SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229655. January 17, 2018.]
JRC 6625, INC., petitioner, vs.LIELA 1 CABALTEJA, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 17, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 229655 (JRC 6625, Inc., v. Liela Cabalteja, et al.). — After a judicious review of the records, the Court DENIES WITH FINALITY the Motion for Reconsideration 2 of petitioner for lack of merit. The latter has failed to raise any substantial argument that would warrant the reversal of our Resolution 3 dated 2 August 2017.
Petitioner insists that the Regional Trial Court (RTC), not the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), has jurisdiction over the case. It is argued that for the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) to have jurisdiction, there must exist a tenancy relation between the parties. Since no such arrangement exists here, petitioner further argues that the case is not an agrarian dispute, and that DARAB has no jurisdiction. 4
The jurisdiction conferred on DAR under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is twofold: 1) primary jurisdiction over the adjudication of agrarian disputes; and 2) original jurisdiction over agrarian reform implementation. Executive Order No. 129-A effectively split these two jurisdictions between DARAB, which now has jurisdiction over agrarian disputes; and to the DAR Regional Offices, over agrarian reform implementation. 5
Indeed, the jurisdiction of DARAB, which involves the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties, 6 is subject to the precondition that there exists a tenancy relation between them. 7 However, for cases related to the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, which involve parties who are not necessarily agricultural tenants or lessees, the jurisdiction is with DAR, not DARAB. 8 Here, although no tenancy relationship between the parties is alleged, the case nonetheless falls under the jurisdiction of DAR because it involves the implementation of CARP. 9
The other grounds raised by petitioner are a mere rehash of those already passed upon by this Court in the latter's Resolution.
Accordingly, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY for lack of merit. No further pleadings will be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made immediately. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. "Leila" in other parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 149-157.
3.Id. at 144-148.
4.Id. at 152-153.
5.See Sections 13 and 24 of Executive Order No. 129-A. See also Union Bank of the Philippines v. Regional Agrarian Reform Officer, G.R. Nos. 200369 & 203330-31, 1 March 2017.
6.Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante, 493 Phil. 570 (2005).
7.Union Bank of the Philippines v. Regional Agrarian Reform Officer, supra.
8.Valcurza v. Tamparong, 717 Phil. 324 (2013).
9.Rollo, pp. 37-38 and 42.