POSITION PAPER

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
xxx the jurisprudential trend is for courts to refrain from resolving a controversy
involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies,
"even if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in character DAR v. Cuenca, G.R.
No. 154112, September 23, 2004

II. THE PARTIES

II.1 Complainant is a Farmers Cooperative duly registered under Philippine laws
with principal address at Davao City, Philippines.
II.2 Respondent Wonderful Banana Inc. is a German corporation licensed to do
business in the Philippines.

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

III.1
This is a case for nullifying a contract;
III.2
This case arose from a controversy when the Complainant discovered
that their contract with Respondent was void for not being signed by the Regional
Director or that it contains a forged signature of the Regional Director;
III.3
That before the Complainant filed a case before the DAR Dispute
Resolution Board for nullity of contract, the Respondents prematurely filed a
collection case before the RTC.
IV. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
IV.1
Whether or not the contract is void for having a forged signature of the
DAR Regional Director;
IV.2
Whether or not the collection case filed before the RTC was premature
considering that there is still a factual issue to be resolve by the DAR Dispute
Resolution Board, the agency tasked by law to have exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes and controversies over the management, cultivation, and use of
agricultural lands covered by CARP;
IV.3
Whether or not the case is ripe for arbitration considering that there is still
a factual issue to be resolved by the DAR Dispute Resolution Board, the agency
tasked by law to have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes and controversies over
the management, cultivation, and use of agricultural lands covered by CARP.

V. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

V.1 Complainant and Respondent entered into a production contract for 25 years
where the Complainant would manage, cultivate, and use agricultural lands
covered by CARP for the production of bananas to be sold later to the
Respondent a the price of $2 dollars per box;
V.2 Respondent also supplied the materials, fertilizers, and other resources
necessary for the Complainant to be able to manage, cultivate, and use
agricultural lands covered by CARP to produce the bananas.
V.3 Five years after, the Complainant discovered that their contract was void
because it contained the forged signature of the DAR Regional Director;
V.4 Complainant now seeks to nullify the contract on the basis of (FRAUD? Insert
our substantial arguments why the contract is void)

VI.

ARGUMENTS

AND

DISCUSSIONS

Whether or not the contract is void

for having a forged signature of the
DAR Regional Director
VI.1

(Insert the substantial arguments why it should be voided)

WHETHER

OR NOT THE COLLECTION

CASE FILED BEFORE THE

RTC

WAS

PREMATURE CONSIDERING THAT THERE

IS

STILL A

RESOLVE

FACTUAL ISSUE

BY

THE

RESOLUTION BOARD,

DAR
THE

TO BE

DISPUTE
AGENCY

TASKED BY LAW TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE

JURISDICTION

OVER

CONTROVERSIES

DISPUTES

AND

OVER

THE

MANAGEMENT, CULTIVATION, AND USE

OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS COVERED BY

CARP.
VI.2
The Complainants, unto this Honorable Panel argues that it is the
Department of Agrarian Reform Dispute Resolution Board who has the exclusive
and original jurisdiction over the issues presented in this case pursuant to law
and jurisprudence;
VI.3
First and foremost, Complainants aver that this is an agrarian dispute
because it covers disputes involving commercial farms, belonging to the farmers
cooperatives, which under the law shall be treated as an agrarian dispute and
places it within the Department of Agrarian Reforms (DAR) jurisdiction;
VI.4
Section 30(g), DAR AO No. 09, series of 1998 permits Agribusiness
venture agreements to include in their contracts provisions for
mediation/conciliation and arbitration as a means of resolving disputes, but when
these disputes involve commercial farms, this shall be treated as an agrarian
dispute and that jurisdiction is with the DAR;
VI.5
Administrative regulations when not unreasonable or arbitrary, have the
force and effect of law. Thus, in Geukeko v. Araneta (G.R. No. L-10182
December 24, 1957) the Court said that:
xxx Authorities sustain the doctrine that the interpretation given to a rule
or regulation by those charged with its execution is entitled to the greatest
weight by the Court construing such rule or regulation, and such
interpretation will be followed unless it appears to be clearly unreasonable
or arbitrary (42 Am. Jur. 431). It also been said that:
An Administrative body has power to interpret its own rules which
have the force and effect of law, and such an interpretation becomes
part of the rule (citing Foley vs. Benedict, 122 Tex 193, 55 SW [2d] 805, 86
ALR 477).xxx (Emphasis and omissions supplied)

VI.6
Nowhere in the facts was it stated that the DAR Regulation 52 was
unreasonable or arbitrary, hence, it should be afforded great weight and respect.
Consequently, since there is an allegation that the signature contained in the
contract was forged, it should be DAR, who issued the subject Regulation, who
should have jurisdiction over this case as it is within their competence and
authority to do so;
VI.7
Moreover, pursuant to jurisprudence, the Court has consistently held that
if the dispute involves the management, cultivation, and use of agricultural lands
covered by CARP, the case is treated as an agrarian dispute and is therefore
within the jurisdiction of DAR;
VI.8
In ISLANDERS CARP-FARMERS v. Lapanday1, Petitioners contend that
DAR has no jurisdiction because the relationship between the parties is not one
of tenancy or agricultural leasehold, hence there is no agrarian dispute to speak
of. The Court clarified the issue by enumerating the elements necessary to prove
agricultural leasehold or tenancy, namely:
1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
2) the subject matter of the relationship is a piece of agricultural land;
3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural
lessee; and
6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.
The Court agreed that the petitioner was right in saying that there was no
tenancy or leasehold relationship but the present controversy still falls within the
sphere of agrarian disputes and jurisdiction is with DAR. The Court explained
that xxx an agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial
arrangements -- whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise -- over
lands devoted to agriculture. xxx It is clear that the above definition is broad
enough to include disputes arising from any tenurial arrangement beyond that in
the traditional landowner-tenant or lessor-lessee relationship. The decision
further ruled that pursuant to their ruling in Cuenca2, all controversies on the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though
they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts
should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special
and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters. (Emphasis
supplied)
VI.9
The Supreme Court had another opportunity to revisit their ruling in
Islanders3 in Cubero v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative 4. In this case,
1 G.R. No. 159089, May 3, 2006.
2 G.R. No. 154112, September 23, 2004
3 Supra, note 1.
4 G.R. No. 166833, November 30, 2006.

the Court affirmed Islanders and ruled that xxx Since the controversy involves
the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation
and use of an agricultural land covered by CARP, the case falls squarely
within the jurisdictional ambit of the DAR. xxx (Emphasis supplied)
VI.10
Lastly, in STANFILCO v. DOLE 5 the Supreme Court clarified the issue
further by ruling that leasehold or tenancy relationship is needed in xxx postharvest transactions involving the produce from CARP-covered agricultural lands
xxx, however, such relationship is not needed if the issue involves the xxx
management, cultivation, and use of the CARP-covered agricultural land xxx
(emphasis supplied) as in the case of Islanders and Cubero because those
cases involved issues that directly affect the agricultural land covered by CARP;
VI.11
Taking the principles enunciated in the above mentioned cases it clearly
appears that DAR has the jurisdiction pursuant to law and jurisprudence to take
cognizance of this case and not the Honorable Arbitration Panel nor the Regional
Trial Court;
VI.12
Furthermore, pursuant to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, the DAR Dispute Resolution Board should be allowed to carry out its
functions and resolve this matter which is within their competence. As held in
Delos Reyes v. Flores6, xxx The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies is that courts must allow administrative agencies
to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the
specialized areas of their respective competence. To this end, administrative
agencies are afforded a chance to correct any previous error committed in its
forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity, and convenience prevent the courts
from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies. xxx
It is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, but it is equally true that
every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed
procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
(Emphasis supplied). The jurisprudential trend is for courts to refrain from
resolving a controversy involving matters that demand the special competence of
administrative agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in
character.7
VI.13
Hence, since the dispute involves issues which qualifies it to be an
agrarian dispute, and since jurisprudence and law afford the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies great respect, subject only to strict
exceptions, it is prayed that the Honorable Panel has no jurisdiction over the
issues in this controversy and that the same be enjoined from taking cognizance
thereof as the competence and skill to resolve the factual issues presented in this
case belongs to the DAR;
WHETHER

OR NOT THE CASE IS RIPE

FOR ARBITRATION CONSIDERING THAT

5 G.R. No. 154048, November 27, 2009.

6 G.R. No. 168726, March 5, 2010.
7 Supra, note 2.

THERE IS STILL A FACTUAL ISSUE TO BE

RESOLVED

BY

THE

RESOLUTION BOARD,

DAR DISPUTE
THE

AGENCY

TASKED BY LAW TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE

JURISDICTION

OVER

CONTROVERSIES

DISPUTES

AND

OVER

THE

MANAGEMENT, CULTIVATION, AND USE

OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS COVERED BY

CARP. (Or insert issue two as you

worded it)
VI.14
VII.
VII.1
VII.2

PRAYER