Agrarian Reform Adjudication: When DARAB Has No Jurisdiction Over CLOA Cancellation

The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) is often assumed to have authority over any dispute involving agrarian reform lands. But the Supreme Court has clarified an important limit: DARAB's jurisdiction over petitions to cancel Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) requires a tenancy relationship between the parties. In Union Bank of the Philippines v. The Honorable Regional Agrarian Reform Officer, G.R. No. 200369 (2017), the Court explained when the DARAB—and not the DAR Secretary—has jurisdiction, and when it does not.

The Dispute: A Bank Seeks to Withdraw Land from CARP

Union Bank of the Philippines owned two parcels of agricultural land in Calamba, Laguna. It offered the properties to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) arrangement of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). After the DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines inspected the properties, the DAR offered compensation amounts that Union Bank found unacceptable.

Meanwhile, the DAR began issuing CLOAs to farmer-beneficiaries over one of the parcels. Union Bank later asked the DAR to withdraw its VOS and exempt the properties from CARP coverage, claiming the land had a slope exceeding 18% and was undeveloped—grounds for exemption under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (Republic Act No. 6657).

The DAR Secretary denied the request, finding that Union Bank failed to prove the land was both undeveloped and steeply sloped. Union Bank also filed petitions to cancel the CLOAs before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), which were dismissed as premature. The DARAB and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed these dismissals.

The Issue: Who Has Jurisdiction Over CLOA Cancellation?

The central question was whether the DARAB had jurisdiction over Union Bank's petitions to cancel the CLOAs, given that Union Bank and the farmer-beneficiaries had no tenancy relationship.

Union Bank argued that under Executive Order No. 229, the DARAB had quasi-judicial powers over all agrarian reform matters. The private respondents countered that the classification and identification of landholdings for CARP coverage—including petitions to lift such coverage—belong to the DAR Secretary.

The Ruling: Tenancy Relationship Is a Jurisdictional Requirement

The Supreme Court denied Union Bank's petitions and affirmed the CA's rulings. The Court held that for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a CLOA cancellation case, there must be an "agrarian dispute" between the parties. Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, an agrarian dispute is "any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture."

The Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint. For the PARAD and DARAB to acquire jurisdiction, there must be a prima facie showing of a tenurial arrangement or tenancy relationship between the parties. The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship—which must appear on the face of the complaint—are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests.

In this case, Union Bank's petitions merely alleged that the respondents were CLOA beneficiaries. The petitions did not allege any tenurial or agrarian relationship. The Court found that Union Bank's questioning of the beneficiaries' qualifications suggested the latter were not known to—much less tenants of—Union Bank prior to the dispute.

The Court clarified the legislative history of agrarian reform laws. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and Executive Order No. 229 conferred jurisdiction to the DAR—not the DARAB, which did not exist at the time. Executive Order No. 129-A later split this jurisdiction: the DARAB received authority over the adjudication of agrarian disputes, while the DAR regional offices received jurisdiction over agrarian reform implementation.

Citing Valcurza v. Tamparong, Jr., G.R. No. 189874 (2013), the Court stated: "The DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered CLOAs relating to an agrarian dispute between landowners and tenants. However, in cases concerning the cancellation of CLOAs that involve parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees—cases related to the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations—the jurisdiction is with the DAR, and not the DARAB."

The Court Also Addressed the Factual Findings

The Court likewise rejected Union Bank's challenge to the DAR Secretary's factual finding that the properties were not exempt from CARP. Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The Court is not a trier of facts, and factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and finality—especially when affirmed by the CA.

The Court noted that while Union Bank's claim that the properties exceeded 18% slope was uncontroverted, this alone was insufficient. The exemption under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law requires that land with an 18% or over slope must also be "undeveloped" to qualify for exemption. The DAR Secretary weighed the evidence—including a MARO case report showing the properties were agriculturally developed—and the Court declined to disturb that finding absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Practical Takeaways

• DARAB jurisdiction is not automatic. A petition to cancel CLOAs filed before the PARAD or DARAB must allege a tenancy relationship or tenurial arrangement between the parties. Without such allegations, the case belongs to the DAR, not the DARAB.
• Know the difference between DAR and DARAB. The DAR handles matters involving the administrative implementation of agrarian reform—such as determining whether land is exempt from CARP coverage. The DARAB handles adjudication of agrarian disputes involving tenancy.
• Allege the elements of tenancy. A complaint must show the six requisites of a tenancy relationship on its face: landowner and tenant parties, agricultural land, consent, agricultural production purpose, personal cultivation, and sharing of harvests.
• Exemption requires both conditions. Land with an 18% or greater slope is exempt from CARP coverage only if it is also undeveloped. Proving one condition is not enough.
• Factual findings are hard to overturn. The Supreme Court will not reweigh evidence on a Rule 45 petition. Factual findings of the DAR Secretary, especially when affirmed by the CA, are given great weight and finality.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.