Department of Agrarian Reform v.

Cuenca

Facts:

Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Fortunado sent a Notice of Coverage to respondent Cuenca placing
the land under the compulsory coverage of RA 6657.

Cuenca filed a complaint against Fortunado and Land Bank for ‘Annulment of Notice of Coverage and
Declaration of Unconstitutionality of EO 405. Cuenca alleged that the implementation of CARP should
have commenced and completed between June 1988 and June 1992, hence it is no longer with
authority.

Respondent judge issued a TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction directing Fortunado to cease and
desist from implementing the Notice of Coverage.

DAR filed a petition for certiorari, contending that all lower courts are barred to issue orders of
injunctions against DAR in the implementation of the Notice of Coverage.

CA ruled that DAR has no jurisdiction because the case was not purely agrarian matter.

Issue:

W/N DAR has jurisdiction over the case?

W/N the writ of preliminary injunction was improperly issued?

Ruling:

[1]

The Courts of Agrarian Relations (CAR) were organized under RA 1267. However, BP 129 abolished CARs
and jurisdiction over cases thereto were vested in the RTCs.

EO 229 mandated that the DAR shall exercise “quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation
of agrarian reform.”

RA 6657 confers special jurisdiction on “Special Agrarian Courts” which are RTCs designated as such by
the SC.

A perusal of respondent’s Complaint shows that the principal reliefs prayed for is the annulment of the
DAR’s Notice of Coverage. The propriety of the Notice relates to the implementation of CARP, which is
under the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not be ousted from its authority by
the simple expediency of alleging the constitutionality of the law.

[2]
Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over this case, it follows that RTC of La Carlota City
was devoid of any authority to issue the writ of preliminary injunction. Thus, the writ must be stricken
down as null and void.

Fortich v. Corona

Facts:

The subject land in this case was leased as a pineapple plantation. During the existence of the lease, the
DAR placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory acquisition.

The Provincial Development Council, headed by Governor Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6 which
designated certain areas as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones, including the subject land.

The DAR Secretary ordered the DAR Regional Director to proceed with the compulsory acquisition and
distribution of the property.

Gov. Fortich appealed the order to the Office of the President. The Office of the President (OP) ruled
that the conversion was proper explaning that the conversion would bring real development in the area
and distributing the lands to beneficiaries does not guarantee such benefits.

The hunger strikers protested the Decision of the Office of the President which approved the conversion
of the 144-hectare land from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional area. As a result, the OP issued
the Win/Win Resolution

Petitioner Fortich seeks to nullify the Win/Win Resolution claiming the the Resolution was a purely
political decision to appease the farmers by reviving and modifying the decision which has been
declared final and executory.

Issue:

W/N the final and executory Decision can still be substantially modified by the Win/Win Resolution? No.

Ruling:

The rules governing appeals to the OP are embodied in AO No. 18. It is provided that the Rules of Court
shall apply in a suppletory character whenever practicable. The Decision of the OP has become final and
executory as no one filed a MR. As a result, the OP had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case and
modify the Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the OP has no authority to entertain the MR filed by
respondent DAR Secretary which became the basis of the Win/Win Resolution. Hence, the Win/Win
Resolution which substantially modified the 1996 Decision after it has attained finality is void.