Landicho vs. Limqueco

A controversy relating to the terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to agrarian reform beneficiaries constitutes an agrarian dispute cognizable by the DARAB and PARAD, even in the absence of a tenurial arrangement, provided the material allegations in the complaint invoke rights under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and seek nullification of prohibited transfers.

Spouses Romeo and Evangeline Landicho subjected their 177,763-square-meter landholding in Mabang Parang, Lucban, Quezon, to a Voluntary Land Transfer under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in 1992. After retaining five hectares, the remaining area was subdivided and awarded to petitioners as agrarian reform beneficiaries, who were issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award and corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title. In 1994, respondent William C. Limqueco, with the assistance of Romeo Landicho, allegedly procured the petitioners’ signatures on documents that later surfaced as contracts of sale and lease over the awarded lands. Petitioners received no consideration and claimed their consent was vitiated by fraud, undue influence, and mistake, and that the transfers violated the ten-year prohibition on alienation under the CARP law. Respondent countered that he was a purchaser in good faith and for value, and that no agrarian dispute existed, thus depriving the DARAB of jurisdiction.

Nature of the Action:
Sometime in 2000, petitioners—agrarian reform beneficiaries of several parcels in Lucban, Quezon—filed petitions before the PARAD against respondent Limqueco and his Taiwanese investor-partner Yang Chin Hai. The petitions sought nullification of contracts of sale and the recovery of their owner’s duplicate copies of CLOAs that had been delivered to respondent. In the alternative, they prayed for the cancellation of the CLOAs and the issuance of new certificates.

The CARP Awards:
The parcels covered five CLOA titles with corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title, originally part of a 177,763-square-meter landholding covered by OCT No. P-29365 registered in the name of spouses Romeo and Evangeline Landicho. By a Voluntary Land Transfer in 1992, the land was placed under CARP. The Landichos retained five hectares, and the residual 127,763 square meters were subdivided and awarded to petitioners as follows:

• Juris P. Landicho — CLOA No. 00125976 / TCT No. T-4006 (29,345 sq m)
• Darwin P. Landicho — CLOA No. 00125977 / TCT No. T-4007 (21,393 sq m)
• Ivy P. Landicho — CLOA No. 00125978 / TCT No. T-4008 (27,592 sq m)
• Felipe L. Peñalosa — CLOA No. 00125979 / TCT No. T-4009 (24,717 sq m)
• Edgar L. Peñalosa — CLOA No. 00125980 / TCT No. T-4010 (24,716 sq m)

The Alleged Transfers:
Felipe Peñalosa averred that respondent obtained physical possession of his CLOA and TCT after respondent and Romeo Landicho entered into a contract of sale over his property without his knowledge. The other petitioners claimed that in June 1994, respondent and Romeo Landicho asked them to sign documents that turned out to be contracts of sale and lease. They received no consideration, the legal consequences were not explained, and the owner’s duplicate TCTs were eventually delivered to respondent. Darwin, Juris, and Ivy Landicho added that they had entrusted their TCTs and CLOAs to their father, Romeo Landicho, who later transacted with respondent. Petitioners uniformly asserted that the transfers violated the ten-year prohibition on alienation under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 and that their consent was vitiated by fraud, undue influence, and mistake.

Respondent’s Defense:
Respondent opposed the petitions, insisting he was a purchaser in good faith and for value. He argued that no agrarian dispute existed because there was no tenurial relation between the parties, and consequently the PARAD had no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The PARAD and DARAB Rulings:
In its March 5, 2001 Decision, the PARAD held it had jurisdiction because the case involved the “rights and obligations of persons … engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP.” It additionally found respondent estopped from questioning jurisdiction, his motion to dismiss having been filed seven months after his answer. On the merits, the PARAD ordered respondent to surrender the owner’s duplicates within five days, directed the Register of Deeds to cancel them in case of failure, and ordered the DAR Provincial Office to issue new CLOAs. It awarded compensatory, exemplary, and attorney’s fees against respondent and Romeo Landicho. On appeal, the DARAB affirmed in toto.

The CA Decision:
The CA reversed, holding that the DAR Secretary—not the PARAD/DARAB—had jurisdiction over the petitions because no agrarian dispute was present. It directed that the cases could be re-filed following DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000, within 30 days from finality.

• Violation of Rule on Forum Shopping: Petitioners argued that the CA committed reversible error in admitting the amended petition after co-petitioner Yang Chin Hai’s failure to sign the certification against forum shopping, which is incurable by mere amendment under Rule 7, Section 5, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court in relation to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
• Improper Remedy: Petitioners contended that respondent’s challenge to the DARAB’s jurisdiction should have been brought via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 43.
• DARAB’s Exclusive Jurisdiction: Petitioners maintained that the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute because the principal relief sought—recovery of their illegally possessed CLOAs—constitutes an incident involving the implementation of the CARP. They cited Heirs of Jose M. Cervantes v. Miranda for the rule that if issues are intertwined with matters within DARAB’s exclusive jurisdiction, the DARAB must resolve them.
• Misapplication of Santos Case: Petitioners distinguished Heirs of Herman Rey Santos v. CA, arguing that, unlike in that case, there are no conflicting ownership claims: they are registered CLOA owners, while respondent is merely an illegal possessor with no title.
• Reliance on Repealed Administrative Order: The CA’s invocation of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000 was erroneous because it had been repealed by DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2003, which vests jurisdiction over the annulment of deeds of sale and similar matters in the DARAB.
• Non-Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Petitioners argued that respondent’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the DARAB decision before appealing to the CA violated the mandatory doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Estoppel: Petitioners asserted that respondent was estopped from questioning the DARAB’s jurisdiction because he filed an answer with counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Romeo Landicho, thereby actively participating in the proceedings.
• Ambiguity of the CA Decision: Petitioners sought clarification as to whether the CA decision resolved the original or the amended petition, given that both the notice of decision and the decision itself remained captioned with Limqueco and Hai as petitioners.

• Lack of Agrarian Dispute: Respondent countered that the PARAD and DARAB lacked jurisdiction because the parties had no tenurial relationship—a requirement under Heirs of Herman Rey Santos v. CA—and that the petitioners themselves admitted the non-existence of an agrarian relationship.
• Proper Remedy under Rule 43: Respondent argued that a petition for review under Rule 43 was the appropriate remedy because the requirement that no appeal be available for a Rule 65 petition to prosper was not met.
• No Estoppel on Jurisdiction: Respondent maintained that the question of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.
• Motion for Reconsideration Not Required: Respondent contended that a motion for reconsideration of the DARAB decision is not a mandatory prerequisite for a Rule 43 appeal.
• Proper Venue with the DAR Secretary: Respondent agreed with the CA that the claims should be ventilated before the DAR Secretary under DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000.

• Propriety of Rule 43 Appeal: Whether respondent’s recourse to the CA via Rule 43, instead of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, was proper given the assertion that the DARAB lacked jurisdiction.
• Admission of Amended Petition: Whether the CA committed reversible error in admitting the amended petition after co-petitioner Yang Chin Hai’s failure to sign the certification against forum shopping.
• Jurisdiction over the Dispute: Whether the PARAD and DARAB had exclusive original jurisdiction over the petitions for nullification of contracts of sale and recovery of CLOAs, or whether the controversy fell within the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Whether respondent’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the DARAB decision constituted a fatal non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Estoppel: Whether respondent was estopped from questioning the DARAB’s jurisdiction by filing an answer, counterclaims, and a third-party complaint.
• Clarity of the CA Decision: Whether the CA erred in failing to clarify whether its decision pertained to the original or the amended petition.

• Propriety of Rule 43 Appeal: A challenge to the jurisdiction of a tribunal over the subject matter presents a pure question of law. Section 3, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court permits an appeal to the CA involving questions of fact, of law, or of mixed fact and law. Respondent’s resort to Rule 43 was, therefore, procedurally proper.
• Admission of Amended Petition: Under Altres v. Empleo, the failure of one party to sign the certification against forum shopping results merely in the dropping of that party from the case, not the dismissal of the entire action. Respondent complied with the certification requirement; the CA thus committed no error in admitting the amended petition with him as sole petitioner.
• Jurisdiction over the Dispute: The controversy constituted an agrarian dispute within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DARAB and PARAD. The definition in Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 expressly includes “any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under the CARP law and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries,” regardless of whether the disputants stand in a proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. The petitioners’ complaints invoked their rights as CARP beneficiaries and sought nullification of transfers that were allegedly prohibited and vitiated by fraud; these allegations brought the dispute squarely under the DARAB’s jurisdiction as enumerated in the 1994 DARAB Rules—specifically, cases for annulment or cancellation of deeds of sale and cases involving the sale, alienation, pre-emption, or redemption of agricultural lands under CARP. The CA’s reliance on DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000, which vested jurisdiction in the DAR Secretary, was misplaced because that order had already been repealed by DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2003, which explicitly vests the DARAB with jurisdiction over the annulment of deeds of sale and matters involving lands under CARP. The absence of a tenurial arrangement did not strip the controversy of its agrarian character.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Not separately resolved. The ruling on jurisdiction and the remand of the case effectively superseded the need to address this procedural objection.
• Estoppel: Not passed upon. The case was remanded for determination of the merits; the jurisdictional holding rendered the estoppel issue moot at this stage.
• Clarity of the CA Decision: Not passed upon. The remand mooted the necessity of any clarification regarding which petition the CA’s decision resolved.

• Definition of Agrarian Dispute — Under Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657, an agrarian dispute includes not only controversies relating to tenurial arrangements but also “any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under the CARP law and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.” A petition seeking nullification of a sale that allegedly violates the CARP and is vitiated by fraud falls within this statutory definition, even if the parties do not share a landowner-tenant relationship.
• Determination of Quasi-Judicial Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, regardless of whether the petitioner is ultimately entitled to the relief sought. Allegations that invoke rights as CARP beneficiaries and that a sale contravenes the CARP’s terms and conditions sufficiently vest the DARAB with jurisdiction.
• Scope of DARAB’s Exclusive Original Jurisdiction — Under the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure (Rule II, Section 1), the DARAB has primary and exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction over all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the CARP, specifically including the annulment or cancellation of deeds of sale involving lands under DAR administration and cases of sale, alienation, pre‑emption, and redemption of agricultural lands under the CARP or other agrarian laws. DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2003, which repealed DAR A.O. No. 6, Series of 2000, reaffirms this jurisdiction.
• Effect of Non-Signing of Certification Against Forum Shopping — Consistent with Altres v. Empleo, the failure of one of several parties to sign the certification against forum shopping results only in the dropping of that party from the case; it does not warrant dismissal of the entire action when the other parties have properly complied.
• Jurisdictional Challenge as a Pure Question of Law — A challenge to a tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction presents a pure question of law. As such, it may be properly raised on appeal to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43, which allows the review of questions of fact, of law, or of both.

• “The second sentence of Section 3(d) of the CARL clearly provides that an agrarian dispute also includes ‘any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under the CARP law and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.’” — This passage defines the breadth of the DARAB’s jurisdiction and was central to overruling the CA’s narrow interpretation.
• “[T]he jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs.” — Frequently cited in Philippine jurisprudence on the rule of determining jurisdiction from the face of the complaint.
• “In order for the DARAB and PARAD to exercise jurisdiction over such controversies, sufficient allegations establishing the existence of an agrarian dispute must be made in the complaint.” — Reinforces that bare allegations of agrarian reform rights suffice to activate DARAB jurisdiction.

• Sevilleno v. Carilo, 559 Phil. 789 (2007) — Followed to hold that a question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law, thereby validating the use of a Rule 43 appeal.
• Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246 (2008) — Applied for the rule that the failure of one party to sign the certification against forum shopping only requires the dropping of that party, not the dismissal of the case.
• Heirs of del Rosario v. del Rosario, 688 Phil. 485 (2012) — Cited to affirm the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB under the 1994 DARAB Rules and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
• Heirs of Herman Rey Santos v. CA, 384 Phil. 26 (2000) — Distinguished; the Supreme Court clarified that this case did not require the presence of a tenurial relationship for DARAB jurisdiction, as the statutory definition of agrarian dispute is broader.

• Section 3(d), Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) — Defines “agrarian dispute” to include controversies relating to the terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to beneficiaries; applied to hold that the dispute was agrarian in nature despite the absence of a tenurial arrangement.
• Sections 6 and 22, R.A. No. 6657 — Prescribe retention limits and the order of priority for qualified beneficiaries; they explained how petitioners became lawful beneficiaries of the subject parcels.
• Section 27, R.A. No. 6657 — Imposes the ten-year prohibition on the sale, transfer, or conveyance of awarded lands; this was the core substantive prohibition petitioners relied upon.
• Executive Order No. 129-A (1987) — Created the DARAB to strengthen the adjudicatory functions of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
• Rule II, Sections 1 and 2, 1994 DARAB New Rules of Procedure — Enumerate the DARAB’s primary and exclusive jurisdiction, specifically including the annulment of deeds of sale and cases involving the sale of agricultural lands under the CARP; these were invoked to establish DARAB jurisdiction.
• DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2003 — Repeals DAR A.O. No. 6, Series of 2000, and vests jurisdiction in the DARAB over the annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale and cases involving the sale of agricultural lands under the CARP; this was critical in refuting the CA’s jurisdictional basis.
• Section 3, Rule 43, Rules of Court — States that an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 may involve questions of fact, law, or both; applied to uphold the propriety of the remedy chosen.

Carpio, J. (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Leonen, JJ., concur.