522 Phil. 626
PANGANIBAN, CJ:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision dated October 18, 1999 dismissing the complaint filed by [petitioner] issued by the Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, Branch 1, is hereby AFFIRMED."[3]
"On March 8, 1993, a certain Ramon Cajegas entered into a Joint Production Agreement for Islanders Carp-Farmer Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. [petitioner] with Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation [respondent].
"Almost three years after, on April 2, 1996, [petitioner], represented by its alleged chairman, Manuel K. Asta, filed a complaint [with the RTC] for Declaration of Nullity, Mandamus, Damages, with prayer for Preliminary Injunction against [respondent], the alleged x x x officers [of petitioner] who entered into the agreement, and the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office of Davao (hereinafter PARO), represented by Saturnino D. Sibbaluca. [Petitioner] subsequently filed an amended complaint with leave of court alleging that the persons, who executed the contract were not authorized by it.
"[Respondent] then filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 18, 1996 x x x, stating that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (hereinafter DARAB) has primary, exclusive, and original jurisdiction; that [petitioner] failed to comply with the compulsory mediation and conciliation proceedings at the barangay level; and for the unauthorized institution of the complaint in behalf of [petitioner]. [Respondent] also averred that [petitioner] was engaged in forum shopping because [it] also filed a petition before the Department of Agrarian Reform praying for the disapproval of the Joint Production Agreement. x x x PARO also filed a motion to dismiss on May 16, 1996.
"On August 21, 1996, [respondent] then filed a case at the DARAB for Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Injunction with Restraining Order, Damages and Attorney's Fees. On February 25, 1997, the DARAB decided the case in favor of [respondent] declaring the Joint Production Agreement as valid and binding and ordering [petitioner] to account for the proceeds of the produce and to comply with the terms of the contract.
"The [RTC] then issued [its] decision on October 18, 1999.
"[Petitioner], before [the CA], rais[ed] the following errors on appeal:'I
'THE [RTC] GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE AT BAR ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.'II'THE [RTC] GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE JOINT PRODUCTION AGREEMENT AS NULL AND VOID AB INITIO'"[4]
Simply put, the question to be resolved by the Court is this: which of the various government agencies has jurisdiction over the controversy?'I
'Whether or not x x x the x x x Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the dismissal of the case at bench by RTC of Tagum City on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature of the suit.'II
'Whether or not x x x the x x x Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that the "Joint Production Agreement" is valid instead of declaring it as null and void ab initio, its provisions, terms and condition, cause and purposes being violative of [t]he express mandatory provision of R.A. 6657.'III
'Whether or not x x x the x x x Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the "Joint Production Agreement" is a leasehold contract and therefore valid.'IV
"Whether or not x x x the x x x Court of Appeals gravely erred in interpreting and applying the prevailing doctrines and jurisprudence delineating the jurisdiction between the regular court and DARAB on the matter of agricultural land and tenancy relationship."[6]
"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 cases involving the following:The subject matter of the present controversy falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. In question are the rights and obligations of two juridical persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of agricultural land acquired through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government.a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws[.]"[12]
"SEC. 10. Resolution of Disputes- As a rule, voluntary methods, such as mediation or conciliation and arbitration, shall be preferred in resolving disputes involving joint economic enterprises. The specific modes of resolving disputes shall be stipulated in the contract, and should the parties fail to do so, the procedure herein shall apply.The present controversy involves the interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the Joint Production Agreement. Thus, the case clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. This Court in fact recognized the authority of the DAR and the DARAB when it ruled thus:
"The aggrieved party shall first request the other party to submit the matter to mediation or conciliation by trained mediators or conciliators from DAR, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or the private sector chosen by them.x x x x x x x x x
"Should the dispute remain unresolved, it may be brought to either of the following for resolution depending on the principal cause of action:'(a) DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) if it involves interpretation and enforcement of an agribusiness agreement or an agrarian dispute as defined in Sec. 3(d) of RA 6657[.]'"
"All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters."[21]Validity of the Joint
"SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. -The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agricultural (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)."[8] "Providing the Mechanisms for the Implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program," July 22, 1987.
"SECTION 13. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. - There is hereby created an Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board under the Office of the Secretary. The Board shall be composed of the Secretary as Chairman, two (2) Undersecretaries as may be designated by the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, and three (3) others to be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary as members. A Secretariat shall be constituted to support the Board. The Board shall assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases under Executive Order No. 229 and this Executive Order. These powers and functions may be delegated to the regional offices of the Department in accordance with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Board."[11] Heirs of Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Cruz, GR No. 162890, November 22, 2005.
"SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original Jurisdiction. The Adjudicator shall have primary and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate the following cases:[13] Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 9; rollo, p. 169.
"1.1 The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation, and use of all agricultural lands covered by Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), and other related agrarian laws[.]"
"Joint Economic Enterprises generally refer to partnerships or arrangements between beneficiaries and investors to implement an agribusiness enterprise in agrarian reform areas. It may take any of the following forms:
[18] Republic Act No. 6657 Sec. 35 (2) authorizes the DAR to enter into contracts with interested private parties on long-term basis or through joint venture agreements or build-operate-transfer schemes for the purpose of providing infrastructure and facilities to CARP farmer beneficiaries and affected landowners.
(i) Joint Venture whereby the beneficiaries contribute use of the land held individually or in common and the facilities and improvements if any. On the other hand, the investor furnishes capital and technology for production, processing and marketing of agricultural goods, or construction, rehabilitation, upgrading and operation of agricultural capital assets, infrastructure, and facilities. It has a personality separate and distinct from its components;(ii) Production, Processing and Marketing Agreement whereby the beneficiaries engage in the production and processing of agricultural products and directly sell the same to the investor who provides loans and technology;(iii) Build-Operate-Transfer Scheme whereby the investor introduces, rehabilitates or upgrades, at his own cost, capital assets, infrastructure, services and facilities applied to the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products at his own cost, and operates the same for an agreed period, upon expiration of which, collective ownership thereof is consolidated with the beneficiaries who own the land where the improvements and facilities are located;(iv) Management Contract whereby the beneficiaries hire the services of a contractor who may be an individual, partnership or corporation to assist in the management and operation of the farm in exchange for a fixed wage and/or commission;(v) Service Contract whereby the beneficiaries engage for a fee the services of a contractor for mechanized land preparation, cultivation, harvesting, processing, post-harvest operations, and other farm activities;(vi) Lease Contract whereby the beneficiaries bind themselves to give to the investor the enjoyment or use of their land for a price certain and for a definite period;(vii) Any combination of the preceding schemes; or (viii) Such other schemes that will promote the productivity of agrarian reform areas consistent with existing laws[.]
"SECTION 1. Appeal to the Court of Appeals. Any decision, order, resolution, award or ruling of the Board on any agrarian dispute or any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, interpretation of agrarian reform laws or rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, may be brought on appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Rules of Court."[25] See Cadwallader v. Abeleda, 98 SCRA 123, June 25, 1980.