Dillena vs. Alcaraz GR No. 204045

MAGDALENA C. DILLENA v. MARIANO ALCARAZ, GR No.
204045, 2017-12-14
Facts:
Magdalena C. Dillena[8] x x x, represented by Enrico C. Dillena, filed a Petition with
Very Urgent Motion for the Immediate Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction
or Status Quo Order dated June 30, 2004 with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), Malolos, Bulacan against Mariano Alcaraz, Bernardo
Alcaraz, Joselito Alcaraz and Amor Alcaraz Sta. Ana[9] x x x alleging that Salud
Crespo was the original owner of the subject landholding, a fishpond with an area
of more than ten (10) hectares located in Barangay Nagbalon, Marilao, Bulacan;
sometime in 1950, Salud Crespo instituted Catalino Dillena as tenant of the subject
landholding; when Ana Alcaraz purchased the subject landholding sometime in
1960, she recognized Catalino Dillena's tenancy over the same; and when Catalino
Dillena died, [petitioner's] husband, Narciso, succeeded to the former's tenancy
rights.
that sometime in May 2004 or about a month after Narciso died, (respondents)
informed [petitioner] about their intention to increase the annual lease rental from
P120,000.00 to P240,000.00 which [petitioner] believed was unconscionable and
was merely meant to dispossess her of the subject landholding; and that
[respondents] gave [petitioner] 30 days or until June 30, 2004 to vacate the subject
landholding, which prompted her to file the petition with the PARAD praying that
she be declared as a de jure tenant and be maintained in peaceful possession of
the subject property.
[Respondents] filed a Motion to Dismiss assailing the PARAD's jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the petition. [Respondents] alleged, inter alia, that [petitioner] is
a civil law lessee and that the Kasunduan sa Upahan ng Palaisdaan expired in May
2004. As a civil law lessee, any dispute that may arise from this relationship of the
parties is cognizable by the regular courts.
In a Resolution dated September 20, 2004, the PARAD denied [respondents']
Motion to Dismiss. Thus, [respondents] filed an Answer with Counterclaim with
Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction or Status Quo
Order essentially reiterating their averments in their Motion to Dismiss.
PARAD rendered a Decision dated September 15, 2006 declaring [petitioner] as a
bonafide tenant who is entitled to peacefully possess and cultivate the subject
landholding. [Respondents] filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by
the PARAD in an Order dated February 26, 2007. [Respondents] interposed an
appeal to the DARAB, which rendered the assailed Decision dated March 2, 2009
affirming the PARAD's Decision.
petitioner essentially argues that the CA erred in failing to consider that her case
falls within the exceptions laid down in Republic Act (RA) No. 7881, in that there is
an existing tenurial arrangement between her and respondents which must be
respected; that the amendments introduced in 1995 by RA 7881 to RA 6557 (CARL)
cannot be given retroactive application as to deprive a farmer of his rights under
previous agrarian laws; that while the subject landholding is no longer covered by
the CARL, the parties' tenurial arrangement subsists and remains governed by RA
3844 as it was vested prior to the effectivity of RA 7881; and thus, the PARAD and
DARAB possess jurisdiction over the parties' dispute.
respondents counter that the operation of fishponds is no longer an agricultural
activity but an industrial one; that under Department of Agrarian Reform
Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1995, it is specifically declared that under R.A.
7881, aquaculture, fishponds, and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); that under the CARL, a
fishpond is not an arable land; that in Spouses Romero v. Tan,[19] the Court held
that the PARAD has no jurisdiction over cases involving fishponds, as they are no
longer considered agricultural lands; and that the relationship between the parties
is that of civil law lessor and lessee. Thus, respondents pray for denial of the instant
Petition.
Issues:
The main issue in this petition involves a question of jurisdiction, that is, whether
or not the PARAD and DARAB have jurisdiction over the action filed by [petitioner]
for maintenance of peaceful possession of the subject fishpond.
THE HON. PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT THE DARAB HAS
OBVIOUS LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE, IN VIEW OF R.A. NO.
7881 THAT FISHPONDS ARE NO LONGER AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHOUT
CONSIDERING THAT THIS CASE BELONGS TO THE EXCEPTION THAT TENURIAL
RELATION IS ALREADY A VESTED RIGHT AND THEREFORE IT REMAINS AN AGRARIAN
DISPUTE.
HON. PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRONEOUSLY REFUSED TO RULE ON THE ISSUE OF THE
EXISTENCE OF TENANCY WHICH ALREADY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF R.A.
7881.
Ruling:
The petition is meritorious.
[Respondents] aver that the subject fishpond is not an agricultural land; fishponds
are exempted or excluded from the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) pursuant to Section 10(b) of Republic
Act No. 7881 or ''An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657."
[Respondents] allege that, since a fishpond is not an agricultural land, no
agricultural tenancy relationship can be created between the parties and no
agrarian dispute can emanate therefrom. [Respondents] further aver that
[petitioner] has no security of tenure, being a mere civil law lessee over the subject
fishpond.
We rule for the [respondents].
Prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 7881, under R.A. No. 3844 (“Agricultural Land
Reform Code) and R.A. No. 6657 (“Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law”),
fishponds were considered as agricultural lands.
However, with the enactment of R.A. No. 7881 on February 20, 1995, fishponds
were exempted or excluded from the coverage of the CARL.
Following the pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in Sanchez, Jr. vs.
Marin, the present rule is that fishponds are no longer considered as agricultural
lands in accordance with the explicit provisions of R.A. No. 7881. Accordingly, all
disputes arising from or involving the operation of fishponds after the enactment
of R.A. No. 7881 on February 20, 1995 now fall within the jurisdiction of the regular
courts. However, the PARAD or DARAB shall not lose and continue to exercise
jurisdiction over cases involving fishponds which have been filed or pending before
said agency prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 7881 pursuant to the doctrine that
once jurisdiction is acquired by the court, it remains with it until the full termination
of the case, and the proscription against the retrospective application of R.A. No.
7881.
The Court denies the Petition.
Under Section 2 of RA 7881, which took effect on February 20, 1995, b) Private
lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be
exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and
fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program.
When petitioner filed DCN R 03-02-0837'04 with the Bulacan PARAD in 2004, RA
7881 was already in effect; therefore, the subject landholding — which remained
undistributed under and was not subjected to the CARP — ceased to be covered by
the CARL. Consequently, the Bulacan PARAD, as well as the DARAB, had no
authority to take cognizance of her case, since their jurisdiction is limited to
agrarian disputes.
The jurisdiction of the PARAD, DARAB and the CA on appeal, is limited to agrarian
disputes or controversies and other matters or incidents involving the
implementation of the CARP under R.A. No. 6657, R.A No. 3844 and other agrarian
laws
As early as February 20, 1995, private lands actually, directly and exclusively used
for prawn farms and fishponds were exempted from the coverage of the CARL by
virtue of RA. No. 7881.
Principles:

Dillena vs. Alcaraz GR No. 204045

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dillena vs. Alcaraz GR No. 204045

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dillena vs. Alcaraz GR No. 204045

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAGDALENA C. DILLENA v. MARIANO ALCARAZ, GR No.

You might also like