G.R. No. 166108 - SPOUSES TEOFILO CARPIO AND TEODORA CARPIO, VS. ANA SEBASTIAN, VICENTA PALAO, SANTOS ESTRELLA, AND VICENTA ESTRELLA, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM VICENTE PALAO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appealed decisions are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new decision is rendered as follows: 1. Declaring that the Board a quo has jurisdiction over the issues raised in these twin cases; 2. Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Deed of Conveyance executed by former landowner Luis Bautista in favor of the herein Respondents-Appellees involving the landholding covered by the Emancipation Patents issued to Virginia P. Estrella as null and void; 3. Directing the partition of the subject landholdings with the assistance of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) concerned, the same to be in accordance with then Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978 and/or other circulars relevant thereto implementing Presidential Decree No. 27 on the subject Rules and Regulations in case of Death of a Tenant-Beneficiary; and 4. Directing that in case of disagreement, the matter must be decided by the DAR Regional Office, it being purely administrative function under the Office of the DAR Secretary. SO ORDERED . From this decision, a motion for reconsideration was filed, but the same was denied. x x x Petitioners then elevated the case to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. On March 31, 2004, the CA rendered its Decision affirming the aforequoted DARAB Decision. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision was denied in a Resolution dated November 12, 2004. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari where petitioners raise the following issues: 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the dispute between the parties is within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. 2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed clear and palpable errors in not finding that petitioners have been tenants over the subject landholding; and that the sale of the subject lot to them is valid, thereby deviating from and disregarding established Supreme Court decisions enjoining Courts not to overlook or misinterpret important facts and circumstances supported by clear and convincing evidence on record and which are of great weight and value to change the results of the case and arrive at a just, fair and objective decision. [3] The Court finds the petition unmeritorious. Jurisdiction over the present case lies with the DARAB. Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB New Rules of Procedures states, thus: Section 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction . - The Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to ca