dar vs cuenca

7/17/2019 DAR vs Cuenca

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dar-vs-cuenca 1/13

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 154112 September 23, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioner,

vs.

ROERTO !. CUENCA "#$ %o#. A&FONSO . COMONG !R., '# %'( C"p")'t* "(

t+e Pre('$'# !-$e o t+e Re'o#"/ Tr'"/ Co-rt, r"#)+ 3, &" C"r/ot"

C't*, respondents.

D!ISION

PANGANIAN, J.:

"ll controversies on the i#ple#entation of the !o#prehensive "$rarian Refor#

Pro$ra# %!"RP& fall under the 'urisdiction of the Depart#ent of "$rarian Refor# %D"R&,

even thou$h the( raise )uestions that are also le$al or constitutional in nature. "ll

doubts should be resolved in favor of the D"R, since the la* has $ranted it special and

ori$inal authorit( to hear and ad'udicate a$rarian #atters.

T+e C"(e

+efore us is a Petition for Revie* under Rule - of the Rules of !ourt, assailin$ the

March , /00/ Decision/and the 1une 2, /00/ Resolution3 of the !ourt of "ppeals in

!"45R SP No. 236. In the challen$ed Decision, the !" disposed as follo*s7

8"s previousl( stated, the principal issue raised in the court belo* involves a pure

)uestion of la*. Thus, it bein$ clear that the court a )uo has 'urisdiction over the

nature and sub'ect #atter of the case belo*, it did not co##it $rave abuse of

discretion *hen it issued the assailed order den(in$ petitioner9s #otion to

dis#iss and $rantin$ private respondent9s application for the issuance of a *rit of

preli#inar( in'unction.

8:HR;OR, pre#ises considered, the petition is denied due course and is

accordin$l( DISMISSD.8-

The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied petitioner9s Motion for

Reconsideration.



T+e F")t(

The !" narrated the facts as follo*s7

8Private respondent Roberto 1. !uenca is the re$istered o*ner of a parcel of land

desi$nated as <ot No. 264" and covered b( T!T No. 02-, containin$ an areaof 2.6= hectares, situated in +r$(. Ha$ui#it, <a !arlota !it( and devoted

principall( to the plantin$ of su$ar cane.

8On / Septe#ber >>>, Noe ;ortunado, Municipal "$rarian Refor# Officer

%M"RO& of <a !arlota !it( issued and sent a NOTI! O; !OVR"5 to private

respondent !uenca placin$ the above4described landholdin$ under the

co#pulsor( covera$e of R.". 66=, other*ise ?no*n as the !o#prehensive

"$rarian Refor# Pro$ra# %!"RP&. The NOTI! O; !OVR"5 also stated

that the <and +an? of the Philippines %<+P& *ill deter#ine the value of the

sub'ect land pursuant to @ecutive Order No. -0 dated - 1une >>0.

8On /> Septe#ber >>>, private respondent !uenca filed *ith the Re$ional Trial

!ourt, +ranch 63, <a !arlota !it(, a co#plaint a$ainst Noe ;ortunado and <and

+an? of the Philippines for A"nnul#ent of Notice of !overa$e and Declaration of

Bnconstitutionalit( of .O. No. -0, Series of >>0, :ith Preli#inar( In'unction

and Restrainin$ Order.9 The case *as doc?eted as !ivil !ase No. =3.

8In his co#plaint, !uenca alle$ed, inter alia, that the i#ple#entation of !"RP in

his landholdin$ is no lon$er *ith authorit( of la* considerin$ that, if at all, the

i#ple#entation should have co##enced and should have been co#pleted

bet*een 1une >22 to 1une >>/, as provided in the !o#prehensive "$rarian

Refor# <a* %!"R<&C that the placin$ of the sub'ect landholdin$ under !"RP is

*ithout the i#pri#atur of the Presidential "$rarian Refor# !ouncil %P"R!& and

the Provincial "$rarian Refor# !oordinatin$ !o##ittee %P"R!OM& as re)uired

b( R.". =>0C that @ecutive Order No. -0 dated - 1une >>0 a#ends,

#odifies andor repeals !"R< and, therefore, it is unconstitutional considerin$

that on - 1une >>0, then President !oraEon ")uino no lon$er had la*4#a?in$

po*ersC that the NOTI! O; !OVR"5 is a $ross violation of PD 3>> dated

/2 ;ebruar( >=-.

8Private respondent !uenca pra(ed that the Notice of !overa$e be declared null

and void ab initio and @ecutive Order No. -0 dated - 1une >>0 be declared

unconstitutional.



8On 0 October >>>, M"RO Noe ;ortunado filed a #otion to dis#iss the

co#plaint on the $round that the court a )uo has no 'urisdiction over the nature

and sub'ect #atter of the action, pursuant to R.". 66=.

8On / 1anuar( /000, the respondent 1ud$e issued a Te#porar( Restrainin$

Order directin$ M"RO and <+P to cease and desist fro# i#ple#entin$ the

Notice of !overa$e. In the sa#e order, the respondent 1ud$e set the hearin$ on

the application for the issuance of a *rit of preli#inar( in'unction on 1anuar( =

and 2, /000.

8On - 1anuar( /000, M"RO ;ortunado filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the

order $rantin$ the TRO contendin$ inter alia that the D"R, throu$h the M"RO, in

the course of i#ple#entin$ the Notice of !overa$e under !"RP cannot be

en'oined throu$h a Te#porar( Restrainin$ Order in the li$ht of Sections and

62 of R.". 66=.

8In an order dated 6 ;ebruar( /000, the respondent 1ud$e denied M"RO Noe

;ortunado9s #otion to dis#iss and issued a :rit of Preli#inar( In'unction

directin$ ;ortunado and all persons actin$ in his behalf to cease and desist fro#

i#ple#entin$ the Notice of !overa$e, and the <+P fro# proceedin$ *ith the

deter#ination of the value of the sub'ect land.

8The Depart#ent of "$rarian Refor# %D"R& Fthereafter filed before the !"G a

petition for certiorari under Rule 6 of the >>= Rules of !ivil Procedure,

assailin$ the *rit of preli#inar( in'unction issued b( respondent 1ud$e on the$round of $rave abuse of discretion a#ountin$ to lac? of 'urisdiction.

8It is the sub#ission of the petitioner that the assailed order is Ain direct

defiance of Republic "ct 66=, particularl( Section and 629 thereof, *hich

read7

AS!TION . NO RSTR"ININ5 ORDRS OR PR<IMIN"R

IN1BN!TIONS J No court in the Philippines shall have 'urisdiction to issue

an( restrainin$ order or *rit of preli#inar( in'unction a$ainst the P"R! or

an( of its dul( authoriEed or desi$nated a$encies in an( case, dispute orcontrovers( arisin$ fro#, necessar( to, or in connection *ith the

application, i#ple#entation, or enforce#ent or interpretation of this "ct

and other pertinent la*s on a$rarian refor#.9

AS!TION 62 J IMMBNIT O; 5OVRNMNT "5N!IS ;ROM

!OBRT9S INTR;RN! J No in'unction, Restrainin$ Order, prohibition



or #anda#us shall be issued b( the lo*er court a$ainst the Depart#ent of

"$rarian Refor# %D"R&, the Depart#ent of "$riculture %D"&, the

Depart#ent of nviron#ent and Natural Resources %DNR&, and the

Depart#ent of 1ustice %DO1& in the i#ple#entation of their pro$ra#.9

8Petitioner contends that b( virtue of the above provisions, all lo*er courts, such

as the court presided over b( respondent 1ud$e, Aare barred if not prohibited b(

la* to issue orders of in'unctions a$ainst the Depart#ent of "$rarian Refor# in

the full i#ple#entation of the Notice of !overa$e *hich is the initial step of

ac)uirin$ lands under R.". 66=.9

8Petitioner also contends that the nature and sub'ect #atter of the case belo* is

purel( a$rarian in character over *hich the court a )uo has no 'urisdiction and

that therefore, it had no authorit( to issue the assailed in'unction order.8

R-/'# o t+e Co-rt o Appe"/(

Stressin$ that the issue *as not si#pl( the i#proper issuance of the Notice of

!overa$e, but *as #ainl( the constitutionalit( of @ecutive Order No. -0, the !" ruled

that the Re$ional Trial !ourt %RT!& had 'urisdiction over the case. !onsonant *ith that

authorit(, the court a )uo also had the po*er to issue *rits and processes to enforce or

protect the ri$hts of the parties.

The appellate court li?e*ise held that petitioner9s reliance on Sections and 62 of R"

66= had been #isplaced, because the case *as not about a purel( a$rarian #atter. It

opined that the prohibition in certain statutes a$ainst such *rits pertained onl( to

in'unctions a$ainst ad#inistrative acts, to controversies involvin$ facts, or to the

e@ercise of discretion in technical cases. +ut on issues involvin$ pure )uestions of la*,

courts *ere not prevented fro# e@ercisin$ their po*er to restrain or prohibit

ad#inistrative acts.

Hence, this Petition.6

I((-e(

In its Me#orandu#, petitioner raises the follo*in$ issues7

8. The Honorable !ourt of "ppeals co##itted serious error b( not ta?in$ into

co$niEance that the issues raised in the co#plaint filed b( the private

respondent, *hich see?s to e@clude his land fro# the covera$e of the !"RP, is

an a$rarian refor# #atter and *ithin the 'urisdiction of the D"R, not *ith the trial

court.



8/. The Honorable !ourt of "ppeals, *ith due respect, $ravel( abused its

discretion b( sustainin$ the *rit of in'unction issued b( the trial court, *hich is a

violation of Sections and 62 of Republic "ct No. 66=.8=

T+e Co-rt( R-/'#

The Petition has #erit.

F'r(t I((-e

Jurisdiction

In its bare essentials, petitioner9s ar$u#ent is that private respondent, in his !o#plaint

for "nnul#ent of the Notice of !overa$e, is as?in$ for the e@clusion of his landholdin$

fro# the covera$e of the !o#prehensive "$rarian Refor# Pro$ra# %!"RP&. "ccordin$

to the D"R, the issue involves the i#ple#entation of a$rarian refor#, a #atter over*hich the D"R has ori$inal and e@clusive 'urisdiction, pursuant to Section 0 of the

!o#prehensive "$rarian Refor# <a* %R" 66=&.

On the other hand, private respondent #aintains that his !o#plaint assails #ainl( the

constitutionalit( of O -0. He contends that since the !o#plaint raises a purel( le$al

issue, it thus falls *ithin the 'urisdiction of the RT!. :e do not a$ree.

!onflicts involvin$ 'urisdiction over a$rarian disputes are as tortuous as the histor( of

Philippine a$rarian refor# la*s. The chan$in$ 'urisdictional landscape is #atched onl(

b( the tu#ultuous stru$$le for, and resistance to, the brea?in$ up and distribution of

lar$e landholdin$s.

Two Basic Rules

T*o basic rules have $uided this !ourt in deter#inin$ 'urisdiction in these cases. ;irst,

'urisdiction is conferred b( la*.2 "nd second, the nature of the action and the issue of

'urisdiction are shaped b( the #aterial aver#ents of the co#plaint and the character of

the relief sou$ht.> The defenses resorted to in the ans*er or #otion to dis#iss are

disre$ardedC other*ise, the )uestion of 'urisdiction *ould depend entirel( upon the

*hi# of the defendant.0

Grant of Jurisdiction

ver since a$rarian refor# le$islations be$an, liti$ants have invariabl( sou$ht the aid of

the courts. !ourts of "$rarian Relations %!"Rs& *ere or$aniEed under R" /6= 8FfGor

the enforce#ent of all la*s and re$ulations $overnin$ the relation of capital and labor



on all a$ricultural lands under an( s(ste# of cultivation.8 The 'urisdiction of these courts

*as spelled out in Section = of the said la* as follo*s7

8Sec. =. 1urisdiction of the !ourt. 4 The !ourt shall have ori$inal and e@clusive

'urisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investi$ate, decide, and settle

all )uestions, #atters, controversies or disputes involvin$ all those relationships

established b( la* *hich deter#ine the var(in$ ri$hts of persons in the

cultivation and use of a$ricultural land *here one of the parties *or?s the land,

and shall have concurrent 'urisdiction *ith the !ourt of ;irst Instance over

e#plo(er and far# e#plo(ee or labor under Republic "ct Nu#bered si@ hundred

t*o and over landlord and tenant involvin$ violations of the Bsur( <a* %"ct No.

/6, as a#ended& and of inflictin$ the penalties provided therefor.8

"ll the po*ers and prero$atives inherent in or belon$in$ to the then !ourts of ;irst

Instance/ %no* the RT!s& *ere $ranted to the !"Rs. The latter *ere further vested b(

the "$ricultural <and Refor# !ode %R" 32--& *ith ori$inal and e@clusive 'urisdiction

over the follo*in$ #atters7

8%& "ll cases or actions involvin$ #atters, controversies, disputes, or #one(

clai#s arisin$ fro# a$rarian relations7 @ @ @

8%/& "ll cases or actions involvin$ violations of !hapters I and II of this !ode and

Republic "ct Nu#ber ei$ht hundred and nineC and

8%3& @propriations to be instituted b( the <and "uthorit(7 @ @ @.8 3

Presidential Decree %PD& No. >-6 thereafter reor$aniEed the !"Rs, strea#lined their

operations, and e@panded their 'urisdiction as follo*s7

8Sec. /. Jurisdiction over Subject Matter. 4 The !ourts of "$rarian Relations

shall have ori$inal and e@clusive 'urisdiction over7

a& !ases involvin$ the ri$hts and obli$ations of persons in the cultivation

and use of a$ricultural land e@cept those co$niEable b( the National <abor

Relations !o##issionC @ @ @ C

b& Kuestions involvin$ ri$hts $ranted and obli$ations i#posed b( la*s,

Presidential Decrees, Orders, Instructions, Rules and Re$ulations issued

and pro#ul$ated in relation to the a$rarian refor# pro$ra#C Provided,

ho*ever, That #atters involvin$ the ad#inistrative i#ple#entation of the

transfer of the land to the tenant4far#er under Presidential Decree No. /=

and a#endator( and related decrees, orders, instructions, rules and



re$ulations, shall be e@clusivel( co$niEable b( the Secretar( of "$rarian

Refor#, na#el(7

%& classification and identification of landholdin$sC

%/& @ @ @C

%3& parcellar( #appin$C

%-& @ @ @C

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

#& !ases involvin$ e@propriation of all ?inds of land in furtherance of the a$rarian

refor# pro$ra#C

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

p& 'ect#ent proceedin$s instituted b( the Depart#ent of "$rarian Refor# and

the <and +an? involvin$ lands under their ad#inistration and disposition, e@cept

urban properties belon$in$ to the <and +an?C

)& !ases involvin$ violations of the penal provisions of Republic "ct Nu#bered

eleven hundred and ninet(4nine, as a#ended, Republic "ct Nu#bered thirt(

ei$ht hundred and fort(4four, as a#ended, Presidential Decrees and la*s relatin$

to a$rarian refor#C Provided, ho*ever, That violations of the said penalprovisions co##itted b( an( 1ud$e shall be tried b( the courts of $eneral

'urisdictionC and

r& Violations of Presidential Decrees Nos. 2 and 26.

The !"Rs *ere abolished, ho*ever, pursuant to Section -- - of +atas Pa#bansa +l$.

/> %approved "u$ust -, >2&, *hich had full( been i#ple#ented on ;ebruar( -,

>23. 1urisdiction over cases theretofore $iven to the !"R9s *as vested in the RT!s. 6

Then ca#e @ecutive Order No. //>.= Bnder Section = thereof, the D"R shalle@ercise 8)uasi4'udicial po*ers to deter#ine and ad'udicate a$rarian refor# #atters,

and shall have e@clusive 'urisdiction over all #atters involvin$ i#ple#entation of

a$rarian refor#, e@cept those fallin$ under the e@clusive ori$inal 'urisdiction of the

DNR and the Depart#ent of "$riculture FD"G.8 The D"R shall also have the 8po*ers to

punish for conte#pt and to issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecu# and *rits to

enforce its orders or decisions.8



In Kuis#undo v. !",2 this provision *as dee#ed to have repealed Section / %a& and

%b& of Presidential Decree No. >-6, *hich vested the then !ourts of "$rarian Relations

*ith 8ori$inal e@clusive 'urisdiction over cases and )uestions involvin$ ri$hts $ranted

and obli$ations i#posed b( presidential issuances pro#ul$ated in relation to the

a$rarian refor# pro$ra#.8

Bnder Section - of @ecutive Order No. />4", the D"R *as also #ade 8responsible for

i#ple#entin$ the !o#prehensive "$rarian Refor# Pro$ra#.8 In accordance *ith

Section of the sa#e O, it possessed the follo*in$ po*ers and functions7

8%b& I#ple#ent all a$rarian la*s, and for this purpose, punish for conte#pt and

issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecu#, *rits of e@ecution of its decisions, and

other le$al processes to ensure successful and e@peditious pro$ra#

i#ple#entationC the decisions of the Depart#ent #a( in proper cases, be

appealed to the Re$ional Trial !ourts but shall be i##ediatel( e@ecutor(

not*ithstandin$ such appealC

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

8%h& Provide free le$al services to a$rarian refor# beneficiaries and resolve

a$rarian conflicts and land4tenure related proble#s as #a( be provided for b(

la*C

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

8%l& Have e@clusive authorit( to approve or disapprove conversion of a$ricultural

lands for residential, co##ercial, industrial, and other land uses as #a( be

provided @ @ @.8

The above $rant of 'urisdiction to the D"R covers these areas7

%a& ad'udication of all #atters involvin$ i#ple#entation of a$rarian refor#C

%b& resolution of a$rarian conflicts and land tenure related proble#sC and

%c& approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructurin$ or

read'ust#ent of a$ricultural lands into residential, co##ercial, industrial,

and other non4a$ricultural uses.

The fore$oin$ provision *as as broad as those 8theretofore vested in the Re$ional Trial

!ourt b( Presidential Decree No. >-6,8 as the !ourt ruled in Vda. de Tan$ub v.

!",> *hich *e )uote7



8@ @ @. The intention evidentl( *as to transfer ori$inal 'urisdiction to the

Depart#ent of "$rarian Refor#, a proposition stressed b( the rules for#ulated

and pro#ul$ated b( the Depart#ent for the i#ple#entation of the e@ecutive

orders 'ust )uoted. The rules included the creation of the "$rarian Refor#

"d'udication +oard desi$ned to e@ercise the ad'udicator( functions of the

Depart#ent, and the allocation to it of L

A@ @ @ FOGri$inal and e@clusive 'urisdiction over the sub'ect #atter vested

upon it b( la*, and all cases, disputes, controversies and #atters or

incidents involvin$ the i#ple#entation of the !o#prehensive "$rarian

Refor# Pro$ra# under @ecutive Order No. //>, @ecutive Order No.

/>4", Republic "ct No. 32--, as a#ended b( Republic "ct No. 6/2>,

Presidential Decree No. /= and other a$rarian la*s and their

i#ple#entin$ rules and re$ulations.9

8The i#ple#entin$ rules also declare that A%s&pecificall(, such 'urisdiction shall

e@tend over but not be li#ited to @ @ @ %that theretofore vested in the Re$ional

Trial !ourts, i.e.& %c&ases involvin$ the ri$hts and obli$ations of persons en$a$ed

in the cultivation and use of a$ricultural land covered b( the !o#prehensive

"$rarian Refor# Pro$ra# %!"RP& and other a$rarian la*s @ @ @.8/0

In the sa#e case, the !ourt also held that the 'urisdictional co#petence of the D"R had

further been clarified b( R" 66= thus7

8@ @ @. The "ct FR" 66=G #a?es references to and e@plicitl( reco$niEes theeffectivit( and applicabilit( of Presidential Decree No. //>. More particularl(, the

"ct echoes the provisions of Section = of Presidential Decree No. //>, supra,

investin$ the Depart#ent of "$rarian Refor# *ith ori$inal 'urisdiction, $enerall(,

over all cases involvin$ a$rarian la*s, althou$h, as shall shortl( be pointed out, it

restores to the Re$ional Trial !ourt, li#ited 'urisdiction over t*o $roups of cases.

Section 0 reads as follo*s7

AS!. 0. Kuasi41udicial Po*ers of the D"R. L The D"R is hereb(

vested *ith pri#ar( 'urisdiction to deter#ine and ad'udicate a$rarian

refor# #atters and shall have e@clusive ori$inal 'urisdiction over all#atters involvin$ the i#ple#entation of a$rarian refor#, e@cept those

fallin$ under the e@clusive 'urisdiction of the Depart#ent of "$riculture

FD"G and the Depart#ent of nviron#ent and Natural Resources FDNRG.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @



AIt shall have the po*er to su##on *itnesses, ad#inister oaths, ta?e

testi#on(, re)uire sub#ission of reports, co#pel the production of boo?s

and docu#ents and ans*ers to interro$atories and issue subpoena and

subpoena duces tecu# and to enforce its *rits throu$h sheriffs or other

dul( deputiEed officers. It shall li?e*ise have the po*er to punish direct

and indirect conte#pt in the sa#e #anner and sub'ect to the sa#e

penalties as provided in the Rules of !ourt.98 /

Nonetheless, *e have held that the RT!s have not been co#pletel( divested of

'urisdiction over a$rarian refor# #atters. Section 6 of R" 66= confers special

'urisdiction on 8Special "$rarian !ourts,8 *hich are actuall( RT!s desi$nated as such

b( the Supre#e !ourt.// Bnder Section = of the sa#e la*, these Special "$rarian

!ourts have ori$inal and e@clusive 'urisdiction over the follo*in$ #atters7

8& Aall petitions for the deter#ination of 'ust co#pensation to land4o*ners,9 and

8/& Athe prosecution of all cri#inal offenses under @ @ @ FtheG "ct.98

The above delineation of 'urisdiction re#ains in place to this date. "d#inistrative

!ircular No. />4/00//3 of this !ourt stresses the distinction bet*een the )uasi4'udicial

po*ers of the D"R under Sections 0 and of R" 66= and the 'urisdiction of the

Special "$rarian !ourts referred to b( Sections 6 and = of the sa#e la*.

Allegations of the Complaint

" careful perusal of respondent9s !o#plaint/- sho*s that the principal aver#ents and

reliefs pra(ed for refer 44 not to the 8pure )uestion of la*8 spa*ned b( the alle$ed

unconstitutionalit( of O -0 44 but to the annul#ent of the D"R9s Notice of !overa$e.

!learl(, the #ain thrust of the alle$ations is the propriet( of the Notice of !overa$e, as

#a( be $leaned fro# the follo*in$ aver#ents, a#on$ others7

86. This i#ple#entation of !"RP in the landholdin$ of the FrespondentG is

contrar( to la* and, therefore, violates Frespondent9sG constitutional ri$ht not to

be deprived of his propert( *ithout due process of la*. The covera$e of

Frespondent9sG landholdin$ under !"RP is NO lon$er *ith authorit( of la*. If atall, the i#ple#entation of !"RP in the landholdin$ of FrespondentG should have

co##enced and FbeenG co#pleted bet*een 1une >22 to 1une >>/ as provided

for in !"R<, to *it7 @ @ @C

8=. Moreover, the placin$ of Frespondent9sG landholdin$ under !"RP as of /

Septe#ber >>> is *ithout the i#pri#atur of the Presidential "$rarian Refor#



!ouncil %P"R!& and the Provincial "$rarian Refor# !oordinatin$ !o##ittee

%P"R!OM& as #andated and re)uired b( la* pursuant to R.". =>0 @ @ @C

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

8>. Bnder the provisions of !"R<, it is the P"R! andor the D"R, and not @ @ @<and +an?, *hich is authoriEed to preli#inaril( deter#ine the value of the lands

as co#pensation therefor, thus J @ @ @C

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

8/. That the afore#entioned NOTI! O; !OVR"5 *ith intend#ent and

purpose of ac)uirin$ Frespondent9sG afore#entioned land is a $ross violation of

la* %PD 3>> dated /2 ;ebruar( >=- *hich is still effective up to no*& inas#uch

as Frespondent9sG land is traversed b( and a road fronta$e as ad#itted b( the

D"R9s technician and defendant ;ORTBN"DO %M"RO& @ @ @C8

83. That as reflected in said Pre4Ocular Inspection Report, cop( of *hich is

hereto attached as anne@ AD9 for#in$ part hereof, Frespondent9sG land is above

ei$hteen percent %2& slope and therefore, auto#aticall( e@e#pted and

e@cluded fro# the operation of Rep. "ct 66=, @ @ @./ %Italics supplied&

In contrast, the -4pa$e !o#plaint touches on the alle$ed unconstitutionalit( of O -0

b( #erel( #a?in$ these t*o alle$ations7

80. @ecutive Order No. -0 dated - 1une >>0 %issued b( the then President

!oraEon ")uino& is unconstitutional for it plainl( a#ends, #odifies andor repeals

!"R<. On - 1une >>0, then President !oraEon ")uino had no lon$er la*4

#a?in$ po*ers as the Philippine !on$ress *as b( then alread( or$aniEed,

e@istin$ and operational pursuant to the >2= !onstitution. " cop( of the said

@ecutive Order is hereto attached as "nne@ A+9 for#in$ part hereof.

8. Our constitutional s(ste# of separation of po*ers renders the said @ecutive

Order No. -0 unconstitutional and all valuations #ade, and to be #ade, b( the

defendant <and +an? pursuant thereto are null and void and *ithout force and

effect. Indispensabl( and ineludibl(, all related rules, re$ulations, orders and

other issuances issued or pro#ul$ated pursuant to said @ecutive Order No. -0

are also null and void ab initio and *ithout force and effect.8 /6

:e stress that the #ain sub'ect #atter raised b( private respondent before the trial

court *as not the issue of co#pensation %the sub'ect #atter of O -0 /=&. Note that no



a#ount had (et been deter#ined nor proposed b( the D"R. Hence, there *as no

occasion to invo?e the court9s function of deter#inin$ 'ust co#pensation./2

To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of !overa$e/> constitutes the first necessar( step

to*ards the ac)uisition of private land under the !"RP. Plainl( then, the propriet( of the

Notice relates to the i#ple#entation of the !"RP, *hich is under the )uasi4'udicial

'urisdiction of the D"R. Thus, the D"R could not be ousted fro# its authorit( b( the

si#ple e@pedienc( of appendin$ an alle$edl( constitutional or le$al di#ension to an

issue that is clearl( a$rarian.

In vie* of the fore$oin$, there is no need to address the other points pleaded b(

respondent in relation to the 'urisdictional issue. :e need onl( to point that in case of

doubt, the 'urisprudential trend is for courts to refrain fro# resolvin$ a controvers(

involvin$ #atters that de#and the special co#petence of ad#inistrative a$encies,

8even if the )uestionFsG involved FareG also 'udicial in character,8 30 as in this case.

Se)o#$ I((-e

Preliminary Inunction

Havin$ declared the RT!s to be *ithout 'urisdiction over the instant case, it follo*s that

the RT! of <a !arlota !it( %+ranch 63& *as devoid of authorit( to issue the assailed

:rit of Preli#inar( In'unction. That :rit #ust perforce be stric?en do*n as a nullit(.

Such nullit( is particularl( true in the li$ht of the e@press prohibitor( provisions of the

!"RP and this !ourt9s "d#inistrative !ircular Nos. />4/00/ and 324/00/. These

!irculars en'oin all trial 'ud$es to strictl( observe Section 62 of R" 66=, *hich reads7

8Section 62. I##unit( of 5overn#ent "$encies fro# Bndue Interference. J No

in'unction, restrainin$ order, prohibition or #anda#us shall be issued b( the

lo*er courts a$ainst the Depart#ent of "$rarian Refor# %D"R&, the Depart#ent

of "$riculture %D"&, the Depart#ent of nviron#ent and Natural Resources

%DNR& and the Depart#ent of 1ustice %DO1& in their i#ple#entation of the

pro$ra#.8

%EREFORE, the Petition is hereb( GRANTED, and the challen$ed Decision andResolution REERSED AND SET ASIDE. "ccordin$l(, the ;ebruar( 6, /000 Order of

the Re$ional Trial !ourt of <a !arlota !it( %+ranch 63& is ANNU&&ED and a ne* one

entered, DISMISSING the !o#plaint in !ivil !ase =3. The :rit of Preli#inar(

In'unction issued therein is also e@pressl( OIDED. No costs.

SO ORDRD.

dar vs cuenca

Documents