G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019

4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162.
January 30, 2019 ]
846 Phil. 239 ← click for PDF copy
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
POLO PLANTATION AGRARIAN REFORM MULTIPURPOSE
COOPERATIVE (POPARMUCO), REPRESENTED BY SILANDO
GOMEZ AND ELIAS RAMOS, PETITIONER, VS. RODOLFO T.
INSON, CESO III, AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION VII - CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Respondent Rodolfo T. Inson (Regional Director Inson)'s cognizance of the Petition for
Inclusion/Exclusion of farmer beneficiaries, and his subsequent issuance of the March 12,
2010 Order disqualifying some members of petitioner Polo Plantation Agrarian Reform
Multipurpose Cooperative (POPARMUCO), were improper. Nonetheless, these acts do not
constitute an indirect contempt of court.
For this Court's resolution is a Petition for Contempt[1] filed by POPARMUCO, a duly
organized and registered cooperative of agrarian reform beneficiaries,[2] against Regional
Director Inson of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Region VII, Cebu City.
Sometime in 2003, a 394.9020-hectare portion of the landholding[3] owned by Polo Coconut

Plantation, Inc. (Polo Coconut) in Polo, Tanjay, Negros Oriental was placed under the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, pursuant to Republic Act No.
6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.[4] A Notice of Coverage was sent on May
23, 2003 to Polo Coconut President Rene Espina (Espina).[5]
On December 11, 2003, the Department of Agrarian Reform received from the Land Bank of
the Philippines a Memorandum of Valuation, indicating the amount of P85,491,784.60 as just
compensation for 393.1327 hectares[6] of Polo Coconut property. A Notice of Land Valuation
and Acquisition was then sent to Polo Coconut. On January 16, 2004, a Certificate of Deposit
was issued to Polo Coconut for the said amount.[7]
After Polo Coconut failed to reply to the Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition, the
Department of Agrarian Reform conducted summary administrative proceedings to
determine just compensation. In his March 31, 2004 Resolution,[8] Regional Adjudicator
Atty. Arnold C. Arrieta (Regional Adjudicator Arrieta) of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (the Adjudication Board), Region VII, Cebu City affirmed the valuation
offered by Land Bank of the Philippines in the amount of P85,491,784.60.[9]
Meanwhile, Polo Coconut's title was canceled in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. On
January 27, 2004, a collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award, with CLOA No.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=64667&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22c… 1/35
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
00114438, was issued. It was registered on January 30, 2004, under Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-802,[10] in favor of POPARMUCO members whom the Department of
Agrarian Reform identified as agrarian reform beneficiaries.[11]
Subsequently, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Negros Oriental, Stephen Leonidas,
sent Espina a letter dated July 16, 2004, informing him of the Department of Agrarian
Reform's intention to proceed with the relocation survey of the property.[12] Polo Coconut
moved for the suspension of the survey, but Regional Adjudicator Arrieta denied the Motion
for lack of jurisdiction.[13]
Polo Coconut filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari questioning the
propriety of subjecting its property to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. It
contended that the City of Tanjay had already reclassified the area into a mixed residential,
commercial, and industrial land. It also assailed the eligibility of the identified agrarian
reform beneficiaries.[14]
On February 16, 2005, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Polo Coconut. It found that the
Polo Coconut property was no longer an agricultural land when the Department of Agrarian
Reform placed it under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Further, it held that
the identified beneficiaries were not qualified as beneficiaries, as they were not tenants of
Polo Coconut.[15] The Court of Appeals disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered

by us DECLARING as NOT VALID the acts of the [Department of Agrarian
Reform] of subjecting PCPCI’s [Polo estate] to the coverage of the CARP, of
canceling and causing the cancellation of [PCPCI’s] Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-2304 covering such land, of issuing or causing the issuance of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-36318 for this land in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines by way of transfer to it, of issuing or causing the issuance of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-802 for the said land in the names of [petitioner-
beneficiaries] in the case at bench by way of award of them of such land as
purported farm beneficiaries and of doing other things with the end in view of
subjecting [the Polo estate] to CARP coverage, SETTING ASIDE and
ENJOINING such acts and the consequence thereof, ORDERING the [petitioner-
beneficiaries] to vacate the premises of [the Polo estate] if they had entered such
premises, and ORDERING the respondent Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental
to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-36318 and T-802 and to reinstate
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2304 in the name of petitioner PCPCI.
SO ORDERED.[16] (Citation omitted)
In its September 3, 2008 Decision, this Court in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Polo
Coconut Plantation Company, Inc.[17] reversed the Court of Appeals Decision.[18] It
confirmed the acts of the Department of Agrarian Reform, through the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer, and declared the issuance of TCT No. T-802 and CLOA No. 00114438 as
valid. This Court also ruled that Polo Coconut did not exhaust its administrative remedies
when it directly filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals instead of first
filing a protest or opposition before the Department Secretary.[19] Furthermore, it held that
the property was never placed beyond the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, as the Department Secretary never approved the land's conversion.[20]
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
This Court further recognized the Department of Agrarian Reform as the proper authority to
identify and select agrarian reform beneficiaries. Courts, it ruled, cannot substitute their
judgment unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.[21] This Court farther
held that the Department of Agrarian Reform could not be deemed to have gravely abused its
discretion just because its chosen beneficiaries were not tenants of Polo Coconut. Section 22
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, it ruled, "does not limit qualified beneficiaries
to tenants of the landowners."[22]
The September 3, 2008 Decision became final and executory on November 26, 2008.[23]
On June 30, 2009, 164 alleged regular farmworkers of Polo Coconut (Alcantara, et al.) filed
a Petition for Inclusion as qualified beneficiaries in TCT No. T-802/CLOA No. 00114438
and Exclusion of those named as beneficiaries therein (Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion).[24]
They were allegedly not informed when the Department of Agrarian Reform conducted the
identification and screening process for potential beneficiaries.[25] They contend that the
Certificate of Land Ownership Award holders were not qualified beneficiaries under Section
22 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.[26]
On July 1, 2009, Alcantara, et al. also filed a Petition for Immediate Issuance of a Cease and
Desist Order and/or Injunction.[27] They averred that the Certificate of Land Ownership
Award holders had attempted to occupy the property even without authority from the
Department of Agrarian Reform. Moreover, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of
Tanjay had allegedly scheduled the relocation and subdivision of the property for the final
installation of the qualified beneficiaries. Thus, they sought a Cease and Desist Order to
preserve their legal rights while the administrative proceedings for the inclusion/exclusion of
farmer beneficiaries were pending resolution.[28]
Acting on the Petition, Regional Director Inson issued a Cease and Desist Order[29] dated
July 7, 2009, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing ORDER is hereby issued:
1. DIRECTING the [Certificate of Land Ownership Award holders], their

agents, representatives, or assigns, to CEASE and DESIST from entering,
occupying, and/or taking possession of the property pending final
determination of the inclusion-exclusion proceedings, to attain and maintain
a peaceful and orderly implementation of CARP in the subject landholding;
2. ENJOINING the PARO of Oriental Negros and the MARO of Tanjay not to
undertake any relocation/subdivision survey on the subject landholding until
the matter of the inclusion-exclusion of farmer beneficiaries [has been]
decided, except the areas utilized as roads, residential, commercial,
institutional and recreational portions, creeks and rivers, etc[.]
SO ORDERED.[30]
On July 20, 2009, Regional Director Inson also issued Special Order No. 070, series of 2009,
[31] creating an independent body[32] to conduct a revalidation of farmers-beneficiaries in the
property. The independent body conducted their interviews from August 3 to 7, 2009.[33]
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
On July 23, 2009, POPARMUCO members, who are Certificate of Land Ownership Award
holders, filed a Motion to Quash the Cease and Desist Order with Motion for
Reconsideration.[34] They alleged that they were not given prior notice of the filing of the
Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion,[35] and that the Cease and Desist Order defied this Court's
September 3, 2008 Decision.[36] Further, they were indeed qualified under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law as their families were landless farmworkers.[37]
Alcantara, et al. allegedly did not submit their applications during the Department of
Agrarian Reform's investigation on qualified beneficiaries from 1999 to 2000.[38]
POPARMUCO members added that as Certificate of Land Ownership Award holders, they
were entitled to all ownership rights.[39]
On July 30, 2009,[40] POPARMUCO members filed before the Department of Agrarian
Reform Regional Adjudication Board a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution[41] dated
July 14, 2009, seeking to enforce the September 3, 2008 Decision.
POPARMUCO filed before this Court a Petition for Contempt[42] against respondent Inson,
raising the following grounds:
1. Respondent issued a Cease and Desist Order without any notice in violation of
petitioner's members' constitutional right to due Process.[43]
2. Respondent defied this Court's September 3, 2008 Decision, which ruled with finality
on the qualification of petitioner's members as beneficiaries in Polo Coconut's
landholding covered under TCT No. T-802/CLOA No. 00114438.[44]
3. Petitioner's members, as registered owners of the landholding involved, are entitled to

the property as the last step in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
implementation.[45]
Petitioner prayed that a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction be issued, directing
respondent to cease: (1) from enforcing the Cease and Desist Order in light of the Petition;
and (2) from reviewing the beneficiaries, as this Court had decided with finality on the issue.
It further prayed that this Court hold respondent guilty of contempt of court.[46]
In his Comment,[47] respondent, through counsel, asserts that the September 3, 2008
Decision is no legal impediment to his taking cognizance of the Petition for
Inclusion/Exclusion and issuance of a Cease and Desist Order.[48] He adds that this Court
had recognized the Department Secretary's exclusive jurisdiction over the implementation of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, including the identification and selection of
its beneficiaries.[49] Further, his issuance of the Cease and Desist Order is authorized under
Section 22, which vests in the Department of Agrarian Reform the power to reassess the
qualification of identified beneficiaries, and even strip them of their rights if found to have
violated agrarian laws.[50]
Petitioner filed a Reply,[51] stating the following arguments:
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
1. Respondent's Comment should be expunged from the records for having been
improperly signed by respondent's counsel;[52]
2. Petitioners in the Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion were under the control of the
previous landowner and some of the parties in G.R. Nos. 168787 and 169271; thus,
they were bound by the September 3, 2008 Decision;[53]
3. Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, on the indefeasibility of a title, cannot be
subverted by the Department of Agrarian Reform's rules and regulations.[54]
During the pendency of this Petition, respondent dismissed in a September 29, 2009
Order[55] the Motion to Quash and upheld the validity of his Cease and Desist Order.
Thus, petitioner filed a Manifestation with Leave of Court and Supplement to the Petition for
Contempt,[56] alleging that:
1. Despite the pendency of the Petition, respondent proceeded to conduct a reinvestigation

and re-qualification of the farmer beneficiaries, "in complete defiance and lack of
respect for a final and executory judgment" issued by this Court;[57] and
2. Respondent had proceeded to issue his March 12, 2010 Order[58] disqualifying some of
petitioner's members.[59] Specifically, the March 12, 2010 Order declared, among
others, that:
a. 109 of the petitioners in the Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion are qualified agrarian
reform beneficiaries because they were connected with, or working in, the Polo
Coconut property before a Notice of Coverage was served on Polo Coconut;[60]
b. 62 of the petitioners were disqualified on the grounds that they worked for Polo
Coconut after the Notice of Coverage was sent, and are not yet connected with
Polo Coconut during the beneficiary identification. They also did not appear
during the investigation, are retired from service, or those whose work do not
include cultivation of the land;[61]
c. 39 Certificate of Land Ownership Award holders (petitioner's members) were

disqualified because they were not connected with Polo Coconut;[62]
d. Six (6) Certificate of Land Ownership Award holders (petitioner's members) were
disqualified as they have already migrated to other places, and thus, were
disinterested to occupy and cultivate their awarded lots;[63] and
e. 102 existing Certificate of Land Ownership Award holders maintained their status
as qualified farmer beneficiaries.[64]
Respondent further directed the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Oriental Negros "to
facilitate the inclusion of the . . . qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries in CLOA No.
00114438 under TCT No. T-802 by filing a petition before the [Provincial Agrarian Reform
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
Adjudicator] of Oriental Negros for the amendment/correction of the subject [Certificate of

Land Ownership Award]."[65]
In his Comments (to the Supplemental Petition for Contempt),[66] respondent reiterates his
allegations in his previous Comment. He further informs this Court that petitioner's members
have voluntarily submitted to the Department of Agrarian Reform's jurisdiction when they
filed a Motion for Reconsideration and subsequent Appeal of respondent's March 12, 2010
Order, despite the pendency of this Petition. Thus, he avers, this Petition is considered moot.
[67]
In its Reply,[68] petitioner contends that respondent's Comments should be expunged for his
counsel's failure to indicate his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Number. It further
avers that the adjudged agrarian reform beneficiaries have not been installed in the land
despite the September 3, 2008 Decision's finality, and that the Petition has not been mooted.
In compliance with this Court's November 12, 2012 Resolution,[69] both parties submitted
their respective Memoranda.[70]
Petitioner argues that respondent, in issuing the Cease and Desist Order, committed acts
amounting to "disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment"[71] of
this Court in G.R. Nos. 168787 and 169271.[72]
On the other hand, respondent argues that the September 3, 2008 Decision "did not pass on
the merits of [petitioner's members'] qualifications as farmer beneficiaries."[73] According to
him, nowhere in the Decision did this Court pronounce that they were qualified as
beneficiaries. He contends that Department of Agrarian Reform[74] mainly involved the
validity of placing the Polo Coconut property under the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.[75] The discussion on beneficiaries, he avers, was included
merely to highlight the Department of Agrarian Reform's exclusive jurisdiction over issues
on the program's implementation,[76] and that, without proof that the Department of Agrarian
Reform committed grave abuse of discretion, this Court will not substitute its judgment.[77]
Respondent adds that he had legal and factual bases to issue the Cease and Desist Order. It
was alleged in the Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion that petitioner's members were not
seasonal farmworkers, but outsiders not related to the Polo Coconut management and the
land.[78] He points out that, per the amended Section 22 of Republic Act No. 6657, the
Department of Agrarian Reform is mandated to monitor the beneficiaries' performance; thus,
it can reevaluate their qualification, and even strip them of their rights if they violated
agrarian reform laws.[79] He further states that Section 20 of Department of Agrarian Reform
Administrative Order No. 03-03 authorizes the Regional Director to issue a Cease and Desist
Order on any of these grounds:
1. That any party may suffer grave or irreparable damage;
2. That the doing of or continuance of certain acts will render the case moot and
academic; or
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
3. That there is a need to maintain peace and order and prevent injury or loss of life and
property.[80]
Finally, respondent avers that petitioner's voluntary submission to the Department of

Agrarian Reform's jurisdiction, through the Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal, has
rendered this case moot. The Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary's April 3, 2013
Order, he claims, affirms his position that his cognizance of the Petition for
Inclusion/Exclusion and issuance of related Resolutions and Orders did not constitute
defiance of the September 3, 2008 Decision.[81]
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not respondent Regional Director Rodolfo
T. Inson's cognizance of the Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion of farmer beneficiaries, and his
subsequent issuance of the July 7, 2009 Cease and Desist Order and the March 12, 2010
Order disqualifying some of petitioner's members, constitute defiance of this Court's
September 3, 2008 Decision in G.R. Nos. 168787 and 169271.
This Court dismisses the Petition.
The validity of the July 7, 2009 Cease and Desist Order and the correctness of the March 12,
2010 Order will not be discussed in this Petition for Contempt. They should instead be
tackled in a more appropriate mode and forum. Petitioner had appealed the Order partially
granting the Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion and the July 14, 2010 Order[82] denying their
Motion for Reconsideration. In an April 3, 2013 Order,[83] the Department of Agrarian
Reform Secretary dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
We proceed first to discuss the scope of the Department of Agrarian Reform's jurisdiction in
agrarian law implementation cases.
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform the
primary responsibility of implementing the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Section 50 defines the Department's powers over agrarian reform matters:
SECTION 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested
with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters
and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
....
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall
be immediately executory.[84] (Emphasis supplied)
Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante[85] clarifies that Section 50 pertains to
both the Department of Agrarian Reform's: (1) administrative function, which involves
enforcing, administering, and carrying agrarian reform laws into operation; and (2) quasi-
judicial function, which involves the determination of parties' rights and obligations in
agrarian reform matters.
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
Prior to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, however, Executive Order No. 129-A[86]
created the Adjudication Board and authorized it to assume the Department of Agrarian
Reform's quasi-judicial functions:
SECTION 13. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. — There is hereby created

an Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board under the Office of the Secretary. The
Board shall be composed of the Secretary as Chairman, two (2) Undersecretaries
as may be designated by the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs,
and three (3) others to be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of
the Secretary as members. A Secretariat shall be constituted to support the Board.
The Board shall assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication
of agrarian reform cases under Executive Order No. 229 and this Executive
Order. These powers and functions may be delegated to the regional offices of the
Department in accordance with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the
Board. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 7 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law authorizes the Department of

Agrarian Reform, in coordination with the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, to plan and
program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands in accordance with the order
of priority under the law. Inherent in this function is the Department of Agrarian Reform's
power to identify the landholdings within the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program, and to identify, screen, and select agrarian reform beneficiaries.[87] The
Department of Agrarian Reform is further tasked to make support and coordinative services
available to farmer-beneficiaries and affected landowners.[88]
There are two (2) modes of acquiring land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law:
(1) compulsory acquisition[89] and (2) voluntary offer for sale/land transfer.[90]
I (A)
Section 16 outlines the procedure for compulsory land acquisition:
SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of

acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the
beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to
the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and
post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building
and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said
notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding
value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17,
18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice
by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his
administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his
acceptance or rejection of the offer.
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of
the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a
deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the
Certificate of Title and other monuments of title.
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct

summary administrative proceedings to determine the
compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP
and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just
compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the
receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the
matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide
the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or,

in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the
deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this
Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and
shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter
to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just
compensation.
Section 16(a) requires that after identification of the land, landowners, and farmer
beneficiaries, the Department of Agrarian Reform will send a notice of acquisition to the
landowner, through personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in
the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located.
While the law does not provide how the identification process must be made, the details or
guidelines can be found in pertinent administrative issuances of the Department of Agrarian
Reform or the Provincial Agrarian Reform Council, per their rule-making power under
Section 49.[91]
Under the Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 01-03, or the 2003
Rules Governing Issuance of Notice of Coverage and Acquisition of Agricultural Lands
Under Republic Act No. 6657, compulsory acquisition is commenced through two (2) ways.
The first is through a Notice of Coverage. After determining that the land is covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and writing a pre-ocular inspection report, the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer sends a Notice to the landowner. The Notice would be
posted for at least seven (7) days in the bulletin boards of the barangay hall and
municipal/city hall where the property is located.
The other way is through a Petition for Coverage, filed by any party before the Department
of Agrarian Reform's Regional Office or Provincial Office of the region or province where
the property is located. Either of these offices transmits the case folder to the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer where the property is located.[92]
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
Under Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 01-03, the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer serves copies of the Notice of Coverage or Petition for Coverage on
the landowner. Through the Notice, the landowner is informed that his or her landholding is
subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. He or she is invited to a public
hearing or field investigation on the date specified in the Notice. Moreover, the landowner is
informed of his or her rights and privileges (with corresponding restrictions and conditions),
as follows:
1. apply for an exemption clearance or for exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program's coverage;
2. retain an area not exceeding five (5) hectares pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No.
6657;
3. nominate his/her child/ren who may qualify as beneficiary/ies to the subject

landholding; and/or
4. submit evidence for determining just compensation of the subject landholding.
The landowner or any real party-in-interest may file before the Department of Agrarian
Reform Municipal Office a protest or petition to lift the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program within 60 calendar days from receipt of the Notice.[93] The protest
will be resolved in accordance with the procedure set forth in Department of Agrarian
Reform Administrative Order No. 03-03, or the 2003 Rules for Agrarian Law
Implementation Cases.
Meanwhile, the process of identifying and screening potential agrarian reform beneficiaries
is suspended until after the lapse of the 60-day period from the landowner's receipt of the
Notice, or upon the authorized agency's final determination of the petition for retention,
exclusion, and exemption, if any were filed.[94]
Upon receipt of the Memorandum of Valuation from the Land Bank of the Philippines and
Claim Folder Profile and Valuation Summary, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer sends
a Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition to the landowner in accordance with the same
service procedures in Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 01-03.
Section 16(e) mandates the Department to take immediate possession of the land only after
full payment or deposit of the compensation with the bank (in case of rejection/non-response
of landowner), and to request the Register of Deeds to transfer title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines, and later on to the intended beneficiaries.
I (B)
Upon land acquisition, the Department of Agrarian Reform immediately proceeds to

distribute the land to qualified beneficiaries.[95]
Sections 22 and 22-A[96] of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law provides the order of
priority in the distribution of lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
to landless farmers/farmworkers. The basic qualification for a beneficiary is his or her
"willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible."
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=64667&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22… 10/35
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 07-03[97] provides the

qualifications, disqualifications, and rights and obligations of agrarian reform beneficiaries.
It also provides the operating procedures for their: (1) identification, screening, and selection;
(2) resolution of protests in the selection; and (3) certificate of land ownership award
generation and registration.
The Municipal or Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, together with the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee, screens and selects the possible agrarian beneficiaries, under the criteria
in Sections 4 and 5 of Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 07-03:
Section 4. Qualifications. Only those who meet the following qualifications shall
be eligible as beneficiaries:
4.1 General Qualifications. All agrarian reform beneficiaries must be:
4.1.1 Landless as defined by R.A. No. 6657;

4.1.2 Filipino citizen;
4.1.3 Permanent resident of the barangay and/or
municipality, if applicable[;]
4.1.4 At least fifteen (15) years of age or head of family at
the time of acquisition of the property (titled in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines), or at least 18 years old as
of 15 June 1988 in the case of Commercial Farms (CFs);
and
4.1.5 Willing and have the ability and aptitude to cultivate
and make the land productive.
4.2 Specific Qualifications for Farmworkers in Commercial Farms. In

addition to item 4.1 above, the applicant must have been employed in
the property being covered on June 15, 1988.
Section 5. Grounds for Disqualification/Exclusion. The following shall be the

grounds for disqualification/exclusion as ARBs of the CARP:
5.1. Failure to meet the qualifications as provided for under Section 22

of R.A. No. 6657;
5.2. Non-payment of an aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations or

default in payment of three (3) annual amortizations with the
landowner (LO) that resulted to the foreclosure of mortgage on the
awarded land by the LBP or repossession by the landowners (in the
case of voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme or VLT/DPS) of
the awarded lands except if the non-payment of the rental is due to
crop failure as a result of fortuitous events per Section 36(6) of R.A.
No. 3844, to the extent of seventy-five percent (75%);
5.3. Misuse or diversion of financial support services extended to

them (Section 37 of R.A. No. 6657);
5.4. Negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to them

(Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657);
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
5.5. Material misrepresentation of the ARB's basic qualifications as

provided for under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and
other agrarian laws;
5.6. Sale, disposition, or abandonment of the lands awarded by

government under CARP or P.D. No. 27 which is violative of the
agrarian laws;
5.7. Conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use without

prior approval from the DAR;
5.8. Retirement from the service, whether optional or mandatory, or

voluntary resignation, provided this was not attended by coercion
and/or deception, and there is no case questioning said retirement or
voluntary resignation by the applicant as of the date of approval of this
Order;
5.9. Dismissal from the service for cause and there is no case filed
questioning said dismissal as of the approval of this Order and if there
is any such case, the same has been affirmed by the proper entity of
government;
5.10. Obtaining a substantially equivalent and regular employment, as

defined in Section 3 (m) of this A.O.;
5.11. Retrenchment from the farm and receipt of separation pay, and
the retrenchment not having been appealed or questioned in the proper
government entity as of the approval of this A.O.;
5.12. Execution of a waiver of right to become an ARB in exchange

for due compensation and waiver not having been questioned in the
proper government entity as of the approval of this A.O.;
5.13. Refusal to be listed as an ARB and to provide pertinent

information as requested by the DAR in the invitation letter, which
shall be construed as unwillingness on the part of the potential
beneficiary to be listed;
5.14. Forcible entry into the property or illegal detainer (e.g. after
beneficiaries were paid by the LO); and
5.15. Commission of any violation of the agrarian reform laws and

regulations, or related issuances, as determined with finality after
proper proceedings by the appropriate tribunal or agency.
All qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries are then ranked in accordance with the order of
priority under Sections 22 and 22-A.[98] Then, the master list of agrarian reform beneficiaries
is posted for 15 days in at least three (3) conspicuous places in the barangay hall, municipal
hall, and in the community where the property is located.[99]
Written protests for the inclusion/exclusion from the master list must be filed before the
Department of Agrarian Reform's Regional or Provincial Office, as the case may be, not later
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
than 15 days from the last day of posting of the list.[100] The Regional Director will resolve
the protest through summary proceedings within 30 days from receiving the Beneficiary
Screening Committee's case records or the Provincial Office's investigation report and
recommendation.[101] The master list becomes final and executory after the lapse of 15 days
from receipt of the Regional Director's decision on the protest, but such finality is only for
the specific purpose of generating the certificate of land ownership award.[102]
An appeal or motion for reconsideration from the Regional Director's decision or order for
inclusion/exclusion of potential agrarian reform beneficiaries in/from the master list will be
governed by Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 03-03.
After the issuance of certificates of land ownership award, a petition to reopen the
identification and selection of agrarian reform beneficiaries may be filed on grounds of
duress or threat by the landowner against the petitioner during the identification phase.
Section 14 of Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 07-03 provides:
SECTION 14. Re-Opening of ARB Identification and Selection
14.1 Subsequent to the issuance of CLOAs but prior to the installation

of ARBs, the Regional Director may grant due course to a sworn
petition to re-open the identification, screening and selection process
on the grounds of duress or threat by the landowner against the
petitioner during the identification phase. After installation of the
ARBs, only the Secretary may grant due course to such a petition.
14.2 Any petition to re-open the ARB identification, screening and

selection process subsequent to installation shall be directly filed with
the Office of the Regional Director where the property is located
which shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to act on the petition. The
procedures shall be in accordance with A.O. No. 3, Series of 2003
titled, "2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases".
The re-opening of ARB identification, screening and selection shall, however,

subscribe to the provisions for qualification, disqualification, rights and
obligations, and procedures prescribed under pertinent sections of this
Administrative Order.
As in protests for inclusion/exclusion of agrarian reform beneficiaries, petitions to reopen the

identification and selection process are governed by Department of Agrarian Reform
Administrative Order No. 03-03.[103]
I (C)
Under Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 03-03,[104] the Regional
Director[105] has primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases, while the
Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary[106] has appellate jurisdiction over them. Rule I,
Section 2 provides:
SECTION 2. ALI cases. These Rules shall govern all cases, arising from or
involving:
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
2.1 Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage

under the agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of
Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and
Emancipation Patents (EPs), including protests or oppositions
thereto and petitions for lifting of such coverage;
2.2 Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification,
or disqualification of potential/actual farmer- beneficiaries;
2.3 Subdivision surveys of land under Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform [Program] (CARP);
2.4 Recall, or cancellation of provisional lease rentals, Certificates
of Land Transfers (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates
(CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 816, including the issuance, recall, or cancellation of
Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership
Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with the Register of Deeds;
2.5 Exercise of the right of retention by landowner;
2.6 Application for exemption from coverage under Section 10 of
RA 6657;
2.7 Application for exemption pursuant to Department of Justice
(DOJ) Opinion No. 44 (1990);
2.8 Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for
livestock, swine, and poultry raising;
2.9 Cases of exemption/exclusion of fishpond and prawn farms from
the coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881;
2.10 Issuance of Certificate of Exemption for land subject of
Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition
(CA) found unsuitable for agricultural purposes;
2.11 Application for conversion of agricultural land to residential,
commercial, industrial, or other non agricultural uses and
purposes including protests or oppositions thereto;
2.12 Determination of the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries to
homelots;
2.13 Disposition of excess area of the tenant's/farmer-beneficiary's
landholdings;
2.14 Increase in area of tillage of a tenant/farmer-beneficiary;
2.15 Conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR and its
predecessors; and
2.16 Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred
to it by the Secretary of the DAR.
On the other hand, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function, the Department of Agrarian
Reform, through its adjudication arm— the Adjudication Board and its regional and
provincial adjudication boards— adopted the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure. Under Rule
II, Section 2, the Adjudication Board shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review,
reverse, modify, alter, or affirm resolutions, orders, and decisions of its Adjudicators who
have primary and exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases:
Rule II
Jurisdiction of the Board and its Adjudicators
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original Jurisdiction. — The Adjudicator

shall have primary and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
the following cases:
1.1 The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical,

engaged in the management, cultivation, and use of all
agricultural lands covered by Republic Act (RA) No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL), and other related agrarian laws;
1.2 The preliminary administrative determination of reasonable and
just compensation of lands acquired under Presidential Decree
(PD) No. 27 and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP);
1.3 The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale
or their amendments involving lands under the administration and
disposition of the DAR or Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP);
1.4 Those cases involving the ejectment and dispossession of tenants
and/or leaseholders;
1.5 Those cases involving the sale, alienation, pre-emption, and
redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARL
or other agrarian laws;
1.6 Those involving the correction, partition, cancellation, secondary
and subsequent issuances of Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are
registered with the Land Registration Authority[.]
Rule II, Section 3 further states that neither the Adjudicator nor the Adjudication Board has
jurisdiction over matters involving the administrative implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law and other agrarian laws, as they are exclusively cognizable by the
Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary.
In Sutton v. Lim,[107] this Court clarified that the Adjudication Board's jurisdiction over
petitions for cancellation of registered certificates of land ownership award is confined to
agrarian disputes:
While the DARAB may entertain petitions for cancellation of CLOAs, as in this
case, its jurisdiction is, however, confined only to agrarian disputes. As explained
in the case of Heirs of Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Cruz and reiterated in the recent case
of Bagongahasa v. Spouses Cesar Caguin, for the DARAB to acquire
jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to an agrarian dispute between the
landowners and tenants in whose favor CLOAs have been issued by the DAR
Secretary, to wit:
The Court agrees with the petitioners' contention that, under Section
2(f), Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has
jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and
cancellation of CLOAs which were registered with the LRA.
However, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction in such cases, they
must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to
whom CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases
involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform

laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural
tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not the
DARAB.
Thus, it is not sufficient that the controversy involves the cancellation of a CLOA
already registered with the Land Registration Authority. What is of primordial
consideration is the existence of an agrarian dispute between the parties.[108]
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In Concha v. Rubio,[109] this Court, citing Lercana v. Jalandoni[110] and Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation v. Amante,[111] held that the identification and selection of
agrarian reform beneficiaries involve the administrative implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform. Hence, when seeking to contest the selection of
beneficiaries, a party should avail of the administrative remedies under the Department of
Agrarian Reform, not under the Adjudication Board. In Concha:
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education, Culture and

Sports, this Court held that the administrative prerogative of DAR to identify and
select agrarian reform beneficiaries holds sway upon the courts:
In the case at bar, the BARC certified that herein farmers were
potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject properties. Further, on
November 23, 1994, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform through the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of
Coverage placing the subject properties under CARP. Since the
identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters
involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP,
it behooves the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its
own determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of
discretion committed by the administrative agency . . .
Thus, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer's (MARO) decision not to include
respondents as farmer-beneficiaries must be accorded respect in the absence of
abuse of discretion. It bears stressing that it is the MARO or the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who, together with the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee, screens and selects the possible agrarian beneficiaries. If
there are farmers who claim they have priority over those who have been
identified by the MARO as beneficiaries of the land, said farmers can file a
protest with the MARO or the PARO who is currently processing the Land
Distribution Folder. Afterwards, the proper recourse of any individual who seeks
to contest the selection of beneficiaries is to avail himself of the administrative
remedies under the DAR and not under the DARAB, which is bereft of
jurisdiction over this matter.[112] (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Under the new law, Republic Act No. 9700,[113] all cases involving the cancellation of
certificates of land ownership award and other titles issued under any agrarian reform
program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform Secretary. Section 9 provides:
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
SECTION 9. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further

amended to read as follows:
SEC. 24. . . .
....
All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents,

certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian
reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Secretary
of the DAR.
I (D)
In addition to identifying the qualified beneficiaries, Section 22 of the Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Law mandates the Department of Agrarian Reform to "adopt a system of
monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of
negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to
continue as such beneficiary."[114]
The Department of Agrarian Reform, mandated to monitor the performance of beneficiaries

and ensure the integrity of its master list of agrarian reform beneficiaries, integrated the
Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Carding and Identification System[115] in its land acquisition
and distribution process.
Under the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Carding and Identification System, agrarian reform
beneficiaries with titles under the agrarian reform laws will be issued identification cards as
proof of their being bona fide beneficiaries. These identification cards are validated yearly
based on the Department of Agrarian Reform Municipal Office's inspection of the
beneficiaries' performance and compliance with their duties under the laws. The Municipal
Office checks if they still own and cultivate the landholding awarded to them, or if they have
committed any offense. Beneficiaries found to have violated the laws will be removed from
the master list. Consequently, their identification cards and emancipation patents or
certificates of land ownership award will be canceled.
Section 24 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law states that the rights and obligations
of beneficiaries commence from the time the land is awarded to them. The certificate of land
ownership award contains the restrictions and conditions provided in the law and other
applicable statutes. Thus:
SECTION 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The rights and responsibilities of the

beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land
to him, which award shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days
from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. Ownership of the
beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which
shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be
recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of
Title. (Emphasis supplied)
The restrictions and conditions refer to payment of annual amortizations, transferability of

the awarded land, and proper use of financial and support services, which are found in the
following provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law:
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
SECTION 26. Payment by Beneficiaries. — Lands awarded pursuant to this Act

shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual
amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum. The payments for the first
three (3) years after the award may be at reduced amounts as established by the
PARC: Provided, That the first five (5) annual payments may not be more than
five percent (5%) of the value of the annual gross production as established by the
DAR. Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed ten
percent (10%) of the annual gross production and the failure to produce
accordingly is not due to the beneficiary's fault, the LBP may reduce the interest
rate or reduce the principal obligation to make the repayment affordable.
The LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the
beneficiary; and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment
of an aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations. The LBP shall advise the
DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited
landholdings to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land, as
provided herein, has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified
from becoming a beneficiary under this Act.
SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by

beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except
through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other
qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That
the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the
land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of
the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The
Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) as herein
provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.
If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land
may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of
the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or
conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself. Failing compliance herewith, the
land shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability
of the land in the manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph.
In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the
beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts the latter has already paid, together
with the value of improvements he has made on the land.
....
SECTION 37. Support Services to the Beneficiaries. — The PARC shall ensure
that support services to farmer-beneficiaries are provided, such as:
(a) Land surveys and titling;
(b) Liberalized terms on credit facilities and production loans;
(c) Extension services by way of planting, cropping, production and

post-harvest technology transfer, as well as marketing and
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
management assistance and support to cooperatives and farmers'

organizations;
(d) Infrastructure such as access trails, mini-dams, public utilities,

marketing and storage facilities; and
(e) Research, production and use of organic fertilizers and other local
substances necessary in farming and cultivation.
....
Misuse or diversion of the financial and support services herein provided shall
result in sanctions against the beneficiary guilty thereof, including the
forfeiture of the land transferred to him or lesser sanctions as may be provided
by the PARC, without prejudice to criminal prosecution. (Emphasis supplied)
Failure of beneficiaries to comply with the prescribed conditions may result in the forfeiture
of the land awarded to them. A certificate of land ownership award may be corrected and
canceled for violations of agrarian laws, rules, and regulations.[116]
Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 03-09[117] provides the rules and
procedures for canceling certificates of land ownership award and other titles under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.[118] The causes of action in a petition for
cancellation of a certificate of land ownership award are:
SECTION 4. Causes of Action. — No petition for cancellation shall be filed

unless it has been determined and ruled with finality by the DAR Secretary or the
Courts that:
(a) The land subject matter of the CLOA, EP or other title under agrarian reform
program is found to be:
1. The retention area of the landowner;

2. Excluded from the coverage of CARP, PD No. 27 or other agrarian reform
program;
3. Exempted from the coverage of CARP, PD No. 27 or other agrarian reform
program;
4. Outside of the authority of the DAR to dispose and award, as the same falls
within the authority of the DENR to distribute;
5. Consist in the erroneous issuance of the said title resulting from the defect
or lacking in documentation (DNYP or DNYD generated titles but not yet
distributed).
(b) The CLOA or EP holder is found to have:
1. Misused or diverted the financial and support services;

2. Misused the land;
3. Materially misrepresented his basic qualifications as agrarian reform
beneficiary;
4. Illegally converted into other uses the awarded the land;
5. Sold, transferred, conveyed the awarded land to other person;
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
6. Defaulted in the payment of obligation for three (3) consecutive years in the
case of Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme;
7. Failed to pay the amortization for at least three (3) annual amortizations;
8. Neglected or abandoned the awarded land; and
9. Circumvented the laws related to the implementation of the agrarian reform
program.
Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 03-09 further states that the
cancellation of registered certificates of land ownership award, emancipation patents, and
other titles "under any agrarian reform program shall be strictly regulated and may be
allowed only in the manner and conditions prescribed"[119] in the Administrative Order.
II
Here, the collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award, with CLOA No. 00114438, was
issued in favor of petitioner's members[120] on January 27, 2004, and registered on January
30, 2004 under TCT No. T-802.[121]
On July 16, 2004, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer informed Polo Coconut that a
resurvey of the land will be conducted. Polo Coconut filed a Motion to suspend the survey
before the Adjudication Board, but it was denied for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, Polo Coconut
filed a Petition for Certiorari.
Polo Coconut raised two (2) issues before the Court of Appeals: (1) the propriety of land
coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and (2) the qualification of the
identified beneficiaries.[122] The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Polo Coconut and
nullified CLOA No. 00114438/TCT No. T-802. It held that the identified beneficiaries were
not tenants of Polo Coconut, and thus, could not qualify under the program.[123]
Both the Department of Agrarian Reform and petitioner's members moved for
reconsideration, but their Motions were denied.[124] Hence, the Department filed before this
Court a Petition for Review, docketed as G.R. No. 168787. Petitioner's members filed a
separate Petition for Review, entitled "Abarca, et al. v. Polo Coconut Plantation Company,
Inc., et al." docketed as G.R. No. 169271. They contended that while they were neither
farmers nor regular farmworkers of Polo Coconut, they were either seasonal or other
farmworkers eligible to receive land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.[125]
The two (2) Petitions were later consolidated.
In its September 3, 2008 Decision, this Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals
Decision. It found that Polo Coconut did not exhaust its administrative remedies because
Polo Coconut did not file a protest or opposition before the Department of Agrarian Reform
Secretary.[126] Moreover, on the issue of qualification of the identified beneficiaries, this
Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Department.[127] It ruled that
Section 22 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law allows the designation of eligible
beneficiaries other than the tenants of the landowners.[128] Hence, this Court declared CLOA
No. 00114438/TCT No. T-802 as valid.[129] Its Decision attained finality on November 26,
2008.
Seven (7) months later, on June 30, 2009, Alcantara, et al. filed the Petition for
Inclusion/Exclusion. They questioned the inclusion of petitioner's members as beneficiaries
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
and recipients of Certificates of Land Ownership Award. They contended that the existing
certificate holders were "outsiders" and have no connection with the Polo Coconut property.
[130] Respondent took cognizance of the Petition and granted the Cease and Desist Order.
By that time, however, the September 3, 2008 Decision[131] had already become final and
executory. Consequently, this Court affirmed the Department of Agrarian Reform's previous
identification and designation of qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, who were named in
CLOA No. 00114438. The finality of this Decision meant that:
[T]he decrees thereof could no longer be altered, modified, or reversed even by

the Court en banc. Nothing is more settled in law than that a judgment, once it
attains finality, becomes immutable and unalterable, and can no longer be
modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is
perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether
the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the
highest court of the land. This rule rests on the principle that all litigation must
come to an end, however unjust the result of error may appear; otherwise,
litigation will become even more intolerable than the wrong or injustice it is
designed to correct.[132] (Citations omitted)
A certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title. The title becomes

incontrovertible after expiration of the one (1)-year period from the issuance of the
registration decree, upon which it was based.[133]
In Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform,[134] the petitioners were issued

emancipation patents and transfer certificates of title over parcels of land in Barangay Angas,
Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur, with a total area of 527.83 hectares, from 1984 to 1988. The
landholding was brought within the coverage of the Operation Land Transfer under
Presidential Decree No. 27 upon the request of its previous owner, Hacienda Maria, Inc.
However, in December 1997, Hacienda Maria, Inc. filed 17 petitions before the Regional
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of CARAGA, Region XIII. These petitions sought the
declaration of erroneous coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27 of 277.5008 hectares of
its former landholdings. Hacienda Maria, Inc. claimed that the area was untenanted, and that
it was not paid compensation for it. It sought that the emancipation patents covering the
disputed area be canceled.
The Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator declared as void the transfer certificates of title
and emancipation patents over the disputed area. The Adjudication Board affirmed this
decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners' appeal on technicality, since the
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping was not signed by all petitioners.
This Court sustained the validity of the transfer certificates of title and emancipation patents.
It held that certificates of title issued pursuant to emancipation patents are as indefeasible as
transfer certificates of title issued in registration proceedings. Further, it ruled that the
transfer certificates of title issued to the petitioners became indefeasible upon the expiration
of one (1) year from the issuance of the emancipation patents. Thus:
Ybañez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, provides that certificates of title issued in

administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in
judicial proceedings:
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
....
The same confusion, uncertainty and suspicion on the distribution of government-

acquired lands to the landless would arise if the possession of the grantee of an
EP would still be subject to contest, just because his certificate of title was issued
in an administrative proceeding. The silence of Presidential Decree No. 27 as to
the indefeasibility of titles issued pursuant thereto is the same as that in the Public
Land Act where Prof. Antonio Noblejas commented:
Inasmuch as there is no positive statement of the Public Land Law,

regarding the titles granted thereunder, such silence should be
construed and interpreted in favor of the homesteader who come into
the possession of his homestead after complying with the
requirements thereof. Section 38 of the Land Registration Law should
be interpreted to apply by implication to the patent issued by the
Director of Lands, duly approved by the Minister of Natural
Resources, under the signature of the President of the Philippines, in
accordance with law.
After complying with the procedure, therefore, in Section 105 of Presidential

Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree (where
the DAR is required to issue the corresponding certificate of title after granting an
EP to tenant-farmers who have complied with Presidential Decree No. 27), the
TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs acquire the same protection
accorded to other TCTs. "The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of
the order for the issuance of the patent, . . . Lands covered by such title may no
longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to
another person."
....
The EPs themselves, like the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in
Republic Act No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), are
enrolled in the Torrens system of registration. The Property Registration Decree
in fact devotes Chapter IX on the subject of EPs. Indeed, such EPs and CLOAs
are, in themselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in
registration proceedings.[135] (Emphasis supplied)
In Heirs of Nuñez, Sr. v. Heirs of Villanoza,[136] where the issue was the retention limit of the
purported heirs of the landowner, this Court held:
Finally, the issuance of the title to Villanoza could no longer be revoked or set
aside by Secretary Pangandaman. Acquiring the lot in good faith, Villanoza
registered his Certificate of Land Ownership Award title under the Torrens
system. He was issued a new and regular title, TCT No. NT-299755, in fee
simple; that is to say, it is an absolute title, without qualification or restriction.
Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform has held that "certificates of title

issued in administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as [those] issued in
judicial proceedings." Section 2 of Administrative Order No. 03-09 provides that
"[t]he State recognizes the indefeasibility of [Certificate of Land Ownership
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
Awards], [Emancipation Patents] and other titles issued under any agrarian reform
program."
Here, a Certificate of Land Ownership Award title was already issued and
registered in Villanoza's favor on December 7, 2007. Villanoza's Certificate of
Land Ownership Award was titled under the Torrens system on November 24,
2004. After the expiration of one (1) year, the certificate of title covering the
property became irrevocable and indefeasible. Secretary Pangandaman's August
8, 2007 Order, which came almost three (3) years later, was thus ineffective.[137]
Section 24 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, as amended by Republic Act No.
9700, now explicitly provides that certificates of land ownership award, "being titles brought
under the operation of the [T]orrens [S]ystem," enjoy the same indefeasibility and security
afforded to all titles under the Torrens System:
Section 24. Award to beneficiaries. — The rights and responsibilities of the

beneficiaries shall commence from their receipt of a duly registered emancipation
patent or certificate of land ownership award and their actual physical possession
of the awarded land. Such award shall be completed in not more than one
hundred eighty (180) days from the date of registration of the title in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation patents, the
reform program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one (1) year
from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to the
conditions, limitations and qualifications of this Act, the property registration
decree, and other pertinent laws. The emancipation patents or the certificates of
land ownership award being titles brought under the operation of the Torrens
system, are conferred with the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all
titles under the said system, as provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as
amended by Republic Act No. 6732.
It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to register the title of the land in
the name of the Republic of the Philippines, after the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) has certified that the necessary deposit in the name of the
landowner constituting full payment in cash or in bond with due notice to the
landowner and the registration of the certificate of land ownership award issued
to the beneficiaries, and to cancel previous titles pertaining thereto.
Identified and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, based on Section 22 of

Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, shall have usufructuary rights over the
awarded land as soon as the DAR takes possession of such land, and such right
shall not be diminished even pending the awarding of the emancipation patent or
the certificate of land ownership award.
All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents,

reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Secretary
of the DAR.
Here, by the time the Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion was filed on June 30, 2009, the
September 3, 2008 Decision declaring the validity of CLOA No. 00114438 had attained
finality and TCT No. T-802 had already become incontrovertible. As registered property
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
owners, petitioner's members were entitled to the protection given to every Torrens title
holder. Their rights may only be forfeited in case of violations of agrarian laws, as well as
noncompliance with the restrictions and conditions under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law.
III
However, petitioner's assertion that respondent's cognizance of the Petition for

Inclusion/Exclusion constituted defiance of the September 3, 2008 Decision does not lie.
In Rivulet Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Paruñgao,[138] this Court explained the concept of

contempt of court:
Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting in

opposition to its authority, justice, and dignity, and signifies not only a willful
disregard of the court's order, hut such conduct which tends to bring the authority
of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or, in some manner, to
impede the due administration of justice. To be considered contemptuous, an act
must be clearly contrary to or prohibited by the order of the court. Thus, a person
cannot be punished for contempt for disobedience of an order of the Court, unless
the act which is forbidden or required to be done is clearly and exactly defined, so
that there can be no reasonable doubt or uncertainty as to what specific act or
thing is forbidden or required.[139] (Emphasis supplied)
The court's contempt power should be exercised with restraint and for a preservative, and not
vindictive, purpose. "Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should the
power be exercised."[140]
In Rivulet Agro-Industrial Corporation, the Department officials' act of installing farmer-

beneficiaries in Rivulet Agro-Industrial Corporation's landholding did not constitute an open
defiance and disobedience of this Court's December 15, 2010 temporary restraining order in
G.R. No. 193585. This Court held:
[W]hile the DAR was an intervenor in G.R. No. 193585, the December 15, 2010
TRO issued by the Court was only expressly directed against the LRA
Administrator, the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental and/or all persons
acting upon their order or in their place and stead, and specifically for the
following acts: "(a) from canceling Transfer Certificate of Title No. 105742
issued in favor of petitioner RIVULET Agro-Industrial Corporation; (b) from
issuing a new certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines; (c)
from issuing Certificate of Land Ownership Award in favor of anyone covering
Hacienda Bacan, a 157.2992-hectare property situated in the Municipality of
Isabela, Province of Negros Occidental; and (d) distributing such Certificate of
Land Ownership Award that it may have heretofore issued pending trial on the
merits." Clearly, the DAR and its officials were not among those enjoined.
Neither can they be considered agents of the LRA Administrator and the Register
of Deeds of Negros Occidental. Moreover, the installation of farmer-beneficiaries
was not among the acts specifically restrained, negating the claim that the
performance thereof was a contumacious act.[141]
Here, respondent justified his cognizance of the Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion based on the
Department's exclusive prerogative in the identification, selection, and subsequent re-
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
evaluation of agrarian reform beneficiaries.[142]
However, as earlier stated, the issue on the qualification of the existing Certificate of Land
Ownership Award holders had long been laid to rest in this Court's final and executory
September 3, 2008 Decision. Some of the petitioners in the inclusion/exclusion proceedings
were even respondents in that case.[143]
Still, respondent's erroneous cognizance of the Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion can only be
deemed as grave abuse of discretion, which is more properly the subject of a petition for
certiorari, not a petition for contempt. "No one who is called upon to try the facts or interpret
the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment."[144]
At any rate, whether respondent's actions were improper is not an issue here. What is crucial
in contempt proceedings is the intent of the alleged contemnor to disobey or defy the court as
held in St. Louis University, Inc. v. Olairez:[145]
In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense. Thus, the good faith
or lack of it, of the alleged contemnor is considered. Where the act complained of
is ambiguous or does not clearly show on its face that it is contempt, and is one
which, if the party is acting in good faith, is within his rights, the presence or
absence of a contumacious intent is, in some instances, held to be determinative
of its character. . . . To constitute contempt, the act must be done wil[l]fully and
for an illegitimate or improper purpose.[146] (Emphasis in the original, citations
omitted)
All told, this Court finds no clear and contumacious conduct on the part of respondent. His
acts do not qualify as a willful disobedience to this Court nor a willful disregard of its
authority.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Contempt is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Carandang,[*] JJ., concur.
[*] Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.
[1]Id. at 3-31. Filed under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. The case is an
offshoot of the case entitled Department of Agrarian Reform v. Polo Coconut Plantation
Company, Inc., 586 Phil. 69 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
[2] Id. at 5.
[3]Described as Lot 3478-D of Psd-30972 and covered by TCT No. T-2304. The land had a
total area of 431 hectares. See Department of Agrarian Reform v. Polo Coconut Plantation
Company, Inc., 586 Phil. 69 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
[4]
Rollo, p. 563; see also Department of Agrarian Reform v. Polo Coconut Plantation
Company, Inc., 586 Phil. 69, 75 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
[5] Rollo, p. 346.
[6]Id. at 516-522-A. Under the notation on the last page of TCT No. T-802, "the remaining
area of 1.7693 hectares is subject for subsequent acquisition[.]"
[7] Id. at 9.
[8]
Id. at 33-37. The administrative case for determination and fixing of just compensation
was docketed as RARAD Case No. VII-N-1284-2004.
[9] Id. at 36.
[10] Id. at 107-113 and 516-522.
[11]Id. at 24, 516, and 519-522. According to TCT No. T-802, the parcel of land situated in
Barangay Polo, Tanjay, Negros Oriental with an area of 3,949,020 square meters (or 394.902
hectares) is awarded to the following beneficiaries: Martina Q. Abarca, Tolentina E. Ablay,
Conchita M. Ac-Ac, Josephina S. Ac-Ac, Loreta C. Ac-Ac, Caridad Q. Aguilar, Diosdado A.
Aguilar, Romulo S. Aguilar, Sherlita T. Aguilar, Wilfredo T. Alcantara, Anacleto B. Alforque,
Ricardo P. Baco, Rodrigo P. Baco, Sr., Dario B. Bajana, Sr., Demetrio F. Balbuena, Gregoria
R. Barba, Tomas T. Barba, Wilfredo R. Barba, Vivian F. Barot, Domingo O. Baroy, Arturo A.
Borromeo, Fedencia R. Borromeo, Juanita P. Cabil, Salvador A. Cabornay, Severino M.
Cabug-Os, Aurea M. Calda, Baltazar R. Cataloña, Danilo B. Curato, Arnulfo B. Dael,
Democrito B. Dagodog, Genaro C. Duran, Josephine M. Ellema, Albina R. Elmaga, Enrique
R. Elmaga, Edwin L. Elumir, Tomas M. Gabihan, Alberto A. Gaso, Pedro R. Gaso, Visitacion
S. Gaso, Erlinda S. Gazo, Andres M. Genel, Dioscoro M. Genel, Angel R. Gomez, Lorenzo
S. Gomez, Santiago T. Gomez, Silando Q. Gomez, Consorcia G. Guevarra, Fredeswinda M.
Guma, Celedonia A. Guzman, Herculano B. Guzman, Jr., Cesario Q. Haroy, Sr., Eddie Q.
Haroy, Romeo E. Inoferio, Genara R. Juano, Gevino B. Juano, Sr., Rogelia B. Juano,
Rosalita G. Juano, Diogracias R. Larazan, Relina H. Larena, Jose G. Magalso, Inocencia G.
Malco, Lucena B. Malto, Santos S. Malto, Elina T. Marimat, Ramon C. Marimat, Mercy B.
Maro, Ruthelma D. Maro, Charita S. Mateo, Alma B. Medina, Abundio M. Mendez, Reynold
S. Mindez, Alberto B. Mira, Gaudencia S. Mira, Crestita D. Montaña, Dionisia T. Montaña,
Loreto R. Napao, Alicia P. Nillas, Esperanza M. Omatang, Hermogenes A. Omatang, Jr.,
Felicisima M. Oracion, Joel M. Oracion, Patrocinio T. Pao, Lourdes T. Partosa, Fabian S.
Piñero, Felix R. Publico, Maribelle B. Publico, Carmelita M. Quilario, Enrique R. Quilario,
Manolita M. Quilario, Miguel S. Quilerio, Leonila J. Quinquilleria, Delta M. Ramirez,
Rogelio S. Ramirez, Elias O. Ramos, Consolacion T. Real, Erlinda I. Regala, Dominga M.
Reman, Eugenio O. Reman, Pepita R. Reman, Rodney D. Reman, Ronnie O. Reman, Sr.,
Dominador P. Rempojo, Eutiquio T. Rempojo, Rosita C. Rempojo, Carolina T. Reyes,
Dionisia M. Reyes, Eugenia B. Reyes, Loreta D. Reyes, Mario S. Reyes, Laureano C. Rivera,
Peter C. Rivera, Evangeline Q. Rodriguez, Ricardo R. Rodriguez, Patrocinio B. Sabihon,
Felipe G. Saga, Valeriana R. Saga, Anesia D. Salin, Flaviano T. Salin, Jr., Wenefredo T.
Salin, Virgilio B. Saloma, Estela S. Salva, George R. Salva, Teofista R. Salva, Josephine T.
Sedigo, Michael P. Segismar, Sr., Joseph S. Sevilla, Marissa H. Sienes, Ma. Gina M. Silva,
Arturo T. Solitana, Marilyn M. Tabora, Gabino G. Temblor, Reynaldo Q. Temblor, Elsa A.
Teves, Leonora D. Torco, Gregoria O. Toroy, Andres P. Torres, Hilario P. Torres, Leonardo G.
Torres, Manolita T. Torres, Vicenta G. Torres, Generoso I. Torres, Leonardo F. Tubaga,
Agripino P. Turco, Flordelico S. Verbo, Olympia T. Yorong, and Rosenda C. Zerna.
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
[12] Id. at 12.
[13] Id. at 39-41.
[14] Id. at 199.
[15] Id. at 565-566.
[16]Department of Agrarian Reform v. Polo Coconut Plantation Company, Inc., 586 Phil. 69,
76-77 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
[17] 586 Phil. 69 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
[18] Id. at 83.
[19] Id. at 78-79.
[20] Id. at 79.
[21] Id. at 82.
[22] Id. at 83.
[23] Rollo, p. 13.
[24]Id. at 199 and 314-342. The case was docketed as DARRO ADM. Case Nos. A-0700-
453-01-2009 to A-0700-453-147-2009.
[25] Id. at 342.
[26] Id.
[27] Id. at 63 and 199.
[28] Id. at 64.
[29] Id. at 60-67.
[30] Id. at 65.
[31] Id. at 183.
[32] Id. Composed of the following Department of Agrarian Reform personnel, namely:
Atty. Esther Doron - Chairperson

Nadela
SARPO Alan B. - Member
Tudtud
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
LO I Rudylin B. - Member
Tudtud
Representative - Member
(OPNS)
Representative - Member
(MARO)
SARPT Remedios - Documentor
O. Josol
ADM. Asst. III - Documentor
Floresa T. Banglos
[33] Id. at 200.
[34] Id. at 18 and 68-106.
[35] Id. at 71.
[36] Id. at 78.
[37] Id. at 81-82.
[38] Id. at 74.
[39] Id. at 82.
[40] Id. at 19.
[41] Id. at 176-180.
[42] Id. at 3-32.
[43] Id. at 434.
[44] Id. at 20-22.
[45] Id. at 23.
[46] Id. at 29-30.
[47] Id. at 197-206.
[48] Id. at 201.
[49] Id. at 202-203.
[50] Id. at 204.
[51] Id. at 222-247.

4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
[52] Id. at 222-225.
[53] Id. at 243.
[54] Id.
[55] Id. at 213-218.
[56] Id. at 273-304.
[57] Id. at 274-275.
[58] Id. at 314-356.
[59] Id. at 274.
[60] Id. at 346-347 and 353.
[61] Id. at 353-354.
[62] Id. at 354.
[63] Id.
[64] Id. at 355.
[65] Id. at 355-356.
[66] Id. at 360-366.
[67] Id. at 366.
[68] Id. at 369-396.
[69] Id. at 426-427.
[70] Id. at 429-467 (petitioner's Memorandum) and 542-553 (respondent's Memorandum).
[71] Id. at 458.
[72] Id. at 457-458.
[73] Id. at 547.
[75] Rollo, p. 547.
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
[76] Id. at 547 and 549.
[77] Id. at 547.
[78] Id. at 550.
[79] Id.
[80] Id. at 551.
[81] Id. at 551.
[82] Id. at 502-506.
[83] Id. at 554-606.
[84] Rep. Act No. 9700, or 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 (2009), sec. 50-A provides:
Section 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. — No court or

prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the
implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of Republic
Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that
the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or
tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to
the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral
whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the determination of the
DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the
municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the
proper regional trial court, and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the
appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.
In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent

jurisdiction, agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their
associations shall have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their
individual or collective rights and/or interests under the CARP.
The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned
government agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their
legal standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial
bodies.
[85] 493 Phil. 570 (2005) [J. Austria-Martinez, Special First Division].
[86] Reorganization Act of the Department of Agrarian Reform (1987).
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
[87] Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), secs. 15 and 16 provide:
SECTION 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. — The DAR in coordination with

the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall
register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are qualified to be
beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential beneficiaries with the assistance of the
BARC and the DAR shall provide the following data:
(a) names and members of their immediate farm household;

(b) owners or administrators of the lands they work on and the length
of tenurial relationship;
(c) location and area of the land they work;
(d) crops planted; and
(e) their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages
received.
A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the barangay
shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the
barangay where it shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable
hours.
SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of

acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the
DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by
personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous
place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the
property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a
corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections
17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof. (Emphasis supplied)
[88] Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), secs. 35-38.
[89] Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 16.
[90]Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), secs. 19-21. Under Rep. Act No. 9700 (2009), sec. 5,
voluntary land transfer will no longer be allowed as a mode of acquisition after June 30,
2009.
[91] Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 49 provides:
SECTION 49. Rules and Regulations. — The PARC and the DAR shall have the
power to issue rules and regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry
out the objects and purposes of this Act. Said rules shall take effect ten (10) days
after publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
[92] DAR Adm. Order No. 01-03 (2003), secs. 1 and 2.
[93] DAR Adm. Order No. 03-03 (2003), sec. 13.2.
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
[96] Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 22 provides:
SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — The lands covered by the CARP shall
be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or
in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the
following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;

(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
Provided, however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under
Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of
their parents: and Provided, further, That actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings
shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed
of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under this
Program.
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability

to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a
system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any
beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to
him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit
periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC.
If, due to the landowner's retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or
workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of
them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution
under this Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.
Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of

privately-owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands
from the public domain. (Emphasis in the original)
Rep. Act No. 9700, sec. 22-A further provides:
SECTION 22-A. Order of Priority. — A landholding of a landowner shall be

distributed first to qualified beneficiaries under Section 22, subparagraphs (a) and
(b) of that same landholding up to a maximum of three (3) hectares each. Only
when these beneficiaries have all received three (3) hectares each, shall the
remaining portion of the landholding, if any, be distributed to other beneficiaries
under Section 22, subparagraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g).
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
[97]
Guidelines on the Identification, Screening and Selection of, and Distribution to Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) of Private Agricultural Lands under Republic Act (R.A.) No.
6657.
[98] Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 07-03 (2003), sec. 10.2.4.
[99] Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 07-03 (2003), sec. 8.3 in
relation to sec. 10.2.5.
[100]Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order 07-03 (2003), secs. 11.1.1 and
11.2.1.
[101]Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 07-03 (2003), secs. 11.3.1
and 11.3.2.
[102] Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 07-03 (2003), sec. 11.3.4.
[103] Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 03-03 (2003), Rule I, sec.
2.14.
[104] 2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases (2003).
[105] DAR Administrative Order No. 03-03 (2003), Rule II, sec. 7 provides:
SECTION 7. General Jurisdiction. The Regional Director shall exercise primary

jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases except when a separate
special rule vests primary jurisdiction in a different DAR office.
[106] DAR Administrative Order No. 03-03 (2003), Rule II, sec. 10 provides:
SECTION 10. Appellate Jurisdiction. The Secretary shall exercise appellate

jurisdiction over all ALI cases, and may delegate the resolution of appeals to any
Undersecretary.
[107]
700 Phil. 67 (2012) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division]. See also Cañas-Manuel v.
Egano, 767 Phil. 412 (2015) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
[108] Id. at 74.
[109] 631 Phil. 21 (2010) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
[110] 426 Phil. 319 (2002) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
[111] 493 Phil. 570 (2005) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Special First Division].
[112] Concha v. Rubio, 631 Phil. 21, 35-36 (2010) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
[113]An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP),

Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
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 (August 7, 2009).
[114] Rep. Act No. 6657(1988), sec. 22.
[115] DAR Administrative Order No. 03-08 (2008). Guidelines on ARB Carding and
Identification System and its Mainstreaming in Land Acquisition and Distribution Process.
[116]See Almagro v. Spouses Amaya, Sr., 711 Phil. 493 (2013) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third
Division].
[117]
Rules and Procedures Governing the Cancellation of Registered Certificates of Land
Ownership Awards (CLOAs), Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Other Titles Issued Under
Any Agrarian Reform Program.
[118]DAR Adm. Order No. 03-09 (2009), sec. 47 states that the Administrative Order shall
take effect on July 1, 2009 pursuant to Rep. Act No. 9700, sec. 31.
[119] DAR Adm. Order No. 03-09 (2009), sec. 2.
[120] Rollo, p. 24.
[121] Id. at 107-113 and 516-522.
[122]Department of Agrarian Reform v. Polo Coconut Plantation Company, Inc., 586 Phil.
69, 76 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
[123] Id.
[124] Id. at 77.
[125] Id.
[126] Id. at 79.
[127] Id. at 83.
[128] Id.
[129] Id.
[130] Rollo, p. 342.
[132] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay, 678 Phil. 879, 908-909 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin,
First Division].
4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019 ]
[133] See Lebrudo v. Loyola, 660 Phil. 456 (2011) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
[134] 526 Phil. 700 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
[135]Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 526 Phil. 700, 717-719 (2006) [Per J.
Chico-Nazario, First Division].
[136] G.R. No. 218666, April 26, 2017, <

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63094 > [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].
[137] Id.
[138] 701 Phil. 444 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
[139] Id. at 452.
[140]
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Calanza, 647 Phil. 507, 514 (2010) [Per J. Nachura,
Second Division].
[141] Rivulet Agro-Industrial Corp. v. Paruñgao, 701 Phil. 444, 452-453 (2013) [Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
[142] Rollo, pp. 202 and 204.
[143]Rollo, pp. 344-345. Namely: Nole Alcantara, Zosimo Barba, Robert Bajana, Juvenal
Mendez, Shiela Reyes, Prisco Baco, Benjamin Dayap, Antonio Dedeles, Narciso Diaz,
Juveniano Reyes, Rodolfo Salva, Avelino Bajana, Praxedes Bajana, Alejandro Gimol,
Herminigildo Villaflores, and Florencia Remollo.
[144]
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Calanza, 647 Phil 507, 516 (2010) [Per J. Nachura,
Second Division].
[145] 730 Phil. 444 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
[146] Id. at 461.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: March 15, 2023

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 189162. January 30, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/10/24, 10:39 AM [ G.R. No. 189162.

January 30, 2019 ]

846 Phil. 239 ← click for PDF copy

Sometime in 2003, a 394.9020-hectare portion of the landholding[3] owned by Polo Coconut

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered

SO ORDERED.[16] (Citation omitted)

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing ORDER is hereby issued:

1. DIRECTING the [Certificate of Land Ownership Award holders], their

3. Petitioner's members, as registered owners of the landholding involved, are entitled to

Petitioner filed a Reply,[51] stating the following arguments:

1. Despite the pendency of the Petition, respondent proceeded to conduct a reinvestigation

c. 39 Certificate of Land Ownership Award holders (petitioner's members) were

Adjudicator] of Oriental Negros for the amendment/correction of the subject [Certificate of

1. That any party may suffer grave or irreparable damage;

Finally, respondent avers that petitioner's voluntary submission to the Department of

This Court dismisses the Petition.

SECTION 13. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. — There is hereby created

Section 7 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law authorizes the Department of

Section 16 outlines the procedure for compulsory land acquisition:

SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of

(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct

(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or,

3. nominate his/her child/ren who may qualify as beneficiary/ies to the subject

4. submit evidence for determining just compensation of the subject landholding.

Upon land acquisition, the Department of Agrarian Reform immediately proceeds to

Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 07-03[97] provides the

4.1 General Qualifications. All agrarian reform beneficiaries must be:

4.1.1 Landless as defined by R.A. No. 6657;

4.2 Specific Qualifications for Farmworkers in Commercial Farms. In

Section 5. Grounds for Disqualification/Exclusion. The following shall be the

5.1. Failure to meet the qualifications as provided for under Section 22

5.2. Non-payment of an aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations or

5.3. Misuse or diversion of financial support services extended to

5.4. Negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to them

5.5. Material misrepresentation of the ARB's basic qualifications as

5.6. Sale, disposition, or abandonment of the lands awarded by

5.7. Conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use without

5.8. Retirement from the service, whether optional or mandatory, or

5.10. Obtaining a substantially equivalent and regular employment, as

5.12. Execution of a waiver of right to become an ARB in exchange

5.13. Refusal to be listed as an ARB and to provide pertinent

5.15. Commission of any violation of the agrarian reform laws and

SECTION 14. Re-Opening of ARB Identification and Selection

14.1 Subsequent to the issuance of CLOAs but prior to the installation

14.2 Any petition to re-open the ARB identification, screening and

The re-opening of ARB identification, screening and selection shall, however,

As in protests for inclusion/exclusion of agrarian reform beneficiaries, petitions to reopen the

2.1 Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage

SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original Jurisdiction. — The Adjudicator

1.1 The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical,

the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform

In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education, Culture and

SECTION 9. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further

All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents,

In addition to identifying the qualified beneficiaries, Section 22 of the Comprehensive

The Department of Agrarian Reform, mandated to monitor the performance of beneficiaries

SECTION 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The rights and responsibilities of the

The restrictions and conditions refer to payment of annual amortizations, transferability of

SECTION 26. Payment by Beneficiaries. — Lands awarded pursuant to this Act