G.R. No. 171253 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judgment is hereby collectively rendered: 1) Finding to be erroneous the coverage of Lot 2-B, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-11026 under the CARP and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. CLOA-1629, CLOA No. 00141945 of the Register of Deeds for Cavite in favor [of] the herein [P]rivate Respondents, accordingly, finding the same to be null and void; 2) Directing the Public Respondent Register of Deeds to effect the cancellation of the subject CLOA and reinstate Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-11026 in the name of Petitioner Lakeview Golf & Country Club, Inc., further; 3) Directing the Land Bank of the Philippines, in a proper case, to reimburse such amount/s representing amortization payments to the [P]rivate [R]espondents and, finally; 4) Ordering the [P]rivate [R]espondents and [their] privies and/or all other persons acting for and in their behalf or under their authority to vacate and surrender their respective areas of tillage and/or occupancy in favor of Petitioner Lakeview or [its] duly authorized representative. No pronouncement as to other reliefs. [12] Respondents appealed to the DARAB. On January 17, 2001, the DARAB ruled that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate regarding the issue of the coverage of the subject property under the CARP, the same being within the exclusive prerogative of the DAR Secretary under Section 1, Rule II of the New DARAB Rules of Procedure. [13] It also declared as valid the CLOA issued in favor of private respondents due to petitioner's failure to overcome the presumption of regularity of official functions by government employees and officials. The dispositive portion, reads: WHEREFORE , the assailed Decision dated September 22, 1999 is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE . The petition of Lakeview is DISMISSED . The Transfer Certificate of Title issued pursuant to the Certificate of Land Ownership Award in favor of Luzvimin Samahang Nayon and Rolling Hills Association is declared valid and legal, done in accordance with the law and the applicable rules. SO ORDERED . [14] Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals which was denied on March 9, 2004. The appellate court ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to adjudicate regarding the issue of the coverage of the subject property under the CARP since there is no tenancy relationship between the parties. It cited the case of Morta, Sr. v. Occidental , [15] where the Court held that for the DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must exist a tenancy relation between the parties. In this case, petitioner never recognized private respondents as farmworkers and cultivators of the subject property. The appellate court also found that the matter of exemption from CARP coverage had already been resolved in the negative by the DAR. The appellate court held: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED in toto . SO ORDERED.