[CA-G.R. SP No. 38557. February 11, 1997.]
ELADIO G. ADRIANO, LETECIA G. ADRIANO, FELIPE ADRIANO, ELIZABETH G. ADRIANO and MARISSA ADRIANO, petitioners, vs. FELIX DELA CRUZ, ELPIDIO DELA CRUZ, ELIAS LALO, FELINO CLEMENTE, ROMANA DE RUEDA TEOFILA LALO, ROLANDO MUNCAL EMILIANO BAGAN, JUANITO CASTILLO PATERNO JOSON, LEA DIMLA, TELESFORO DELA CRUZ and DARAB CENTRAL OFFICE, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
RAMIREZ, J p:
Petitioners Eladio, Leticia, Felipe III, Elizabeth and Marissa, all surnamed Adriano, seek reversal of the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated July 10, 1995 in DARAB Case No. 0479 remanding the case "to the Board of origin to thresh out once and for all issues raised by Petitioners-Appellants"(private respondents herein) and the resolution dated September 7, 1995 denying their motion for reconsideration of said decision.
Petitioner spouses Eladio and Leticia Adriano are the owners of seven (7) parcels of agricultural land with a total area of 203,516 sq. meters located in the Municipality of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. TCT NT-13664, NT-13666, 13668, 13669, NT-4160 and 4163. Private respondents are tenants of said agricultural lands apportioned, as follows: Elias Lalo, Felino Clemente and Romano de Rueda, 3 hectares each; Felix de la Cruz, 2 hectares; Teofilo Lalo, 1.5 hectares; and Elpidio dela Cruz, Rolando Muncal, Emiliano Bagan, Paterno Jason, Lea Dimla, Juanito Castillo and Telesforo dela Cruz, 1 hectare each.
On January 21, 1972, petitioners Adriano spouses executed a deed donating inter vivos portions of the parcels of agricultural land to their minor children Marissa, Felipe III and Elizabeth. Upon presentation of the deed of donation at Office of the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija for registration new transfer certifications of title were issued in the names of the children, as follows: Elizabeth G. Adriano, TCT Nos. NT-118719 and 119099, Marissa G. Adriano, TCT Nos. NT-118714 and 119798 and Felipe G. Adriano III Nos. NT-118718 and 118715.
Respondents-tenants filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board a petition seeking cancellation and annulment of the deed of donation inter vivos and the titles issued in favor of petitioners. It was alleged that the donation and transfer of the parcels of agricultural land in favor of the children were made by their parents to exempt their landholding from the operation of the land transfer program of the government under Presidential Decree No. 27 and to circumvent the law; and that it was only when they were summoned to appear before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija that they learned of the transfer that was made. They prayed that the deed of donation be declared null and void and that the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija be ordered to cancel the certificates of title issued in the name of the Adriano children.
Answering the complaint petitioners Adriano spouses alleged that the Provincial Adjudication Board has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition considering that it is for cancellation of the deed of donation and annulment of titles which is purely civil in nature falling within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and that the action has already prescribed since more than ten years have elapsed from issuance of the new titles to the filing of the petition.
The Provincial Adjudication Board dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for reconsideration of said order filed by respondents-tenants was denied in an order dated September 13, 1991.
Respondents-tenants appealed the decision to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) which held that it "has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case" and remanded the case "to the Board of origin to thresh out once and for all issues raised by Petitioners-Appellants" (respondents-tenant). Said DARAB in its decision:
Accordingly, to see if the DARAB has jurisdiction over the subject of the action in this case, we may as well refer to the provisions of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, which is the rule enforced at the commencement of the case at bar, to wit:
Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.
Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to the following:
a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the cultivation and use of agricultural land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and other agrarian laws.
xxx xxx xxx
c) Cases involving the annulment or cancellation of orders decisions of DAR officials other than the Secretary, lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments under the administration and disposition of the DAR and LBP;
xxx xxx xxx
e) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, presumption and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws.
xxx xxx xxx
g) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR. . . . (Rule II DARAB, Revised Rule of Procedure).
Likewise, Presidential Decree No. 946, unrepealed by Republic Act No. 6657 except its two last paragraphs, enumerates the cases over which the Court of Agrarian Relation (CAR), now the DARAB, has jurisdiction, to wit:
Section 12. Jurisdiction over Subject Matter. — The Courts of Agrarian Relations shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over —
a) Cases involving the rights and obligations persons in the cultivations and use of agricultural land except those cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission . . ..
As can be seen, the instant case was filed by Petitioners-Appellants who alleged in their petition that they are tenants-tillers over the parcels of land we enumerated at this case. Precisely, this case involves security of tenure which fall squarely on the jurisdictional arm of the DARAB as defined in the above-quoted Rules of Procedure of the DARAB and the provision of Presidential Decree No. 946. Since this is an agrarian matter, jurisdiction over it must be deemed vested in the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) (Gregorio M. Commendador vs. Hon. Judge Monserate Baol-Galvez, CA G.R. SP No. 27460, March 19, 1993; Tangub vs. CA, UDK No. 9864, December 3, 1990, 191 SCRA 885; Quismundo vs. Ca. G.R. No. 96664, September 13, 1991). In another case, the Court of Appeals discussed clearly the jurisdiction of the DARAB, to wit:
While the complaint in DARAB, Case No. 200 is captioned Forcible Entry, Unlawful Detainer, Reinstatement and Damages, the allegations therein show that private respondents is, in fact, questioning the ownership of petitioner over the land in question. Petitioner claims that the land was acquired by her late husband through homestead application. In effect, the allegations in the complaint seek the cancellation or amendment of Petitioner's alleged title over a land which is admittedly within the settlement and resettlement areas under the administration or disposition of the Department of Agrarian Reform. This brings the case under the jurisdiction of the DARAB.
Jurisdiction of DAR Adjudication Board covers not only agrarian disputes but all agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. (Aurea Hernandez vs. Abeto A. Salcedo, Jr., et. al., CA G.R. No. 27815, May 7, 1992).
Petitioners-Appellants' contention that the subject land tenanted by them were found to be within the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27, per finding and recommendation of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, must prevail over a mere assertion that the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the case considering that the instant case involves cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title. At this juncture, it must be emphasized that the mere claim on the subject matter is not sufficient. As stated by the Supreme Court of the United States, the claim must be real and substantial. A mere word is not enough (Herrera Remedial Law Book I, 1994, ed. Citing Lamparas vs. bell, 180 US 276; 45 Law ed. 527, 530; People vs. Iuras, 64 Phil. 420). It can be gleaned from the records that Petitioners-Appellants' allegation in their rights as agricultural tenants rather than a mere petition to cancel or annul the subject Transfer Certificate of Title. Such allegation in the petition determines the jurisdiction of the DAR Adjudication Board or the Adjudicator over the case at bar. In one case, the Honorable Supreme Court has this to say:
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, the allegation that the DARAB has no jurisdiction over cancellation or annulment of a Deed of Donation holds no water. As already stated, the allegation of the complaint determine the jurisdiction of the DAR Adjudication Board or the Court. While the cancellation or annulment of deed of donation is one of the prayers in the Petition, the allegations of the petition truly centers on the issue of Petitioners-Appellants' being tenant-tillers of the landholding in question and the violation of their right to security of tenure over the said landholding. Being, unquestionably a tenancy or agrarian case, the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action or suit in the case at bar. We have the following authorities, among others, on the matter, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
Likewise, in the case of Nina M. Quismundo vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 95664, September 13, 1991, 201 SCRA 609, the Hon. Supreme Court held:
In 1980, upon the passage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act, the courts of agrarian relations were integrated into the Regional Trial Courts and the jurisdiction of the former was vested in the latter courts.
However, with the enactment of Executive Order No. 228, which took effect on August 29, 1987, fifteen days after its release for publication in the Official Gazette, the Regional Trial Courts were divested of their general jurisdiction and is now vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (Emphasis ours) [Annex A, petition].
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the DARAB decision (Annex B, petition) which was denied (Annex C, petition).
Hence, this petition for review, DARAB being faulted with error —
I
. . . IN ORDERING THE REMANDING TO THE PROVINCIAL BOARD ADJUDICATOR THE SAID APPEALED CASE KNOWING THAT THE DARAB HAS NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND TRY THE CASE; and
II
. . . IN NOT MAKING A RULING THAT THE SAID ACTION HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED (p. 8 petition).
We are in full accord with respondent DARAB that respondents tenants' security of tenure as tillers of the landholdings in question is affected by the deed of donation inter vivos executed by petitioners spouses in favor of their children. The Provincial Adjudication Board may not have the competence to pass upon the question of validity of the deed of donation inter vivos that petitioners-spouses have executed in their children's favor. But said Board may determine its effect upon respondents-tenants' security of tenure as agricultural tillers thereon. To that extent, the Provincial Adjudication Board has jurisdiction over the case at its initial stage. Accordingly, respondent DARAB committed no reversible error in remanding the case "to the Board of origin to thresh out once and for all the issues raised by Petitioners-Appellants."
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for of merit. Costs against petitioners.
* Reyes and Adefuin-de la Cruz, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Substituting for Justice Ricardo P. Galvez who is on leave of absence.