Navigating the Jurisdictional Maze: The DAR Secretary's Role in Cancellation of Land Ownership Awards

---

Landowners who believe their property was wrongly placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) often face a confusing first question: where should they file their protest? A 2020 Supreme Court decision provides a clear map of this jurisdictional terrain, distinguishing between the powers of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and the DAR Secretary.

In Philcontrust Resources, Inc. v. Aquino (G.R. No. 214714, October 7, 2020), the Court ruled that petitions for cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) based on claims that the property is exempt from CARP coverage belong exclusively to the DAR Secretary—not the DARAB.

The Case: A Landowner's Protest Over Residential Land

Philcontrust Resources owned several parcels in Tagaytay City. In 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office informed the company that the properties were covered by CARP. CLOAs were issued to farmer-beneficiaries, and the Register of Deeds cancelled Philcontrust's titles, replacing them with titles in the name of the Republic.

Philcontrust filed a petition to cancel the CLOAs before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator. The company argued that the lands were residential and non-agricultural, hence beyond CARP coverage. It presented certifications from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, the National Irrigation Administration, and other agencies supporting this claim.

The adjudicator dismissed the petition, and the DARAB affirmed. The Court of Appeals likewise ruled against Philcontrust. The company then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Issue: Who Has Jurisdiction?

The central question was whether the DARAB or the DAR Secretary should resolve the petition for cancellation of the CLOAs.

Philcontrust argued that under Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), the DAR as a whole has jurisdiction, and the division of powers between the Secretary and the DARAB was an invalid amendment of the law.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Ruling: Registration Is Not Enough

The Court explained that the DAR exercises two kinds of functions: administrative (enforcing and executing agrarian reform laws) and quasi-judicial (determining parties' rights and obligations). The DARAB handles the latter, while the DAR Secretary handles the former.

Under the 2003 DARAB Rules, the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving cancellation of CLOAs registered with the Land Registration Authority. However, the Court clarified that registration alone is not enough. For the DARAB to take jurisdiction, the case must involve an agrarian dispute—specifically, a tenancy relationship between the landowner and the beneficiaries.

The Court cited a long line of cases, including Polo Plantation Agrarian Reform Multipurpose Cooperative v. Inson and Union Bank of the Philippines v. Hon. Regional Agrarian Reform Officer, to emphasize this point. The essential elements of tenancy include consent between the parties, personal cultivation by the tenant, and sharing of harvest.

In Philcontrust's case, the petition never alleged any tenancy relationship. Instead, the company claimed the properties were residential and exempt from CARP coverage. These are matters involving the administrative implementation of agrarian reform—questions of land classification and exemption that fall squarely within the DAR Secretary's exclusive jurisdiction.

The DAR Secretary's Exclusive Powers

The Court enumerated the matters exclusively reserved for the DAR Secretary under Rule II, Section 3 of the 2003 DARAB Rules:

• Classification and identification of landholdings for CARP coverage
• Initial issuance of CLOAs, including protests or oppositions
• Exercise of the landowner's right of retention
• Applications for exemption from coverage

The Court also noted that Republic Act No. 9700, which took effect in 2009, reinforced this allocation. It provides that all cases involving cancellation of registered CLOAs and other agrarian reform titles are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.

The Landowner's Other Concerns

The Court expressed concern over Philcontrust's allegations that it received no notice of coverage and was not paid just compensation. These are serious matters, the Court said, but they too must be resolved by the DAR Secretary under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 prescribes the procedure for compulsory acquisition: notice to the landowner, offer to acquire, summary proceedings if the offer is rejected, and payment or deposit of compensation. The Court emphasized that compliance with this procedure is imperative, lest there be a violation of the constitutional mandate that private property shall not be taken without just compensation.

Practical Takeaways

• Know the difference: The DARAB handles agrarian disputes involving tenancy relationships. The DAR Secretary handles administrative matters like land classification, exemption, and coverage.
• Registration is not decisive: A CLOA registered with the Land Registration Authority does not automatically place a cancellation case under DARAB jurisdiction.
• Check for tenancy first: If there is no tenurial relationship between the landowner and the beneficiaries, the DARAB likely lacks jurisdiction.
• File with the right body: Landowners claiming exemption from CARP coverage should file their petitions with the DAR Secretary, not the DARAB.
• Serious allegations need proper venue: Claims of lack of notice or non-payment of just compensation must be raised before the DAR Secretary, who has the expertise to resolve them.

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