G.R. No. 183142; September 17, 2009
ROSITA A. MONTANEZ, Petitioner, vs. PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR (PARAD), NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, GIL A. ALEGARIO, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR), et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosita A. Montanez owned two parcels of land in La Castellana, Negros Occidental, with a total area of 35.5998 hectares. In 1999, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued the covered area at PhP 5,592,3001.60, which petitioner rejected. Despite her rejection, the DAR secured the cancellation of her titles and issued new Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Subsequently, Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) were issued to farmer-beneficiaries. Petitioner discovered material discrepancies: the CLOAs reflected a larger aggregate land area than the source TCTs, and the annotations on the CLOAs erroneously referenced the wrong TCT numbers.
Petitioner filed a petition for annulment/cancellation of the CLOAs and new TCTs before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), docketed as DARAB Case No. R-0605-1707-03. The PARAD dismissed the petition, ruling that the grounds raised—purely technical errors in area and title references—were not among the specific grounds for CLOA cancellation under DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994. The PARAD opined the errors were correctible administratively by the DAR. Petitioner elevated the case directly to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) had no jurisdiction over the petition for annulment of the CLOAs and TCTs.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed that the PARAD, and the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) by extension, lacked jurisdiction over the petition. Jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters is conferred by statute. Under Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), the DARAB’s primary jurisdiction is limited to “agrarian disputes,” which require, as a fundamental element, a tenurial relationship between the parties, such as that of landowner and tenant or agricultural lessor and lessee. The petition filed by Montanez did not involve any such tenurial relationship or a dispute arising from one. Her action was essentially a challenge to the administrative issuance of the CLOAs and TCTs based on technical errors in their preparation and registration. Such a challenge pertains to the DAR’s administrative functions in implementing CARP, not to an agrarian dispute. Therefore, the proper recourse was an administrative appeal within the DAR hierarchy, not an original action before the PARAD. The Court emphasized that the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine applies, and the DAR Secretary has the authority to correct errors in the issuance of CLOAs. The case was correctly referred back to the DAR for appropriate administrative action.