Agrarian Reform DAR Jurisdiction Over Land Acquisition Disputes Post June 2014

The Supreme Court has clarified an important point for landowners and agrarian reform stakeholders: the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) retains exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program, even after the June 30, 2014 deadline set by Republic Act No. 9700. In Robustum Agricultural Corporation v. Department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 221484, November 19, 2018), the Court explained that this deadline did not strip the DAR of its authority over cases already pending before that date.

The Case: A Landowner's Challenge to a Notice of Coverage

Robustum Agricultural Corporation owned a 50,000-square meter agricultural parcel in Silay City, a portion of a larger estate formerly owned by Puyas Agro, Inc. In December 2013, the DAR sent Robustum a letter informing it that the property was covered by the agrarian reform program. The DAR issued another notice of coverage in June 2014, which was published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Robustum filed a petition for quieting of title and declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Silay City, questioning the validity of the notice of coverage. The company argued that the notice was defective because the DAR resorted to publication without first attempting personal service, and because the notice was not posted in conspicuous places as required by DAR regulations.

The DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. They pointed to Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, which grants the DAR exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. The RTC agreed and dismissed the petition. Robustum appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

The Issue: Does Section 30 of RA 9700 Transfer Jurisdiction to the Courts?

Robustum relied on Section 30 of RA No. 9700, which states that any case or proceeding involving the implementation of RA No. 6657 pending on June 30, 2014 "shall be allowed to proceed to its finality and be executed even beyond such date." The company argued that this provision limited the DAR's jurisdiction to cases already pending as of the cut-off date, and that new cases filed after June 30, 2014 should fall under the regular courts' jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. The Court held that Section 30 of RA No. 9700 did not vest any jurisdiction in the regular courts. Rather, it simply authorized the DAR to continue processing and finalizing agrarian reform cases that were already pending as of June 30, 2014.

The Ruling: Notices of Coverage Initiate the Proceeding

The Court explained that a proceeding for compulsory land acquisition and distribution commences with the issuance of a notice of coverage. In this case, two notices of coverage involving the subject land were issued before June 30, 2014: the original notice referred to in the December 2013 letter, and the published notice dated June 11, 2014.

Because a proceeding for compulsory acquisition was already pending before the cut-off date, the DAR retained authority to conclude it. By necessary implication, this authority includes the power to continue exercising quasi-judicial functions over agrarian reform controversies arising from that proceeding.

The Court also noted that the proper remedy for a landowner questioning a notice of coverage is to file a petition to lift the notice of coverage with the DAR, not to go directly to the courts. Under DAR Administrative Order No. 03-17, such a petition must be filed within 60 calendar days from receipt or publication of the notice.

Practical Takeaways

• The June 30, 2014 deadline is not absolute. It marks the final date when the DAR may initiate new land acquisition proceedings, but does not terminate proceedings already pending as of that date.
• The DAR retains exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian reform implementation disputes, including challenges to notices of coverage, even after June 30, 2014.
• A notice of coverage is a critical document. Its issuance commences a compulsory acquisition proceeding, so landowners should act promptly upon receipt.
• The correct remedy for questioning a notice of coverage is a petition to lift the notice filed with the DAR, not a court case.
• Courts will dismiss cases that improperly seek to litigate agrarian reform implementation matters before the DAR.

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