ALI CASES

See CUENCA and CABRAL CASES

JAIME MORTA, SR. and PURIFICACION PADILLA, petitioners, vs. JAIME OCCIDENTAL, ATTY. MARIANO
BARANDA, JR., and DANIEL CORRAL, respondents

FACTS: Petitioners Jaime Morta, Sr. and Purificacion Padilla filed two (2) cases for damages with preliminary
injunction, with the Municipal Trial Court, Guinobatan, Albay, against respondents Jaime Occidental, Atty.
Mariano Baranda, Jr. and Daniel Corral, which were consolidated pursuant to Rule 31 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
Petitioners alleged that respondents through the instigation of Atty. Baranda, gathered pilinuts, anahaw
leaves, and coconuts from their respective land, delivered the produce to Atty. Mariano Baranda, Jr., and
destroyed their banana and pineapple plants.
Respondents claimed that petitioners were not the owners of the land in question.They alleged that the
torrens titles of the land indicated a certain Gil Opiana as the registered owner. Gil Opiana was the father of
Josefina Opiana-Baraclan who inherited the lots upon the former's death.Respondent Jaime Occidental
contended that he was a bona fide tenant of Josefina Opiana-Baraclan. Respondents stated that there was no
annotation on the titles establishing petitioners' right over the land.They denied harvesting the anahaw leaves
and coconuts, as well as delivering the produce to Atty. Baranda, Jr.

MTC: It held that petitioners had been in actual, continuous, open and adverse possession of the land in
question for forty-five (45) years.

RTC: rendered decision reversing that of the Municipal Trial Court and dismissing the above cases,ruling that
these cases for damages are tenancy-related problems which fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
the DARAB.

CA: rendered decision affirming the lower's court ruling that the cases fall within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of DARAB.However, it ruled that petitioners did not engage in forum shopping.

ISSUE: WON, the civil actions for damages are not tenancy-related, and, hence, are properly cognizable by the
trial court, not the DARAB.

SC: For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In
order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable
elements, to wit: 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject
matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation
on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee.[16] In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[17] we held that the jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reforms is limited to the following:
a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;

b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and

c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into
residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses.

The regional trial court ruled that the issue involved is tenancy-related that falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the DARAB.It relied on the findings in DARAB Case No. 2413 that Josefina Opiana-Baraclan
appears to be the lawful owner of the land and Jaime Occidental was her recognized tenant. However, petitioner
Morta claimed that he is the owner of the land. Thus, there is even a dispute as to who is the rightful owner of
the land, Josefina Opiana-Baraclan or petitioner Morta. The issue of ownership cannot be settled by the DARAB
since it is definitely outside its jurisdiction.Whatever findings made by the DARAB regarding the ownership of the
land are not conclusive to settle the matter.The issue of ownership shall be resolved in a separate proceeding
before the appropriate trial court between the claimants thereof. WHEREFORE, The Court AFFIRMS the
decision of the Municipal Trial Court.

GRACIANO PADUNAN, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD

FACTS: The landholdings subject of the present controversy consist of three parcels of agricultural land with an
area of sixteen thousand two hundred twenty-seven (16,227), six thousand five hundred eighty-seven (6,587)
and nine thousand nine (9,009) square meters. Angelina R. Rodriguez was the original beneficiary under PD 27
of the said three parcels of land covered by Certificate of Land Transfer.

Subsequently she waived her rights over the said landholdings in favor of private respondent Marcos
Rodriguez by virtue of the Sinumpaang Salaysay duly executed and thumbmarked by her. The waiver was
concurred in by the Samahang Nayon of Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija in its Kapasyahan Blg. 15. Thereafter,
private respondent Marcos Rodriguez possessed and cultivated the said landholdings as tenant-beneficiary
under PD 27.

Private respondent Marcos Rodriguez obtained a loan from herein petitioner, Graciano Padunan, for
P50,000 with the subject landholdings as collateral. The loan agreement between private respondent Marcos
Rodriguez and petitioner Graciano Padunan was embodied in aKasunduan which further provided that petitioner
was authorized to possess and cultivate the land for two years and/or until repayment of the mortgage debt.

EP's was awarded to Angelina, despite the fact that she waived her right over the disputed land. She
then executed, for the second time, a waiver of rights by way of sale, this time in favor of petitioner Graciano
Padunan for the sum ofP55,000. Claiming ownership over the land, petitioner Graciano Padunan started
constructing thereon a house and a warehouse.

Private respondent file an injunction case against Graciano before the PARAD.

PARAD: Provincial Adjudicator Romeo Bello decided in favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, declaring
him the lawful tenant-beneficiary of the subject land, directing the issuance of the corresponding EPs in his name
and ordering herein petitioner Graciano Padunan to vacate the premises upon payment of the mortgage debt

DARAB: affirmed in toto the decision of Provincial Adjudicator Romeo Bello.

CA: dismissed his petition for review for lack of merit

ISSUE: who has the authority to cancel the erroneously issued EPs - the DARAB or the Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform?

SC: A study of the above-enumerated grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs shows that it requires the
exercise by the DAR of its quasi-judicial power through its adjudicating arm, DARAB. Thus, rightly so, the
DARAB New Rules of Procedure provide that DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the
cancellation of registered EPs.

But what about EPs that are unregistered like the one issued to Angelina Rodriguez?

The answer can be found in Administrative Order No. 06-00, issued on August 30, 2000, which provides for
the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases. These rules were issued pursuant to
Sections 49 and 50 of RA 6657. In contrast to the DARAB Rules of Procedure which govern the exercise of
DARs quasi-judicial function, Administrative Order No. 06-00 govern the administrative function of the DAR.

Under the said Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, the Agrarian Reform
Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of EPs/CLOAs that are not yet
registered with the Register of Deeds. Thus, Section 2 of the said Rules provides:
"SECTION 2. Cases Covered. - These Rules shall govern cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
DAR Secretary which shall include the following:
(a) Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP), including protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage;
(b) Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-beneficiaries;
(c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP;
(d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates
(CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall or
cancellation of Emancipation Patents (Eps) or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet
registered with the Register of Deeds;
(e) Exercise of the right of retention by landowner;

xxx xxx xxx

Clearly, the cancellation of EPs that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds falls within the
authority of the Agrarian Reform Secretary or DAR officials duly designated by him, in the exercise of his/their
administrative functions. And since, in the case at bar, the erroneously issued EPs in the name of Angelina
Rodriguez were unregistered, it is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has the authority to cancel the same.
 WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in so far as it upholds the
ruling of the DARAB that (1) private respondent Marcos Rodriguez is the lawful tenant beneficiary of the three
parcels of land located in Barangay Bantug, Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, covered by Certificate of Land Transfer
(CLT) Nos. 0341310, 0341311 and 0341312 and (2) petitioner Graciano Padunan is only a mortgagee thereof.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), and
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ACIL CORPORATION

FACTS:

Ms. Bernadette Palaroan

Dear Ma'am;

Good Day!

My available day would be on friday, October 21, 2016. I'll be there on morning if that would be all right. Thank
you Ma'am for granting my request. May I know if the signing will be done on Pro-FRIENDS main branch or in
Convegys Makati.
Again Ma'am, Thank you and God Bless.

Sincerely Yours;
Ms. Jorelyn L. Castillo-Dangan
Atty-In-Fact