4-NUESA-vs-CA

4 HON. ANTONIO M. NUESA in his capacity as the Regional Director of DAR Region III and RESTITUTO RIERA!  petitioners! "s. HON. #OURT O$ A%%EA&S '(4th Di".)! HON. DE%ARTMENT O$ A*RARIAN RE$ORM AD+UDI#ATION ,OARD 'DARA,) and +OSE ERDI&&O! respondents. *.R. No. (-/40 March 1! //

FACTS:

In 1972, then Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an Order of Award in favor of Jose Verdio over two !2" #arces of agricutura and, ocated in $uacan on the condition that within a #eriod of si% !&" months from recei#t of a co#y, the awardee!s" sha #ersonay cutivate or otherwise deveo# at east one'fourth of the area or occu#y and construct his(her house in case of residentia ot and #ay at east the )rst insta instame ment* nt* faiur faiure e on his(he his(herr #art #art to com#y com#y with with this this re+ui re+uire remen mentt sha sha e su-cient cause for canceation of this order and for aocation in favor of any +uai) +uai)ed ed a##ic a##ican ant. t. In 199/, 199/, #riva #rivate te res#o res#onde ndent nt )ed )ed an a##i a##icat cation ion with with the the Regiona egiona O-ce O-ce of the 0AR for the #urcha #urchase se of said said ots ots caimi caiming ng that that he had com#ied with the conditions set forth in the Order. Order. etitioner )ed a etter of #rotest caiming that contrary to the manifestation of #rivate res#ondent, it is #etitioner who had een in #ossession of the and and had een cutivating the same. In an investigation, it was found that the suect ots were #reviousy tenanted y other #ersons namey, Aga#ito 3arcia and ao 3arcia for amost si%teen years #rior to the entry of Restituto Rivera. 4uesa #romugated an Order canceing the award to #riva #rivate te res#o res#onde ndent. nt. Res#ond es#ondent ent )ed )ed a #etiti #etition on rovi rovinci ncia a Ad Adu udic dicati ation on $oar $oard, d, Region III, for Annument of said Order. etitioners )ed a 5otion to 0ismiss the etition on the ground that the #ro#er remedy was an a##ea to the Secretary of  0AR from the Order of the Regiona 0irector and not y a etition with the 0ARA$ rovincia Adudicator.

ISSUE:

6hether or not the 0ARA$ has urisdiction over the case

R8I43  :he res#ondent res#ondent ;ourt of A##eas erred in hoding that the 0ARA$ 0ARA$ and its o-cias have not committed grave ause of discretion tantamount to e%cess or ac< of   urisdiction  urisdiction in this case. .0. 9=& #rovides that matters invoving the administrative

im#ementation of the transfer of the and to the tenant'farmer under .0. 4o. 27 and amendatory and reated decrees, orders, instructions, rues and reguations, sha e e%cusivey cogni>ae y the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, incuding !?" issuance, reca or canceation of certi)cates of and transfer in cases outside the #urview of .0. 4o. @1&. :he revocation y the Regiona 0irector of 0AR of the earier Order of Award y the Secretary of Agricuture fas under the administrative functions of the 0AR. :he 0ARA$ and its #rovincia adudicator or oard of  adudicators acted erroneousy and with grave ause of discretion in taance of the case, then overturning the decision of the 0AR Regiona 0irector and deciding the case on the merits without aording the #etitioner o##ortunity to #resent his case. In the case at ar, #etitioner and #rivate res#ondent had no tenuria, easehod, or any agrarian reations whatsoever that coud have rought this controversy etween them within the amit of the de)nition of agrarian dis#ute. ;onse+uenty, the 0ARA$ had no urisdiction over the controversy and shoud not have taance of #rivate res#ondentBs #etition in the )rst #ace. 6hie it ears em#hasi>ing that )ndings of administrative agencies, which have ac+uired e%#ertise ecause their urisdiction is con)ned to s#eci)c matters are accorded not ony res#ect ut even )naity y the courts, care shoud e ta