G.R. No. 189874 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Decision is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Casimiro N. Tamparong, Jr. and against the defendants ordering as follows: 1. The immediate annulment and cancellation of CLOA No. 00102751 and OCT No. E-4640, and all other derivative titles that may have been issued pursuant to, in connection with, and by reason of the fraudulent and perjured coverage of the disputed land by the DAR; 2. The cancellation of Subdivision Plan Bsd-10-002693 (AR); and 3. The ejectment of the sixteen (16) private-defendants farmer beneficiaries led by Sps. Rodulfo Valcurza, et al. from the disputed landholding and to surrender their possession thereof to the plaintiff. [19] On appeal, the DARAB held that the identification of lands that are subject to CARP and the declaration of exemption therefrom are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. As the grounds relied upon by petitioners in their complaint partook of a protest against the coverage of the subject landholding from CARP and/or exemption therefrom, the DARAB concluded that the DAR Secretary had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. [20] Hence, the DARAB reversed the PARAB, maintained the validity of the CLOA, and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. [21] Dissatisfied, respondent filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the CA, which ruled that the annulment of duly registered CLOAs with the Land Registration Authority falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB and not of the regional director. Furthermore, the subject landholding was considered industrial because of a zoning classification issued by the Municipal Council of Villanueva, Misamis Oriental, prior to 15 June 1988. This ruling is consistent with the power of local governments to reclassify lands through a local ordinance, which is not subject to DARs approval. [22] Thus, this Petition. Petitioners claim that respondents complaint before the PARAB concerns the DARs implementation of the agrarian law and implementation of CLOA as an incident thereof. [23] The PARAB had no jurisdiction, because matters strictly involving the administrative implementation of the CARL and other agrarian laws are the exclusive prerogative of and are cognizable by the DAR Secretary. [24] Yet, supposing that PARAB had jurisdiction, its authority to cancel CLOAs is based on the ground that the land was found to be exempted or excluded from CARP coverage by the DAR Secretary or the latters authorized representatives, which is not the case here. [25] The subject landholding has also been declared as agricultural by various government agencies as evidenced by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-City Environment and Natural Resources Office Certification declaring the land to be alienable and disposable and not covered by any public land application; by the PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority Certification that the land is outside the industrial area of PHIVIDEC; and by the letter of the De