FAGEL TABIN AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, FORMERLY THE DAVAO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ANTONIO FAGEL SR., PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE EMILIO A. JACIN…

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to set aside
or annul the September 4, 1980 Resolution of the Court of Agrarian Relations,
16th Regional District, Branch I, Davao City
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner’s complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Certificates of Land Transfer in Court of Agrarian Relations Case
No. 3384 (Davao-1980) entitled, Fagel Tabin Agricultural Corporation, etc. vs. Hon. Minister of
Agrarian Reform, et al., as well as the Order dated October 15, 1980 denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner Fagel Tabin Agricultural Corporation, formerly the Davao Industrial Development Co. is the owner of a
165-hectare parcel of agricultural land situated at Barrio Lizada,
Toril District, Davao City,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4089.

On or about March, 1973 or after the issuance of Presidential
Decree No. 27, officials and employees of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform
conducted parcellary map sketching of patches,
pockets or  portions of land areas
cultivated to corn inside the 165-hectare land and placed the same under the
coverage of Operation Land Transfer (OLT). Subsequently thereafter, the
officials and employees of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform issued corresponding
Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT numbered consecutively from 0368129 to
0368163 inclusive) dated June 8, 1977,
or a total of 35 CLTs with an area coverage of 43.51
hectares out of the 165 hectares land.

On June 3, 1980, petitioner filed a complaint dated April 30,
1980, for “Declaration of Nullity of Certificates of Land Transfer issued
Illegally and Unlawfully” against respondent “Hon. Minister Conrado F. Estrella, including
all those claiming authority therefrom and acting as
Regional Director,, Branch and/or Team Leader or agents of the
Minister/Ministry and the alleged tenant-beneficiaries” in Branch I of the
Court of Agrarian Relations, Davao City, docketed as
CAR Case No. 3384.

Petitioner contends that the 165-hectare parcel of land was
placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer (P.D. 27) in spite of
contrary official findings shown in the official records of the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform, particularly the Survey Map 
(Rollo, p. 23) of the land prepared and made
by respondents public officials/employees in cooperation with then Bureau of
Lands, allegedly classifying and establishing the landholding in question as
primarily a coconut and rubber land; that the individual CLTs
were issued illegally and unlawfully inasmuch as P.D. No. 27 was distinctly and
expressly made applicable only to tenant-farmers of private agricultural lands
PRIMARILY devoted to rice and corn; that they were issued not only in grave,
and gross abuse of authority and/or discretion amounting to utter lack of
jurisdiction, but more importantly, illegally and contrary to the very law
(P.D. No. 27) that authorized for the first time the issuance of CLTs, and therefore NULL and VOID.

On the other hand, respondents public
officials and employees contended that the landholding in question is not
totally primarily devoted to coconuts and rubber and that the entire 165
hectares was not placed under OLT but only such portions as are tenanted and
devoted to the production of corn.

As affirmative and special defenses, respondents public officials
and employees contended that the Court of Agrarian Relations  has no jurisdiction in the case under the
provision of P.D. 946 (Reorganizing the Courts of Agrarian Relations,
Streamlining their Procedures, and for Other Purposes), Section 12[b] which
explicitly provides that “matters involving the administrative
implementation of the transfer of land to the tenant farmer under P.D. No. 27
and amendatory and related decrees, orders, instructions, rules and
regulations, shall be exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform.”

Further, respondents contended that the CLTs
thus issued were all in accordance with law and by authority of Letter of
Instruction No. 46 issued by the President of the Philippines directing the
respondent Minister of Agrarian Reform to establish priorities in the
implementation of the land reform program of the government pursuant to P.D.
No. 27; that the complaint states no cause of action, plaintiff (herein
petitioner) having failed to exhaust required administrative remedies afforded
to it by law before resorting to the Court of Agrarian Relations.

In its reply to answer, petitioner contends that Section 12 [b]
of P.D. No. 946 is very clear and it is precisely upon this authority that the
complaint was filed before the Court of Agrarian Relations.

It is further contended by petitioner that it is not a matter
involving the administrative implementation of P.D. No. 27 because what was
covered and transferred in the instant case is not agricultural land primarily
devoted to rice and corn, but rather a landholding primarily devoted to
coconut, rubber, etc.

After a preliminary hearing, the Court of Agrarian Relations
issued a Resolution dated September 4,
1980, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in
an Order dated October 15, 1980
for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner raised two (2) legal issues, to wit:

I

DOES P. D. NO. 27 INCLUDE IN ITS COVERAGE
PORTIONS OF LAND PRIMARILY DEVOTED TO COCONUT, RUBBER AND OTHER PERMANENT
TREES?

II

THE “BURDEN OF PROOF” UNDER THE
“REFERRAL PROVISIONS” AND/OR THE “PROVISO” OF THE 2ND PAR,
OF P.D. NO. 946 – IS UPON THE RESPONDENTS; AND THAT THE
“PROVISO” MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.

The main issue in this case is whether or not respondent judge
erred in dismissing CAR Case No. 3384 for lack of jurisdiction.

The answer is in the negative. 
The law (PD 946) provides:

“SEC. 12.  Jurisdiction
Over Subject Matter. – The Courts of Agrarian
Relations shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over:

(a)     Cases involving the
rights and obligations of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural
land except those cognizable by the National Labor
Relations;

x x x                          x
x x

(b)     Questions
involving rights granted and obligations imposed by laws. Presidential Decrees,
Orders, Instructions, Rules and Regulations issued and promulgated in relation
to the agrarian reform program;

Provided, however, That, matters involving the administrative
implementation of the transfer of land to the tenant-farmer under Presidential
Decree No. 27 and amendatory and related decrees, orders, instructions, rules
and regulations, shall be exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, namely:

(1)          classification and identification of landholdings;

(2)          identification of tenant-farmers and landowners, and
determination of their tenancy relationship;

(3)          parcellary mapping;

(4)          determination of the total production and value of the land
to be transferred to the tenant-farmer;

(5)          issuance, recall or cancellation of certificates of land
transfer in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree No. 816.

(6)          right of
retention of the landowner;

(7)          right of the
tenant-farmer to a home lot;

(8)          disposition of the excess 
area  in tenant’s farmholding;

(9)          change of crop
from rice and/or corn to any other agricultural crop;

x             x          x

Provided, further, That the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform may be
appealed to the President of the Philippines.”
(P.D. No. 946).

It must be stated that the first and fundamental duty of courts
is to apply the law and construction and interpretation come only after it has
been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them
(National Federation of Labor vs. Bisma, 127 SCRA
419, 425 [1984]). The aforequoted provision of PD 946
is clear and unambiguous. It provides, as an exception to the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Agrarian Relations, the subject matters
exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform among which are the
classification and identification of land-holdings, the parcellary
mapping in question and the issuance, recall or cancellation of CLTs.  Accordingly,
it should be taken to mean exactly what it says. It is elementary rule in
statutory construction that when the words and phrases of a statute are clear
and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed
and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. (Insular
Bank of Asia and America Employees Union (IBAAEU) vs. Inciong,
132 SCRA 663, 673 [1984]).  Where
the provision of the law is clear and unambiguous, so that there is no occasion
for the court’s seeking legislative intent, the law must be taken as it is,
devoid of judicial addition or subtraction (Insular Lumber Co. vs. Court of
Appeals, 104 SCRA 710, 719 [1981]). Hence, as aptly argued by respondents in
the case at bar, if petitioner did not agree with the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform in placing his landholding under Operation Land Transfer, then he should
have filed his complaint with the Ministry instead of going to court by filing
CAR Case No. 3384, the matter being within the jurisdiction of the Minister of
Agrarian Reform pursuant to the proviso of section 12(b), PD 946.

In any event, the case at bar has already become moot and
academic because of the enactment of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), which include in its coverage “all private
lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural
products raised or that can be raised thereon” (Section 4-d).  Otherwise stated, the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law now covers the landholding in question.

WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is Dismissed for lack of merit and having
been rendered moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Davide, Jr. and Romero, concur.