Bagonghasa vs.

Romualdez
G.R. No. 179844 – March 23, 2011
J. Nachura

Topic: Judicial review – Doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction

Summary: Romualdez complainants own parcels of land in Laguna. SAR declared them to be part of public domain,
and awarded them to Bagonghasa, issuing CLOAs. Romualdez prayed for the cancellation of the CLOAs as they were
not notified of any intended coverage by the DAR, and were not paid just compensation for the expropriation of their
properties. PARAD ruled for Romualdez, but DARAB and CA ruled for Bagonghasa without ruling on the issues
mentioned. SC held that it may not rule on the case without said issues having been resolved first by the office with
primary jurisdiction, which in this case was the DAR, not PARAD or DARAB.

Doctrine: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which
jurisdiction was initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.

Facts:
● Romualdez are owners of separate parcels of lands in Sitio Papatahan, Paete, Laguna:
○ Sps. Daniel and Ana, as well as Jacqueline bought their landholdings from Leonisa Zarraga in 1998. They
allege that the properties are planted with fruit-bearing trees. They have been paying realty taxes. But
sometime in 1994, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform declared the property to be part of public domain,
awarded the same to Bagonghasa, and issued them Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs).
○ It was only in 1998 when Romualdez learned of the issuance of said CLOAs.
● Romualdez prayed for the reconveyance of their respective landholdings, cancellation of the CLOAs and payment
of litigation fee, alleging the ff. in their complaint:
○ They claim to have been in possession of the properties for more than 30 years, while Bagonghasa have
never been in possession of the same. Bagonghasa have not paid any real estate taxes, no TDs on the
properties. No basis for the award of certificates by SAR.
○ As absolute and lawful owners, they have not been notified of any intended coverage by the DAR.
○ To the best of their knowledge, there is no valuation being conducted by the Land Bank of the Philippines
and the DAR involving the property.
○ No compensation paid, and that the DAR-CENRO Certification shows that the landholdings have 24-32%
slopes and therefore exempt from CARP coverage.
● Bagonghasa denied everything, maintaining that they are farmer beneficiaries of the subject properties, covered
by Proclamation 2282, which reclassifies certain portion of the public domain as agricultural land and declares the
same alienable and disposable for agricultural and resettlement purposes, and the area covered is Brgy. Papatahan,
Paete. Bagonhasa were also already in possession of the properties prior to said Proclamation, and upon the
issuance of the CLOAs, they became the owners of the landholdings.
● The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Laguna, as public respondent, argued that the registration of the
CLOAs with the Registry of Deeds have already become indefeasible.
● Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Laguna (PARAD) : Ruled for Romualdez. SAR committed a mistake
in placing the subject properties under CARP. Moreover, no notice of coverage was sent to Romualdez and they
were also not paid any just compensation.
● Bagonghasa appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
● DARAB: Reversed the decision. Complaints filed were virtual protests against the CARP coverage, to which it
has no jurisdiction. It cannot pass upon matters exclusively vested in the SAR. The assailed CLOAs having been
registered in 1994 and 1995 became incontestable and indefeasible. Thus:
○ MR was denied. Romualdez went to CA.
● CA: Granted petition. DARAB has EOJD to determine and adjudicate cases involving correction, partition, and
cancellation of Emancipation Patents and CLOAs which are registered with the Land Registration Authority
(LRA), as in this case. Romualdez were also deprived of due process when no notice of coverage was ever
furnished and no just compensation was paid to them. The CA disposed of the case in this wise:
○ Upon MR, was then amended in favor of Bagonghasa.
● Hence, this petition.
Issue + Held: W/N CA erred in its ruling as regards jurisdiction, as this is cognizable by the Regional Director and not by
the PARAD and/or the DARAB. – YES
● Heirs of Julian dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz: Under Sec. 2(f), Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure,
the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs which were
registered with the LRA. However, they must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to
whom CLOAs have been issued by SAR. Cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs
by the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are
not agricultural tenants or lessees, are within the jurisdiction of the DAR, and not of the DARAB.
○ SC has once held that even if the parties therein did not have tenancy relations, the DARAB still has
jurisdiction, but that particular incident involved the implementation of the CARP, as it was founded on
the question of who was the actual tenant and eventual beneficiary of the subject land, which is why SC
held that jurisdiction should remain with the DARAB and not with the regular courts.
● Here, parties do not have any tenancy relationship. While it is true that PARAD and DARAB lack jurisdiction in
this case due to absence of such relations, essential issues are yet to be resolved: as to the alleged lack of notice
of coverage to respondents as landowners, and their deprivation of just compensation. These issues should not be
left hanging at the expense and to the prejudice of respondents. Hence, this Court refuses to rule on the validity of
the CARP coverage of the subject properties and the issuance of the assailed CLOAs.
● The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which
jurisdiction was initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy. SAR is in a
better position to resolve the issue of non-issuance of a notice of coverage, being primarily the agency possessing
the necessary expertise on the matter. The power to determine this lies with the DAR, not with this Court.
● Our Courts are of law as much as of equity. Justice dictates that the SAR must determine with deliberate dispatch
whether indeed no notice of coverage was furnished to Romualdez and payment of just compensation was unduly
withheld from them despite the fact that the assailed CLOAs were already registered, on the premise that they
were unaware of the CARP coverage of their properties; hence, their right to protest the same under the law was
defeated. Their right to due process must be equally respected. The Court’s bounden duty to protect the less
privileged should not be carried out to such an extent as to deny justice to landowners whenever truth and justice
happen to be on their side.

Ruling: Petition GRANTED. CA decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Case DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction of
DARAP. This decision is without prejudice to Romualdez to seek recourse from SAR. No costs.

Notes:
EMERSON B. BAGONGAHASA, GIRLIE B. BAGONGAHASA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM - PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER
OF LAGUNA, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SINOLOAN, LAGUNA, Petitioners, vs. JOHANNA L. ROMUALDEZ, Respondent.

SPOUSES CESAR M. CAGUIN and GERTRUDES CAGUIN, SPOUSES TEODORO MADRIDEJOS and ANICETA IBANEZ MADRIDEJOS, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM - PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF LAGUNA, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SINOLOAN, LAGUNA, Petitioners, vs.
DIETMAR L. ROMUALDEZ, Respondent.

SOTELA D. ADEA, SPOUSES ESPERANZA and LEONCIO MARIO, SPOUSES DELIA and DANILO CACHOLA, SPOUSES MA. ALICIA and REYMUNDO
CAINTO, EDUARDO B. DALAY, SPOUSES JOSE LEVITICO and EPIFANIA DALAY, SPOUSES JIFFY and FAUSTINO DALAY, SPOUSES MA. RUTH and
MELCHOR PACURIB, MA. JERIMA B. DALAY, SPOUSES CLEOFAS and TERESITA VITOR, SPOUSES CELESTINA and ALEJANDRO COSICO, SPOUSES
AUREA and ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, SPOUSES JULIA and RAFAEL DELA CRUZ, SPOUSES RAQUEL and SEBASTIAN SAN JUAN, SPOUSES
MARGARITA and PABLITO LLANES, SR., FIDEL M. DALAY, SPOUSES JAIME and MELVITA DALAY, SPOUSES EMILY and FLORENCIO PANGAN,
SPOUSES FELIPE and ROSALIE DALAY, SPOUSES MARCELO and CATALINA B. DALAY, and SPOUSES RENATO and ELIZABETH DALAY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM - PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF LAGUNA, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SINOLOAN,
LAGUNA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES DANIEL and ANA ROMUALDEZ, and JACQUELINE L. ROMUALDEZ, Respondents.