Agrarian Reform OR Industrial Activity Determining Jurisdiction Over Fishpond Disputes After R A 7881

The question of who hears a fishpond dispute — the agrarian reform adjudicator or the regular courts — depends on when the case was filed. In Dillena v. Alcaraz (G.R. No. 204045, December 14, 2017), the Supreme Court ruled that fishponds are no longer agricultural lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) after the passage of R.A. 7881 in 1995. This means disputes filed after that date belong to the regular courts, not the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

The dispute: A fishpond lease and a claim of tenancy

Magdalena Dillena claimed she was a de jure tenant of a fishpond in Bulacan, having inherited the right from her husband and father-in-law, who had worked the land since the 1950s. After her husband died in 2004, the landowners informed her they would raise the annual lease rental and gave her 30 days to vacate.

Dillena filed a petition before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in 2004, seeking to be declared a tenant and to be maintained in peaceful possession. The landowners moved to dismiss, arguing that Dillena was merely a civil law lessee and that fishponds are no longer covered by agrarian laws.

The issue: Who has jurisdiction over fishpond disputes?

The central question was whether the PARAD and DARAB had jurisdiction over the dispute, or whether it should be heard by the regular courts.

The PARAD and DARAB ruled in Dillena's favor, declaring her a bona fide tenant. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that fishponds are exempt from CARL coverage under R.A. 7881 and that the PARAD lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling.

The ruling: Fishponds are exempt from agrarian reform

The Supreme Court explained that under R.A. 3844 (the Agricultural Land Reform Code) and R.A. 6657 (the CARL), fishponds were originally considered agricultural lands. However, R.A. 7881, which took effect on February 20, 1995, amended the CARL to exempt private lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from its coverage.

Since Dillena filed her petition in 2004 — long after R.A. 7881 took effect — the subject fishpond was no longer covered by the CARL. The Court held that the PARAD and DARAB's jurisdiction is limited to agrarian disputes, which are controversies over lands devoted to agriculture. Because fishponds are no longer agricultural lands, the dispute fell outside their jurisdiction.

The exception: Cases filed before 1995

The Court distinguished this case from Sanchez, Jr. v. Marin (G.R. No. 171346, October 9, 2007), where the farmer had filed his case in 1991, before R.A. 7881 took effect. In that case, the Court held that once jurisdiction is acquired, it remains with the tribunal until the case is fully terminated. The amendatory law could not be applied retroactively to divest the DARAB of jurisdiction.

In Dillena, however, the petition was filed in 2004, so the exception did not apply.

Practical takeaways

• Timing matters. If a fishpond dispute was filed before February 20, 1995, the DARAB retains jurisdiction. If filed after, the regular courts have jurisdiction.
• Fishponds are no longer agricultural lands. Under R.A. 7881, private lands exclusively used for fishponds and prawn farms are exempt from CARL coverage unless already distributed with CLOAs.
• Tenancy claims over fishponds are limited. A person who remains on a fishpond after R.A. 7881 cannot claim protection under agrarian laws, even if a tenurial arrangement existed before.
• Options for displaced workers. Farmworkers on exempted fishponds may choose to remain as workers or apply to become beneficiaries in other agricultural lands, but they cannot claim rights under agrarian laws over the exempted property.
• Check the governing law. R.A. 7881 supersedes R.A. 3844 with respect to fishponds and prawn farms, despite the absence of an express repeal of the older law.

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