G.R. No. 143280.

July 26, 2000]

RODOLFO BUCLASAN, et al., vs. CA, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL
26, 2000.
G.R. No. 143280 (Rodolfo Buclasan, et al., vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et
al.)
The petition posits the following supposed issue - "Does the Regional Trial Court
of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the annulment
of Certificate of Land Ownership Award ("CLOA") awarded to tenant-farmers
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988?"
In 1995, herein petitioners, tenant-farmers from Sumilao, Bukidnon, were
awarded CLOA No. 00240227, later registered Transfer Certificate of Title ("TCT")
NO. AT-3536, covering a 144-hectare property owned by respondent Norberto
Quisumbing, Sr. Management and Development Corporation ("NQSRMDC").
Application by respondents NQSRMDC and the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial
Development Association ("BAIDA") for the conversion of subject property from
agricultural to agro-industrial which was earlier denied by the DAR secretary was,
upon appeal, finally granted by the Office of the President ("OP") through
Executive secretary Ruben Torres. On 29 March 1996, a motion for
reconsideration was filed by DAR but the motion was denied for having been filed
beyond the 15-day reglementary period, thereby rendering the order of 29 March
1996 of the Executive Secretary final and executory.
In the meantime, NQSRMDC filed a complaint before Bukidnon Regional Trial
Court ("RTC"), docketed Civil Case No. 2687-97, for "Annulment and Cancellation
of Title, Damages and injunction with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction" against
petitioners. Petitioners, in turn, filed a Petition for Certiorari AND Prohibition with
Prayer for the issuance of TRO and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the Court
of Appeals docketed CA-G.R. No. 44905.
Relenting, amidst massive protest on the plight of the Sumilao farmers, then
President Fidel Ramos vacated the earlier decision and issued a compromise
solution - to segregate the 144-hectare property into 2 parcels. The OP allocated
the 100-hectare portion to the farmer beneficiaries and the remaining 44
hectares to the NQSRMDC estate. Respondent BAIDA filed a Petition
for Certiorari before the Supreme Court questioning President Ramos' "Win-Win
Resolution." On 04 April 1998, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of then
Executive Secretary Torres of 29 March 1996 allowing the conversion of a portion
of the subject property and rendering null and void the win-win resolution of then

President Ramos. In view of this development, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R.

No 44905 issued the assailed Resolution on 27 December 1999 ruling, among
other things that:
"The natural consequence of the high court's ruling, therefore, is the
annulment of the petitioners title, which action, if commenced, must
necessarily be filed in the RTC, as in fact, in was, by the private
respondents. As court of general jurisdiction and of first instance, the
RTC has jurisdiction to act upon the action for annulment of title
commenced by the private respondents."1 Rollo, p. 28.
Petitioners assert that under Section 50 of Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 6657, the
DAR, being a quasi-judicial body, has primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
over all matters in ordering the implementation of agrarian reform. Under
Section I, Rule II, of the DARAB rules of Procedure promulgated by the DAR, the
DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving specifically the issuance, correction
and cancellation of CLOAs. Petitioners then argue that the order of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 44905 should be reversed insofar as it has declared the
RTC, Branch IX, of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, to be possessed of jurisdiction over the
issue of annulment of petitioners' title.
The petition is not meritorious. The final order of this Court upholding the
conversion of the property in question from agricultural to industrial has
rendered the matter beyond the coverage of the comprehensive agrarian reform
law. It is, in effect, TCT No. At-3536, not CLOA No. 00240227 previously issued to
petitioners, that is sought to be annulled, and it places the issue within the ambit
of the RTC, not the DARAB, jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is denied.