CARP Coverage Disputes: DAR Secretary Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Registered CLOAs

The Supreme Court recently settled a recurring question in agrarian reform disputes: who has jurisdiction to rule on whether a piece of land should be covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) when a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) has already been issued and registered? In Lakeview Golf and Country Club, Inc. v. Luzvimin Samahang Nayon, the Court ruled that the DAR Secretary retains exclusive jurisdiction over CARP coverage issues, even if the CLOA has been registered with the Register of Deeds.

Facts of the Case

Lakeview Golf and Country Club, Inc. owned a 60-hectare property in General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite. In 1991, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the property under CARP coverage for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries. Lakeview protested, arguing that the land was not agricultural—it had been projected as a golf course, was mountainous with steep slopes, and had no legitimate tenants or farmworkers.

The DAR Secretary denied Lakeview's protest in 1993. Lakeview's subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court were also denied. In 1994, the DAR issued a collective CLOA in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries, which was registered as TCT No. CLOA-1629.

In 1998, Lakeview filed a petition with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) seeking cancellation of the CLOA and reconveyance of the property, again arguing that the land's steep slope (averaging 22.78%) made it unsuitable for agricultural distribution. The PARAD ruled in Lakeview's favor, declaring the CARP coverage erroneous.

The Issue

The DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed the PARAD, holding that it had no jurisdiction to rule on CARP coverage. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The sole question before the Supreme Court: Does the DARAB have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of CARP coverage over the subject property?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied Lakeview's petition and affirmed the rulings below. The Court held that the DARAB lacked jurisdiction over the CARP coverage issue.

The Legal Framework

Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) vests in the DAR the primary and exclusive jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. The DARAB exercises this adjudicative power, but its jurisdiction is limited by the DARAB Rules of Procedure.

Under the 1994 DARAB Rules (which applied when Lakeview filed its petition), the DARAB had exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the "issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs and Emancipation Patents which are registered with the Land Registration Authority." However, matters involving the "strictly administrative implementation" of the CARP remained the exclusive prerogative of the DAR Secretary.

The Distinction That Matters

The Court drew a critical distinction: while the DARAB has jurisdiction over the cancellation of registered CLOAs, the DAR Secretary retains exclusive jurisdiction over the classification and identification of landholdings for CARP coverage, including protests and petitions for lifting of coverage. This includes determining whether a property is agricultural and therefore subject to coverage.

In this case, Lakeview's petition sought to cancel the CLOA by re-litigating whether the property should have been covered by CARP in the first place. But the DAR Secretary had already ruled on that issue—and that ruling had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Lakeview could not use a CLOA cancellation case as a backdoor to relitigate the coverage determination.

Practical Takeaways

• Know the jurisdictional boundary: The DARAB handles CLOA cancellation and correction cases involving registered CLOAs, but the DAR Secretary alone decides whether land should be covered by CARP.
• Coverage disputes must be raised early: Landowners who question CARP coverage must protest with the DAR Secretary promptly after receiving a Notice of Coverage. Delaying until after a CLOA is issued risks losing the opportunity to contest coverage.
• Final rulings are binding: Once the DAR Secretary's coverage determination is affirmed on appeal, it becomes final and cannot be collaterally attacked in a later DARAB proceeding.
• Check the applicable rules: The 2003 DARAB Rules contain similar provisions, but always verify which version of the rules applies to your case based on the filing date.
• Seek legal advice early: Jurisdictional questions in agrarian reform cases are technical and fact-specific. Property owners and farmer-beneficiaries alike should consult counsel before filing any action.

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