VOL.

327, MARCH 7, 2000 293

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 109992. March 7, 2000.

HEIRS OF THE LATE HERMAN REY SANTOS represented by his widow ARSENIA
GARCIA VDA. DE SANTOS, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JOSE
REYES, in his capacity as Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Malolos,
Bulacan, HON. ERASMO CRUZ, in his capacity as former Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) Malolos, Bulacan, DARAB SHERIFF AMANDO C. DIONISIO,
EXEQUIEL GARCIA and/or ADELA GARCIA and PANTALEON ANTONIO,
respondents.

Agrarian Reform;  Words and Phrases;  "Agrarian Dispute," Defined;  There is no agrarian
dispute where both parties are contending for the ownership of the subject property.—“Agrarian
dispute" is defined under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARP Law), as: (d) Agrarian
Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning
farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy
relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether
the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant,
or lessor and lessee. Clearly, no agrarian dispute is involved in this case. In fact, both are contending
parties for the ownership of the subject property.
Same;  Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB);  Jurisdiction;  Tenancy
Relationship;  Requisites;  For Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board to have
jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties.—In the case of
Morta, Sr. v. Occidental, et al., this Court held: 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 es-

________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

294

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of

Appeals

tablish 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.
In  Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals  (191 SCRA 885), we held that the jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform 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.
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Where there are no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations
whatsoever between the parties that could bring a controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform
laws, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has no jurisdiction.—Petitioners and
private respondent have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that could have
brought this controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform laws. Consequently, the DARAB has
no jurisdiction over the controversy and should not have taken cognizance of private respondent’s
petition for injunction in the first place.
Actions; Motion for Intervention; Where the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the controversy between the parties, necessarily, a motion for
intervention loses the leg on which it can stand.—The issue of who can harvest the mangoes and
when they can be harvested is an incident ancillary to the main petition for injunction. As such, it is
dependent on the main case. Inasmuch as the DARAB has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the
controversy between the parties, necessarily, the motion for intervention loses the leg on which it can
stand. This issue, after all, can be resolved by the trial court, which has the jurisdiction to order the
gathering of the mango fruits and depositing the proceeds with it, considering that an action has
already been filed before it on the specific issue of ownership.

295

VOL. 327, MARCH 7, 2000 295

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Samonte, Tria & Associates for petitioners.
     Carmencita R. De Castro for Exequiel Garcia.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
1
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision  of the Court of
Appeals in  CA-G.R. SP No. 29709  which affirmed the two orders of2 the Department of
Agrarian
3
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated April 3, 1992   and November 18,
1992.
The subject of the controversy is a parcel of land in Parulan, Plaridel, Bulacan which
was levied on execution by the Municipal Trial Court of Plaridel, Bulacan on October 24,
1989. In accordance with said levy on execution, the subject land was sold at public auction
on September 20, 1990 with Herman Rey Santos, now substituted by his heirs represented
by his widow Arsenia Garcia Vda. de Santos, as the sole bidder for P34,532.50.
Santos registered the Deed of Sale with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on October 15,
1990, after private respondent Exequiel Garcia failed to exercise his right of redemption
within the reglementary period. As a result, Ex-Officio Sheriff Carmelita Itapo executed a
Final Deed of Sale dated October 18, 1991 in favor of Santos which was registered with the
Registry of Deeds of Bulacan on November 7, 1991.
On April 1, 1992, private respondent filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages with an
application for the issuance

________________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Serafin V.C. Guingona and concurred in by Associate Justices Segundino G.

Chua and Ramon Mabutas, Jr.

2 Annex “A,” Records, p. 27.
3 Annex “B,” Records, p. 29.

296

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals

of a preliminary injunction with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

(DARAB), docketed as DARAB Case No. 369-BUL ‘92, praying that petitioner be
enjoined from preventing private 4respondent from gathering the mango fruits lest they
“over-mature and become useless.”
The Provincial Adjudicator Erasmo SP. Cruz of the DARAB issued an order on April 3,
1992, allowing the gathering of the mango fruits and directing that the proceeds thereof be
deposited with the Adjudication Board.
Subsequently, on April 27, 1992, private respondent filed a Petition for Consignation
before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, in an apparent attempt to redeem his land. This
petition was dismissed. 5
Meanwhile, one Pantaleon Antonio filed on May 18, 1992 a motion to intervene   with
the DARAB claiming that “he is affected in his rights and interests as the party who tended
and had the mango trees bear fruits this season.”
On May 7, 1992, private respondent filed a complaint for Annulment/Cancellation of
Sale and Document, Redemption with Damages and Preliminary Writ of Injunction against 6
Herman Rey Santos, the Deputy Sheriff of Bulacan and the Register of Deeds of Bulacan.
Thereafter, on July 1, 1992, the Adjudication Board suspended the hearing on Pantaleon
Antonio’s motion for intervention7
pending the resolution of the ownership issue raised in
the above-mentioned complaint.
On July 8, 1992, intervenor Pantaleon 8
Antonio filed with the DARAB a Motion to
Withdraw Intervenor’s deposited share.  The motion was granted and intervenor Pantaleon
Antonio was allowed to withdraw P87,300.00 out of P174,600.00 harvest proceeds in an
Order dated November

________________
4 Annex “B,” Records, p. 73.
5 Annex “H,” Records, p. 101.
6 Annex “F,” Records, p. 91.
7 Annex “K,” Records, p. 106.
8 Annex “L,” Records, p. 107.

297

VOL. 327, MARCH 7, 2000 297

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals
9
18, 1992.   Corollarily, the DARAB recognized Pantaleon Antonio as the duly constituted
agricultural tenant of the subject land.
As adverted to above, the Court of Appeals affirmed the April 3, 1992 Order of the
DARAB ordering the gathering of the mango fruits and depositing with the Board the
proceeds thereof, and the November 18, 1992 Order allowing the withdrawal of
intervenor’s share in the proceeds and recognizing him as the duly constituted agricultural
tenant.
Hence, the instant petition where petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred:

1. In ruling that the PARAD has jurisdiction over the ancillary matter/s raised by
intervenor in DARAB Case No. 369-BUL ‘92 despite the fact that the PARAD
itself has admitted involvement of question of ownership between the original
parties and has indefinitely suspended the principal/main case pending the outcome
of the issue of ownership at the Regional Trial Court of Malolos; and
2. In affirming and/or sustaining the order dated November 18, 1992 of the PARAD
allowing the release of 50% of the proceeds of the sale of the harvested fruits in
favor of intervenor without due process, during the supposed indefinite suspension,
and worse, without requiring said purported intervenor to post a bond that will
answer for damages that may be sustained by herein petitioners.

Petitioner alleges that since private respondent’s ownership of the subject land is in issue
before the lower court, his right to harvest the mango fruits is still questionable.
We find merit in the petition.
Rule II, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, provides:
Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction.—The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian
disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

_________________
9 Annex “P,” Records, p. 118.

298

298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals

Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No.
3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their
implementing rules and regulations. (Italics supplied)
“Agrarian dispute” is defined under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARP Law),
as:
(d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning
farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other
terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other
agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator
and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.

Clearly, no agrarian dispute is involved in this case. In fact, both are contending parties for
the ownership of the subject property. 10
In the case of Morta, Sr. v. Occidental, et al.,  this Court held:
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. In
Vda. de Tangub

_________________
10 G.R. No. 123417, June 10, 1999, 308 SCRA 167.

299

VOL. 327, MARCH 7, 2000 299

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals

v. Court of Appeals (191 SCRA 885), we held that the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform 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.

Petitioners and private respondent have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations
whatsoever that could have brought this controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform
laws. Consequently, the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the controversy and should not
have taken cognizance of private respondent’s petition for injunction in the first place.
Significantly, DARAB admitted that the issue before the Regional Trial Court was one
of ownership. In fact, the issue of ownership had been recognized by the DARAB in its
assailed order of April 3, 1992 when it held that:
A careful analysis of the records and attached documents revealed that the issue involved is question
of ownership between the parties, although the attached Transfer Certificates of Title reflected the
name of herein petitioner.

The next issue to be resolved is whether it was proper for DARAB to take cognizance of
Pantaleon Antonio’s motion for intervention considering that DARAB had no jurisdiction
and the issue of ownership is involved.
This Court rules in the negative.
The issue of who can harvest the mangoes and when they can be harvested is an incident
ancillary to the main petition for injunction. As such, it is dependent on the main case.
Inasmuch as the DARAB has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the controversy between the
parties, necessarily, the motion for intervention loses the leg on which it can stand. This
issue, after all, can be resolved by the trial court, which has the jurisdiction to order the
gathering of the mango fruits and depositing the proceeds with it, considering that an action
has already been filed before it on the specific issue of ownership.
300

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos vs. Court of Appeals
 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 29709 which affirmed the April 3, 1992 and November 18, 1992 orders of
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Consequently, DARAB is permanently enjoined from hearing the motion for intervention of
Pantaleon Antonio who is ordered to redeposit the amount of P87,300.00 with the Regional
Trial Court. The DARAB is likewise ordered to transfer the remaining P87,300.00 on
deposit with it to the Regional Trial Court. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno and Kapunan, JJ.,concur.

     Pardo, J., On official business abroad.

Petition granted, judgment of Court of Appeals and orders of DARAB set aside.

Notes.—The failure of tenants to pay back rentals pursuant to a leasehold contract is an

issue which is exclusively cognizable by the DARAB and is clearly beyond the legal
competence of the Regional Trial Courts to resolve. (Machete vs. Court of Appeals,  250
SCRA 176 [1995])
Under §50 of R.A. No. 6657, it is the DAR which is vested with primary jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and exclusive original jurisdiction over
all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. (Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
[DARAB] vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 404 [1997])

——o0o——

301

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.