of the Notice of Coverage under R.A. 6657, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Woodland contended that the issuance
of the NOC was illegal, because R.A. 6657 had already expired on 15 June 1998. 10 It argued that
pursuant to Section 5 of the law, the agency had a period of ten (10) years to implement the
CARP from the time of its effectivity on 15 June 1988. It further argued that the CARLs
amendatory law, R.A. 8532, did not extend the DARs authority to acquire agrarian lands for
distribution. It theorized that the budget augmentations legislated in R.A. 8532 pertained only to
the funding requirements of the other facets of the CARP implementation and excluded the
acquisition

of

private

agricultural

lands. 11chanrobleslaw

The DAR hinged its Answer12 on Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 009, Series of 1997
issued by then DOJ Secretary Teofisto Guingona, Jr. He opined that Section 5 was merely
directory in character; that the 10-year period of implementation was only a time frame given to
the DAR for the acquisition and distribution of public and private agricultural lands covered by
R.A. 6657.13 The schedule was meant to guide the DAR in setting its priorities, but it was not by
any means a limitation of authority in the absence of more categorical language to that
effect.14chanrobleslaw
The Ruling of the RTC
The RTC ruled that the DARs act of sending Woodland an NOC was already a breach of R.A.
6657, since the NOC was issued beyond the 10-year period prescribed by law. 15 The trial court
further ruled that R.A. 8532 only amended the CARLs provision on the sourcing of funds for the
implementation of the CARP, and not the provision on the period within which the DAR may
acquire lands for distribution. The court held that R.A. 8532 did not extend the 10-year period of
land acquisition.16 Neither did it overstep the DARs jurisdiction to try agrarian matters, but only
determined

Woodlands

rights

under

the

CARL. 17chanrobleslaw

The dispositive portion18 of the RTC Decision reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Premises considered, this Court rules in favor of the plaintiff and judgment is rendered as
follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

1. Declaring that Republic Act No. [8532] did not extend the acquisition of private lands beyond
June

15,

1998

and;

2. Nullifying the [Notice] of Coverage dated December 11, 2003 and the Notice of Acquisition
dated October 5, 2004.
After its Motion for Reconsideration was denied, petitioner elevated the case to this Court via a
Petition for Review under Rule 45.
The Issue
The sole issue raised by petitioner is whether it can still issue Notices of Coverage after 15 June
1998.
The Courts Ruling
Article XIII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution encapsulates the peoples yearning for genuine
agrarian reform. The provision states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers
and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in
the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such
priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners.

The

State

shall

further

provide

incentives

for

voluntary

land-

sharing.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sixteen months after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress enacted the CARL. 19 The policy
of the law is to pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program that shall give highest
consideration to the welfare of landless farmers and farmworkers to promote social justice; move
the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization; and establish owner
cultivatorship of economic-size farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture. To this end, a more
equitable distribution and ownership of land shall be undertaken with due regard for the rights of
landowners to just compensation and to the ecological needs of the nation to provide farmers and
farmworkers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives
through

greater

productivity

of

agricultural

lands. 20chanrobleslaw

In Secretary of Agrarian Reform v. Tropical Homes, Inc.,21 we recognized the CARL as a bastion
of social justice of poor landless farmers, the mechanism designed to redistribute to the

underprivileged the natural right to toil the earth, and to liberate them from oppressive tenancy.
To those who seek the laws benefit, it is the means towards a viable livelihood and ultimately, a
life.22chanrobleslaw

decent

The Court is guided by these principles in the resolution of the present Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
The agrarian reform program, being one of the immutable hallmarks of the 1987 Constitution,
must be faithfully implemented to meet the ends of social justice. The Court cannot subscribe to
Woodlands stance that the DARs authority to issue notices of coverage and acquisition ceased
after the 10-year implementation period mentioned in Section 5 of the CARL. Such a view runs
afoul of the constitutional mandate firmly lodged in Article XIII, Section 4, which seeks the just
distribution of all agricultural lands to qualified farmers and farm workers to free them from
oppressive

tenancy

agreements.

The success of the CARP depends heavily on the adept implementation by the DAR. The
agencys primordial procedural tool for realizing the laws objectives is the issuance of Notices of
Coverage and Acquisition. For us to sustain Woodlands theory that the DAR can no longer issue
those notices after 15 June 1998 despite the enactment of R.A. 8532 would thwart the CARPs
purpose. As the Court ruled in Gonzales v. Court of Appeals:23cralawred
[O]ur laws on agrarian reform were enacted primarily because of the realization that there is an
urgent need to alleviate the lives of the vast number of poor farmers in our country. Yet, despite
such laws, the majority of these farmers still live on a hand-to-mouth existence. This can be
attributed to the fact that these agrarian laws have never really been effectively
implemented.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Woodland asserts that R.A. 8532 only amended R.A. 6657 insofar as the funding requirements
for the CARP are concerned. It disputes the extension of the DARs authority to acquire and
distribute

private

agricultural

lands.

The first paragraph of Section 63, as originally worded and as amended, used the phrase this
Act

to

refer

to

CARL

as

whole.

Originally, the first paragraph of Section 63 reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

SECTION 63. Funding Source. The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the
period of ten (10) years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund
created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229. (Emphasis supplied)
As amended by R.A. 8532, the first paragraph of Section 63 stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

SECTION 63. Funding Source. The amount needed to implement this Act until the year
2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund. (Emphasis supplied)
In 2009, Congress again amended certain provisions of the CARL, including Section 63. 24 The
latest revision of the first paragraph recites:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 63. Funding Source. - The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided
in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and
other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in
the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00). (Emphasis
supplied)
Clearly, Section 63 refers to the implementation of the CARL in its entirety, not just the funding
source. Indeed, R.A. 8532 specifically amended Section 63 of R.A. 6657, but it does not follow
that only Section 63 had been affected by the amendment. The fact that Section 63 falls under
the chapter on Financing only emphasizes its general applicability. Hence, the phrase until the
year 2008 used in R.A. 8532 unmistakably extends the DARs authority to issue NOCs for
purposes

of

acquiring

and

distributing

private

agricultural

lands.

Finally, R.A. 9700 extended the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands until 30 June
2014.25 The title alone of R.A. 9700 An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP), Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting
Necessary Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657,
Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, As Amended, and
Appropriating Funds Therefor reveals that the CARP was indeed extended from 1998 to 2008
via R.A. 8532. Had there been no prior extension from 1998 to 2008, how else could the CARP
have been extended by R.A. 9700 until 30 June 2014? There could have been an extension only
if

the

program

sought

to

be

extended

had

not

expired.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 2 February 2009 and
Order dated 8 May 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City Branch 14 in Special Civil
Case No. 30855-2005 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The DARs Notice of Coverage dated 11
December 2003 and Notice of Acquisition dated 5 October 2004 are UPHELD with full effect.
SO

ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

Rollo, pp. 14-17; Penned by Presiding Judge George E. Omelio.

Id. at 22.

Id.

Id. at 6.

Id. at 33.

SECTION 6. Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own

or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary
according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)
created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following
qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the
land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered
by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them
thereunder: Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs
who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same
areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
7

Rollo, p. 6.
The five farmer beneficiaries are Alfredo M. Solmayor, Rolando D. Fuentes, Silvano E.

Sedentario, Frank Lloyd S. Sedentario, and Alfredo E. Sedentario.

9

Rollo, pp. 23-30.

10

Id. at 24.

11

Id. at 27.

12

Id. at 35-40.

13

Id. at 36.

14

Id.

15

Id. at 15.

16

Id. at 16.

17

Id.

18

Id. at 17.

19

The CARL was approved on 10 June 1988 and took effect after its publication on 14 June

1988.
20

R.A. 6657, Section 2, pars. 1 & 2.

21

414 Phil. 389 (2001).

22

Id. at 396-397.

23

411 Phil. 232, 243 (2001).

24

R.A. 9700.

25

Id., sec. 5.chanroblesvirt

THE HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Petitioner,

vs.
NEMESIO DUMAGPI, represented by VICENTE DUMAGPI, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195412

February 4, 2015

DECISION
REYES, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 by the Secretary of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) from the Decision2 dated October 7, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in
CA-GR. CV No. 01724-MIN, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated December 16, 2005 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian City, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. 3985, the fallo of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Ordering all the private defendants and their privies to restore the possession on the
property in question in favor of the plaintiff and his heirs;
2. Ordering the cancellation of Land Ownership Award No. 00014318 over Lot 684, CSD09-001830, containing an area of 15,304 square meters issued on December 8, 1990,
awarded to Juan Aguilar, Sr. with the corresponding Original Certificate of Title, as well as
the Certificate of Land Ownership Award No. 00614859 over Lot 686, CSD-09-001830
containing an area of 16,474 square meters issued on December 8, 1990, awarded to
Juan Aguilar, Sr. with the corresponding Original Certificate of Title;
3. Ordering the cancellation of Certificate of Land Ownership Award No. 00014832 over
Lot 682, CSD-09-001830, containing an area of 32,428 square meters issued on
November 20, 1990, awarded to Dionito V. Custodio with the corresponding Original
Certificate of Title as well as the Certificate of Land Ownership Award No. 014833 over
Lot 683, CSD-09-001830 containing an area of 25,616 square meters issued on
November 20, 1990 with the corresponding Original Certificate of Title.
4. Sentencing all the private defendants jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the sum
of P100,000[.00] or plus an appearance fee of P2,000.00 as per appearance in court as

attorneys fees, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. All with interests at the rate
of 6% per annum until fully paid; and
With costs against private defendants.
SO ORDERED.4
The Facts
On August 12, 1997, Nemesio Dumagpi (Nemesio), filed a complaint denominated Accion
Reivindicatoria, Quieting of Title, and Damages before the RTC against Juan Aguilar, Sr.
(Aguilar), Rosalino C. Valencia (Valencia), Dionito B. Custodio (Custodio) and the Secretary of
DAR (defendants), wherein he alleged that he is the owner of land in Siay, Zamboanga del Sur
designated as Lot No. F-18-5483-D, containing 211,967 square meters and covered by Tax
Declaration No. 1203 issued in 1957; that due to his open, notorious, adverse and exclusive
possession, occupation and cultivation of the said land in the concept of owner since July 4,
1945, during which he introduced improvements thereon such as a residential house of light
materials, canals, dikes, and rice paddies and planted coconut and fruit trees and exclusively
enjoyed the produce, the said lot has long been converted into his private property by operation
of law.
In 1964, Nemesio applied for a free patent over the subject lot under Application No. 18-5483,
which he said was approved in 1966, but the patent was never released due to opposition from
the defendants; that sometime in 1973, defendant Aguilar forcibly entered and occupied the
northwest portion of Lot No. F-18-5483-D; in 1986, Aguilar intervened as claimant/protestant and
appeared at a hearing conducted by the Bureau of Lands at Buug, Zamboanga del Sur on
September 10, 1996; another claimant, Wenceslao Dominguez, occupant of the property at the
southeast boundary, also opposed his free patent application; sometime in 1989, defendants
Custodio and Valencia, by means of force, allegedly dispossessed Nemesio of a total of two
hectares at the mid-northern portion of his lot; in March 1997, the above-named free patent
oppositors, all allegedly distant relatives of Nemesio, threatened to physically oust him from his
lot, and it was then that he learned for the first time that titles had been issued by the DAR to the
private defendants through deceit, fraud and misrepresentation, along a much-reduced portion
was also issued in his name. These titles are:
1. Aguilar was awarded (a) Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00014318
over Lot 684,CSD-09-001830, containing 15,304 sq m, and was issued Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. E-10590 on December 8, 1990; and (b) CLOA No.
00014859 over Lot 686, CSD-09-001830, with an area of 16,474 sq m for which he was

issued OCT No. E-10591 on December 8, 1990; 2. Custodio was awarded CLOA No.
00014832 over Lot 682, CSD-09-001830, containing 32,428 sqm for which he was issued
OCT No. E-10375 on November 20, 1990;
3. Valencia was awarded CLOA No. 00014833 over Lot 683, CSD-09-001830, containing
25,616 sqm, and was issued OCT No. E-10376 on November 20, 1990;
4. Nemesio was issued OCT No. E-9704 containing 11,440 sq m, although he never
applied for Certificate of Land Ownership from the DAR; 5
The private defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 19, 1997 on the ground
that the controversy involved the implementation of the agrarian reform law, which is outside the
courts jurisdiction. DAR in its answer sought the dismissal of the complaint, arguing that Nemesio
did not own or possess the subject lot and thus has no cause of action to recover title and
possession, much less seek the removal of a cloud over his alleged title, even as the titles issued
by DAR can only be attacked directly and not collaterally.
The private defendants did not file an answer, and on January 9, 1998, Nemesio moved to
declare them in default. On February 6, 1998, the RTC denied Nemesios motion, along with the
private defendants motion to dismiss the complaint, and ordered them to file their answer
immediately. On February 12, 1998, the private defendants asked for extension to file their
answer, which the court granted on February 18, 1998. But instead of an answer, on March 3,
1998 they filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion to dismiss. On March 20,
1998, the RTC directed the parties to submit their position papers. On March 27, 1998, Nemesio
moved anew to declare the private defendants in default, and this time the RTC conceded. On
December 3, 1998, he began the presentation of his evidence before the Clerk of Court.
In his testimony, Nelson S. Dumagpi, son of Nemesio, identified the 22-ha lot claimed by
Nemesio (who died on November 1, 1998) and the survey plan, blue print and tracing cloth
approved by Director of Lands Nicanor Jorge in 1966 in support of Nemesios application for free
patent in 1964; he further testified that his father had been cultivating the land since World War II,
introducing improvements and planting crops and trees; that his uncle Vicente also settled in the
land whereas the private defendants were intruders who tried unsuccessfully to oust them from
the land.6
Rodolfo G. Salvador, Jr., an employee of Land Management Services Office under the Bureau of
Lands of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region 9, confirmed the
free patent application of Nemesio and identified the pertinent documents kept in a vault in his
office; that while it appears that the free patent was approved on September 5, 1966, he did not

know if it was released; that the private defendants were subsequently granted titles to portions of
the lot by the DAR.7
Florentino Dumagpi, first cousin of Nemesio, testified that upon invitation of Nemesio he and his
brothers came to farm the land in 1955 for a share of the crops; that by 1955, portions thereof
had already been cultivated and some trees had been cut to build a camarin; that they left in 1965
to be near the school of their children; that in 1972, he visited the land and saw his cousin
Nemesio still occupying a portion thereof but none of the private defendants except some
squatters.8
DAR presented Ariston Labrador (Labrador), a retired Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer for
Diplahan, Zamboanga del Sur, which then included the subject DAR resettlement site, now part of
the Municipality of Siay. He testified that the resettlement site contains 2,598 has and used to be
part of a coal mine reservation; that the area was reclassified and declared as a resettlement site
under Proclamation No. 2342 dated March 14, 1984, to be administered and disposed of by DAR
pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program; that following DAR guidelines, he
verified a list of qualified beneficiaries, which included the private defendants who had been
personally cultivating portions which were eventually titled to them; that Nemesio cultivated a
small part of the lot he claimed but during his visit he had stopped doing so due to advanced age;
that he did not know that the surveyor was a brother of defendant Aguilar.9
The RTC rendered its Decision10 on December 16, 2005 in favor of Nemesio, excerpts of which
are quoted below as follows:
Based on the evidence presented and offered, testimonial and documentary, the following facts
preponderate for the plaintiff, viz:
That since July 4, 1945 or prior thereto, plaintiff possessed, occupied and cultivated a parcel of
agricultural land situated at Paradise, Diplahan, Zamboanga del Sur, and which possession,
occupation and cultivation had been continuous, open, notorious, adverse and exclusive in the
concept of owner; and which land is particularly described as Lot No. F-18-5483-D, situated in
Municipality of Siay, Zamboanga del Sur, bounded on the North, along lines 7-8-9 by property of
Pablo Paderes; along lines 9-1-2 by property of Martin Bacatan; on the East, along line 2-3 by
Sibuguey River; on the South, along lines 3-4-5 by property of Wenceslao Dominguez; along line
5-6 by property of Teodorico Buendia; on the West along line 6-7 by public land. x x x Containing
an area of TWO HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY[-]SEVEN (211,987)
SQUARE METERS, more or less, covered by Tax Declaration No. 1203 for the year 1957 and
having an assessed value of more than P20,000.00 at present, that plaintiff had introduced

improvements therein such as coconut trees, fruit trees, a residential house made of light
materials, canals, dikes and rice paddies where he had exclusively enjoyed the produce thereon;
that to perfect his title, plaintiff had applied for a free patent per his Application No. 18-5483 with
the Bureau of Lands on the said parcel of land in 1964; that sometime in 1973, defendant Juan
Aguilar, Sr. forcibly entered and occupied a portion of the afore-described property consisting of
more or less 18 hectares at the north southwestern portion thereof; that plaintiff followed up his
Free Patent Application where he found out that his Free Patent Application with the Bureau of
Lands and the patent thereto should have been granted were it not for the protest filed by a
certain Wenceslao Dominguez, an occupant of a land situated at the southeastern boundary of
the land of the plaintiff, that sometime in 1986 defendant Juan Aguilar intervened in the Free
Patent Application of the plaintiff as claimant/protestant, and in the hearing conducted by the
Bureau of Lands at Buug, Zamboanga del Sur, on September 10, 1996, plaintiff and defendant
Juan Aguilar agreed to have a relocation o[f] the actual boundaries claimed by each of them. No
relocation survey, however, was conducted thereon; that sometime in the year 1989, defendant
Dionito B. Custodio, who was then residing at Gaulan, Diplahan, Zamboanga del Sur, by means
of force, dispossessed plaintiff from a portion of the land in question consisting of two (2) hectares
at the mid-northern portion thereof; that also in the same year of 1989, defendant Rosalino C.
Valencia, who was then residing at Lindang, Diplahan, Zamboanga del Sur, by means of force,
dispossessed plaintiff from a portion of the land in question consisting of two (2) hectares at the
northeastern portion thereof; that plaintiff, thereafter, waited for the title of his land abovedescribed; that sometime in the month of March, 1997, all the private defendants threatened
plaintiff to physically move out from the land in question and telling him that they have acquired
titles thereto, thereby sowing fear on the person of the plaintiff who is now a helpless, weak old
man; that, thereafter, plaintiff made verifications on the status of his Free Patent Application and
on April, 1997, he found out that thru deceit, fraud and gross misrepresentation of facts, all private
defendants have partitioned the land in question and were able to acquire titles thereto to the
damage and prejudice of the plaintiff and that public respondent, in violation of the due process
clause of the constitution of rights, awarded unto the private defendants certificates of land
ownership awards in the following manner:
(a) Defendant Juan Aguilar, Sr. was awarded Certificate of Land Ownership Award No.
00014318 over Lot 684, CSD-09-001830 containing an area of 15,304 square meters for
which Original Certificate of Title No. E-10,590 was issued on December 8, 1990 and
Certificate of Land Ownership Award No. 00014859 over Lot 686, CSD-09-001830
containing an area of 16,474 square meters for which Original Certificate of Title No. E10,591 wa [sic] issued on December 8, 1990;

(b) Defendant Dionito V. Custodio was awarded Certificate of Land Ownership Award No.
00014832 over Lot 682, CSD-09-001830 containing an area of 32,428 square meters for
which Original Certificate of Title No. E-10,375 was issued on November 20, 1990;
(c) Defendant Rosalino C. Valencia was awarded Certificate of Land Ownership Award
No. 00014833 over Lot 683, CSD-09-001830 containing an area of 25,616 square meters
for which Original Certificate of Title No. E-10,376 was issued on November 20, 1990;
and
(d) Plaintiff Nemesio Dumagpi was awarded Original Certificate of Title No. E-9,704
containing an area of 11,440 square meters despite the fact that plaintiff did not file for
any CLO award as the land covered thereby is already covered by the aforementioned
free patent application.
That the continuous, open, notorious and exclusive occupation and cultivation of the herein
plaintiff over the land in question for more than thirty (30) years prior to the issuance of the
assailed Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and the certificates of title issued
therefor has already attained the character and duration equivalent to a title and an express grant
from the government unto the plaintiff and the same cannot be taken from him without violating
his constitutional right;11
On appeal, the DAR interposed the following issues:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT
CASE[;]
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS FINDING THAT THE SUBJECT PARCEL OF
LAND IS "ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE" LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN MADE AS THE
BASIS FOR APPLYING THE RULES ON CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLES[;]
III
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DECIDING THE INSTANT CASE WITHOUT RESOLVING PRIVATE
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT[.]12

Ruling of the CA
In dismissing the appeal of DAR, the CA noted, first, that between Nemesio and the private
defendants there was no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relationship whatsoever that could
bring the controversy within the jurisdiction of DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Under Section
3(d) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657,13 an 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 associations or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of
such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to terms and conditions of
transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and
beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. The CA invoked Morta, Sr. v.
Occidental14 where this Court held as follows:
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the
parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to
establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: 1) that the parties are the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the
part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner
and the tenant or agricultural lessee. In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals, we held that the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reforms is limited to the following:
a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;
b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and
c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of
agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural
uses.15 (Citations omitted) Second, according to the CA, the private defendants did not
appeal from the RTC decision, and instead it appears that the DAR has taken up the
cudgels for them through its appeal, whereas its only participation in the case pertains
only to the issue of jurisdiction. On the other hand, the complaint below concerns merely
Nemesios right to recover ownership and possession over the subject property, a purely
in personam civil action. DAR thus acted inappropriately by raising the issue of the RTCs

failure to resolve the DARs motion to lift its order of default. Besides, having filed its
answer, DAR cannot now question the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Petition for Review to the Supreme Court
In this petition for review, DAR raises the following issues:
I. THE HONORABLE [CA], WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED
THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUOAND IN RULING THAT THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSY IS A CIVIL ACTION IN COMPLEXION AND NOT AN AGRARIAN
REFORM MATTERWITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE DAR;
II. THE HONORABLE [CA], WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED
THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT BELOW DESPITE THE FACT THAT NEMESIO
DUMAGPI LACKS LEGAL PERSONALITY TO ASK FOR RECOVERY OF OWNERSHIP
AND/OR PETITION THE COURT TO REMOVE CLOUD COVERING A TRACT OF LAND
HE DOES NOT OWN OR POSSESS.16
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds merit in the petition.
The RTC held, invoking Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 17 that the entire 22-ha lot
claimed by Nemesio had ipso jure attained the character of private property on account of his
continuous, open, notorious and exclusive occupation and cultivation for 30 years prior to the
issuance of the CLOAs and OCTs to the private defendants, who were mere intruders; that the
OCTs issued to them are invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and are clouds of title
prejudicial to the title of the plaintiff.18 Thus, Nemesios action to recover title to or possession is
not an action in rem, like a land registration proceeding or the probate of a will, but an action in
personam in which the judgment is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly
given an opportunity to be heard.19
The Court disagrees.
Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[a]ll lands of the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated." Under
Section 3 of Article XII, lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber,

mineral lands and national parks, and alienable lands of the public domain, which shall be limited
to agricultural lands. Pursuant to Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, or the Public Land
Act, only citizens of the Philippines may be granted title to alienable public agricultural land, to wit:
Section 48. x x x
xxxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or
force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions
essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of
this chapter.
As asserted by the DAR and testified to by Labrador, from 1938 to 1984 the subject lot was part
of a coal mine reservation, established under Proclamation No. 234, Series of 1938,as amended
by Proclamation No. 402, Series of 1953. On March 14, 1984, a portion of the reservation
containing 2,598 has was reclassified under Presidential Proclamation No. 2342 as agricultural
land reserved for resettlement. On June 10, 1988, R.A. No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL), placed the said reclassified area under the administration and disposition of
the DAR, pursuant to Section 2 thereof.
Concerning Nemesios claim of entitlement to a free patent, Section 44 of Commonwealth Act No.
141 provides:
Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than twenty-four
hectares and who since July fourth, nineteen hundred and twenty-six or prior thereto, has
continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a
tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition, or who shall have paid the real
estate tax thereon while the same has not been occupied by any person shall be entitled, under
the provisions of this chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of such
land not to exceed twenty-four hectares.
xxxx
There is no dispute that the land Nemesio is claiming was not alienable public agricultural land
but in truth was classified and reserved as a coal mine from 1938 to 1984, a period which

overlapped with his claimed acquisitive possession. Clearly, he cannot invoke Section 48(b) of
Commonwealth Act No. 141 and assert an acquisitive title thereto by reason of open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession for 30 years.
Then, even granting arguendo that his application for free patent was approved by DENR, it is not
denied that the same was never released. In fact, DAR claimed that it was never approved
precisely because the land was not alienable. Even Nemesio admitted that his free patent
application was not approved due to opposition by several other claimants. And even if the same
was approved and released, it would still have been void under the Constitution, for as held in
Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Santiago, 20 free patent applications under the Public Land Act, as
amended, apply only to disposable lands of the public domain.
Importantly, the CLOAs and OCTs issued over the subject lot were pursuant to the
implementation of the agrarian law under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. Section
2 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that "[t]he State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its
own agricultural estates, which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law."
Nemesio has questioned the participation of the DAR in the action below and its right to bring the
present petition, yet it was he who, attacking the validity of the CLOAs and OCTs issued by the
DAR Secretary pursuant to R.A. No. 6657,has impleaded the said public official as a partydefendant along with the private defendants.
As the lead agency in the governments Agrarian Reform Program, DAR issued Administrative
Order No. 09-89, Series of 1989, on May 5, 1989, containing the "Rules and Procedures
Governing Titling and Distribution of Lots in DAR Settlement Projects," intended to accelerate the
issuance of CLOAs to qualified beneficiaries in settlement projects administered by the DAR; it
covers the titling and distribution of agricultural lands within proclaimed settlement projects under
the administration of the DAR, as provided for by existing laws.1awp++i1
Even DARABs New Rules of Procedure issued on May 30, 1994 expressly recognized, under
Section 1(g), Rule II thereof, that matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of
R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the CARL of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by
pertinent rules, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.
Nemesio has doubtful standing to petition for quieting of title, which is clearly a collateral attack
against the CLOAs and titles the DAR Secretary issued to the private defendants. He has no title,
records, or instruments to uphold, and moreover, under Section 23 of R.A. No. 6657 as agrarian
reform beneficiary he is allowed only three has, not 22 has. Even granting that his complaint may
be treated as one for reconveyance, there is no ownership or title to reconvey to him because he
never had one, not even through acquisitive prescription.

Moreover, as the lead agency mandated to implement the government's agrarian reform program,
the DAR is the real party in interest, since at issue is the validity of its actions comprising the
determination of the qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries and the issuance of CLOAs and titles
to them. Since, therefore, the implementation of agrarian law is within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the DAR Secretary, and issues concerning the issuance of the subject titles can only be raised to
the DAR Secretary, the RTC has no jurisdiction to decide Civil Case No. 3985, and its judgment
therein is of necessity void and can never become final. As the Court held in Leonor v. CA : 21
A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right
nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it
have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is
void; "x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at
sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head. 22(Citation omitted) WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 7, 2010 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01724-MIN, which affirmed the Decision dated December 16, 2005
of the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. 3985, is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE, and a new judgment is entered DISMISSING the complaint in Civil Case No.
3985 for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO

L.

REYES

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO

J.

VELASCO,

Associate

JR.
Justice

Chairperson
DIOSDADO

M.

PERALTA MARTIN

Associate Justice
FRANCIS
Associate Justice
AT T E S TAT I O N

S.

VILLARAMA,

JR.

Associate Justice
H.

JARDELEZA

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
PRESBITERO

J.

VELASCO,

Associate

JR.
Justice

Chairperson, Third Division

C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA

LOURDES

P.A.

SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes
1

Rollo, pp. 15-33.

Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices Angelita A.

Gacutan and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring; id. at 39-55.

3

Issued by Judge Harun B. Ismael; id. at 70-85.

Id. at 84-85.

Id. at 81-82.

Id. at 71-72.

Id. at 72-74.

Id. at 74-75.

Id. at 75-79.

10

Id. at 70-85.

11

Id. at 80-82.

12

Id. at 49-50.

13

AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO

PROMOTE

SOCIAL

JUSTICE

AND

INDUSTRIALIZATION,

PROVIDING

THE

MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved

on June 10, 1988.
14

367 Phil. 438 (1999).

15

Id. at 446.

16

Rollo, pp. 23-24.

17

374 Phil. 209 (1999).

18

See Commonwealth Act No. 141, Section 48(b).

19

Supra note 17, at 216.

20

452 Phil. 238 (2003).

21

326 Phil. 74 (1996).

22

Id. at 88.