Ros v. Department of Agrarian Reform
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, owners/developers of parcels of land in Arpili, Balamban, Cebu, reclassified these lands as industrial by virtue of Municipal Ordinance No. 101, which was later approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu. Despite securing necessary permits, the Director of DAR Regional Office 7 informed them that DAR disallowed the conversion and directed them to cease development. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a Complaint for Injunction with the RTC of Toledo City. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that DAR has jurisdiction over land conversion and citing Section 20 of the Local Government Code and Executive Order No. 129-A. The RTC also noted that Section 68 of Republic Act 6657 prohibits lower courts from issuing injunctions against DAR. The motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's dismissal. Petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioners question whether the reclassification of lands by a municipality removes them from CARL coverage and DAR's jurisdiction, whether the complaint could be dismissed under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, if injunction was an appropriate remedy, and if the RTC had authority to issue an injunction against DAR.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the reclassification of the subject lands to industrial use by the Municipality of Balamban, Cebu pursuant to its authority under Section 20(a) of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 (the "LGC") has the effect of taking such lands out of the coverage of the CARL and beyond the jurisdiction of the DAR; Whether or not the Complaint for Injunction may be dismissed under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; Whether or not the Complaint for Injunction is an appropriate remedy against the order of the DAR enjoining development works on the subject lands; Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City had authority to issue a writ of injunction against the DAR.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the RTC's order of dismissal is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether reclassification removes lands from CARL coverage and DAR's jurisdiction: The Court held that after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL), agricultural lands, even if reclassified, must undergo the process of conversion, with jurisdiction vested in the DAR. The reclassification by the Municipality of Balamban and the Provincial Board of Cebu occurred after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on June 15, 1988. Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 covers all private agricultural lands. DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994, consolidates rules on conversion and explicitly states that DAR is mandated to approve or disapprove applications for conversion, and Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 empowers DAR to authorize reclassification or conversion under certain conditions. The Local Government Code's provision on reclassification explicitly states that it does not repeal or modify the provisions of R.A. No. 6657. On the issue of dismissal under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction: The Court affirmed the dismissal based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which precludes courts from resolving controversies initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the DAR, specifically the DARAB. Executive Order 229 and Republic Act 6657 vest the DAR with quasi-judicial powers and exclusive original jurisdiction over matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, divesting regional trial courts of general jurisdiction over such matters. Therefore, the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On the issue of whether injunction is an appropriate remedy against DAR's order: The Court ruled in the negative. Section 68 of R.A. No. 6657 explicitly prohibits lower courts from issuing injunctions, restraining orders, prohibitions, or mandamus against the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the agrarian reform program. Thus, an injunction was not a proper remedy against DAR's order enjoining development works. On the issue of RTC's authority to issue an injunction against DAR: Consistent with the previous points, the RTC had no authority to issue an injunction against the DAR. The RTC correctly recognized its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, which falls under the exclusive domain of the DAR, and the prohibition against lower courts issuing injunctions against DAR's implementation of the agrarian reform program as provided in Section 68 of R.A. No. 6657.
Main Doctrine
Reclassification of agricultural lands by local government units, even if authorized by ordinance, does not automatically exempt such lands from the conversion process mandated by Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), and jurisdiction over such conversion remains with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).