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.
Comments
Post a Comment