DAR VS.

CUENCA

FACTS

Private respondent Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in La Carlota City and
devoted principally to the planting of sugar cane. The MARO of La Carlota City issued and sent a NOTICE
OF COVERAGE to private respondent Cuenca placing the landholding under the compulsory coverage of
R.A. 6657. The NOTICE OF COVERAGE also stated that the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) will
determine the value of the subject land pursuant to Executive Order No. 405. Private respondent
Cuenca filed with the RTC for Annulment of Notice of Coverage and Declaration of Unconstitutionality of
E.O. No. 405. Cuenca alleged that the implementation of CARP in his landholding is no longer with
authority of law considering that, if at all, the implementation should have commenced and should have
been completed between June 1988 to June 1992; that Executive Order No. 405 amends, modifies
and/or repeals CARL and, therefore, it is unconstitutional considering that then President Corazon
Aquino no longer had law-making powers; that the NOTICE OF COVERAGE is a gross violation of PD 399.

Private respondent Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be declared null and void ab initio. The
respondent Judge denied MARO Noe Fortunados motion to dismiss and issued a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction directing Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease and desist from
implementing the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from proceeding with the determination of the value
of the subject land. The DAR thereafter filed before the CA a petition for certiorari assailing the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by respondent Judge on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Stressing that the issue was not simply the improper issuance of the Notice of Coverage, but was mainly
the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 405, the CA ruled that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had
jurisdiction over the case. Consonant with that authority, the court a quo also had the power to issue
writs and processes to enforce or protect the rights of the parties.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint filed by the private respondent is an agrarian reform and within the jurisdiction
of the DAR, not with the trial court

RULING

Yes. A careful perusal of respondents Complaint shows that the principal averments and reliefs prayed
for refer -- not to the pure question of law spawned by the alleged unconstitutionality of EO 405 -- but
to the annulment of the DARs Notice of Coverage. Clearly, the main thrust of the allegations is the
propriety of the Notice of Coverage, as may be gleaned from the following averments. The main subject
matter raised by private respondent before the trial court was not the issue of compensation. Note that
no amount had yet been determined nor proposed by the DAR. Hence, there was no occasion to invoke
the courts function of determining just compensation. To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of
Coverage constitutes the first necessary step towards the acquisition of private land under the CARP.
Plainly then, the propriety of the Notice relates to the implementation of the CARP, which is under the
quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not be ousted from its authority by the simple
expediency of appending an allegedly constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is clearly
agrarian.
CASE DIGEST: CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA) v. THE SECRETARY
OF AGRARIAN REFORM

FACTS:

Oct 1997 Sec of DAR issued DAR A.O. entitled Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of
Agricultural Lands to Non Agricultural Uses. The said AO embraced all private agricultural lands
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced and all untitled agricultural lands and
agricultural lands reclassified by LGU into non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988. March 1999, Sec DAR
issued Revised Rules and Regulations on Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non AgriculturalUses, it
covers the following: (1) those to be converted to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and
other non-agricultural purposes; (2) those to be devoted to another type of agricultural activity such as
livestock, poultry, and fishpond the effect of which is to exempt the land from the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage; (3) those to be converted to non-agricultural use other than
that previously authorized; and (4) those reclassified to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-
agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988 pursuant to Section
20 of Republic Act No. 7160 and other pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be converted to such
uses. The 2 earlier AOs was further amended by an AO issued Feb 2002 - 2002 Comprehensive Rules on
Land Use Conversion; covers all applications for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or
to another agricultural use.The AO was amended again in 2007 to include provisions particularly
addressing land conversion in time of exigencies and calamities. To address the conversion to lands to
non agricultural, Sec of DAR suspended processing and approval of land conversion through DAR Memo
88. CREBA claims that there is a slowdown of housing projects because of such stoppage

ISSUES: Is DAR's AO unconstitutional?

HELD:

RA 6657 and 8435 defines agricultural land as lands devoted to or suitable for the cultivation of the soil,
planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of
such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with
such farming operations done by a person whether natural or juridical, and not classified by the law as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. However, he issued an AO included in this
definition - lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses
before 15 June 1988. In effect, lands reclassified from agricultural to residential, commercial, industrial,
or other non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988 are considered to be agricultural lands for purposes of
conversion, redistribution, or otherwise. This is violation of RA 6657 because there is nothing in Section
65 of Republic Act No. 6657 or in any other provision of law that confers to the DAR the jurisdiction or
authority to require that non-awarded lands or reclassified lands be submitted to its conversion
authority. It also violates Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160, because it was not provided therein that
reclassification by LGUs shall be subject to conversion procedures or requirements, or that the DARs
approval or clearance must be secured to effect reclassification.The said Section 2.19 of DAR AO No. 01-
02, as amended, also contravenes the constitutional mandate on local autonomy under Section 25,
Article II and Section 2, Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. There is deprivation of liberty and
property without due process of law because under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, lands that are not
within DARs jurisdiction are unjustly, arbitrarily and oppressively prohibited or restricted from legitimate
use on pain of administrative and criminal penalties. More so, there is discrimination and violation of
the equal protection clause of the Constitution because the aforesaid administrative order is patently
biased in favor of the peasantry at the expense of all other sectors of society.

DISMISSED