JAIME SANCHEZ, JR.

, Petitioner,
vs.
ZENAIDA F. MARIN, JESUS NICASIO F. MARIN, JOSE DAVID F. MARIN, MARIA
BERNADETTE F. MARIN, PAUL PETER F. MARIN and PHILIP LUIS F. MARIN, Respondents.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
FACTS:
David Felix owned a fishpond. Jaime Sanchez was instituted as a tenant on the said fishpond, with a 50/50
sharing agreement. After a few years, Felix sold and transferred ownership of the subject fishpond to the
Marins. As new owners of the fishpond, they entered into a civil law agreement with their mother, Zemaida,
which was renewable yearly.
Zenaida then made an arrangement with Sanchez wherein Sanchez would receive a regular salary and a
20% share in the net profit of the fishpond. When her lease agreement with her children expired, Zenaida
ordered Sanchez to vacate the premises. Sanchez refused, asserting that he was a tenant of the
fishpond and not a mere contractual worker; hence, he had the right to its peaceful possession and
security of tenure. He then asked the court to declare him as a tenant of the subject fishpond, which
subsequently did.
As Sanchez was already declared as an agricultural tenant of the fishpond, he filed a petition to the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for the fixing of leasehold rentals for his use of the
fishpond. However, Zenaida countered this application by filing a case with the PARAD to eject Sanchez
for failure to pay the rent and for failure to render an accounting. The PARAD consolidated the 2 cases and
ruled in favor of Sanchez.
Zenaida appealed to the DARAB, which affirmed the PARAD decision. The CA reversed the ruling, stating
that the DARAB lacked jurisdiction over the case. It stated that Sec. 2 of RA 7881, which amended Sec. 10
of RA 6657, excluded private lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds
from the coverage of the CARL, so that the operation of a fishpond is no longer considered an agricultural
activity. Since the cases are not agrarian disputes, then the DARAB could not have validly acquired
jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUES:
W/N a fishpond is an agricultural land.
NO. By virtue of Sec. 2, RA 7881, the operation of fishponds is no longer considered an agricultural
activity, and a parcel of land devoted to fishpond operation is no longer an agricultural land.
Fishponds are no longer considered agricultural lands.

W/N a tenurial arrangement exists between Sanchez and Zenaida Marin.

YES. Although the fishpond is not covered by the CARL, it bears emphasis that Sanchez status as a
tenant in the subject fishpond and his right to security of tenure were already previously settled. Having

been declared as a tenant with the right to security of tenure as provided by the law enforced at the time of
the filing of the complaint, Sanchez has acquired a vested right over the subject fishpond. Therefore, even
if fishponds were later excluded/exempted from CARL coverage, and despite the fact that no CLOA has
been issued to Sanchez, the same cannot defeat the aforesaid vested right already granted and acquired
by Sanchez long before the passage of RA 7881.

W/N the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.

YES. The present case was instituted as early as 1991 when the law applicable was still RA 6657, and
fishponds and prawn farms were not yet exempted/excluded from the CARL coverage. At that time, there
was an agrarian dispute between the parties. Prior to the enactment of RA 7881 in 1995, the case was
already pending appeal before the DARAB. Hence, the aforesaid amendments cannot be made to apply to
divest the DARAB of its jurisdiction of the case. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court, it remains with it
until the full termination of the case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision and the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61955, dated 23 May 2005 and 25 January 2006,
respectively, which annulled and set aside the Decision of the DARAB, dated 25 September 2000, for lack
of jurisdiction, are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Thus, the said Decision of the DARAB dated 25
September 2000 is hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. No costs.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 171346

October 19, 2007

JAIME SANCHEZ, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
ZENAIDA F. MARIN, JESUS NICASIO F. MARIN, JOSE DAVID F. MARIN, MARIA
BERNADETTE F. MARIN, PAUL PETER F. MARIN and PHILIP LUIS F. MARIN, Respondents.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
seeking to reverse and set aside (1) the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61955, dated
23 May 2005, which granted in part the petition filed before it by herein respondents and thereby annulled
and set aside the Decision2 rendered by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
dated 25 September 2000 in DARAB Cases No. 3799 (Reg. Case No. IV-QI-0175-91) and No. 3800 (Reg.

Case No. IV-QI-0167-91); and (2) the Resolution 3 of the appellate court, dated 25 January 2006, which
denied herein petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
Herein petitioner Jaime Sanchez, Jr. is an agricultural tenant of a 10-hectare fishpond sited at Barangay
Talao-Talao, Lucena City, which was previously owned by David Felix, the ascendant of herein
respondents. Herein respondent Zenaida F. Marin is the civil law lessee of the subject fishpond and the
mother of respondents Jesus Nicasio, Jose David, Maria Bernadette, Paul Peter and Philip Luis, all
surnamed Marin, who are now the registered owners4 of the said fishpond.
The controversy in this case arose from the following facts:
In 1977, the petitioner was instituted as a tenant of the subject fishpond by its previous registered owner
David Felix. The sharing agreement was on a 50/50 basis after deducting the expenses from the gross
harvest. A few years thereafter, David Felix sold and transferred ownership of the subject fishpond to
respondents Jesus Nicasio, Jose David, Maria Bernadette, Paul Peter and Philip Luis, all surnamed Marin,
to whom a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-43289, 5 covering the subject fishpond, was issued. The
aforesaid respondents, as the new owners of the fishpond, entered into a civil law lease agreement dated 24
June 1985 with their mother and co-respondent Zenaida F. Marin, which was renewable yearly.
Subsequently, Zenaida F. Marin, as a lessee of the subject fishpond, made an arrangement with the
petitioner wherein the latter would receive a regular salary and a 20% share in the net profit of the fishpond
from January 1985 to June 1986. The reason why the agreement was with a period was to be consistent with
the lease agreement entered into between respondent Zenaida F. Marin and her children, herein respondents
Jesus Nicasio, Jose David, Maria Bernadette, Paul Peter and Philip Luis, all surnamed Marin. 6 However,
after the expiration of the first lease agreement between respondent Zenaida F. Marin and her children, and
before a new lease agreement could be made, the petitioner was ordered by Zenaida F. Marin to vacate the
premises but he refused to do so. He asserted that he was a tenant of the fishpond and not a mere contractual
worker; hence, he had the right to its peaceful possession and security of tenure.
On 21 July 1986, the petitioner filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City,
Branch 53, which was docketed as Agrarian Case No. 86-8, in which he asked the court to declare him as a
tenant of the subject fishpond. On 20 July 1987, the RTC of Lucena City rendered a Decision 7 in favor of
the petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the [herein petitioner] as the agricultural tenant, not
a hired contractual worker on the [subject fishpond], and therefore, entitled to the security of tenure under
Section 78 of Republic Act No. 11999 and to continue possession of the premises and shall enjoy the rights
and privileges accorded by law.10 (Emphasis supplied.)
Dissatisfied, the aforesaid Decision was appealed by respondent Zenaida F. Marin to the appellate court, in
which it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP (CAR) No. 14421. In a Decision 11 dated 11 September 1989, the
appellate court affirmed in toto the Decision of the RTC of Lucena City. No other recourse being taken
therefrom, the said Decision of the Court of Appeals later became final and executory.
Having been declared as an agricultural tenant on the subject fishpond, the petitioner, on 15 March 1991,
filed before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Region IV a Petition for the fixing of the
leasehold rentals for his use of the subject fishpond at P30,000.00 per annum, docketed as DARAB Case
No. IV-QI-0175-91. It was alleged therein by the petitioner that under Section 12 of Republic Act No.
665712 and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 1989, he had the

option to convert his status as share-crop tenant into an agricultural lessee by paying a fixed lease rental on
the fishpond. He further claimed that the respondents posited no objection to the amount of P30,000.00 as a
yearly lease rental. Yet, in an Answer filed by the respondents, they insisted that fishponds, like the subject
matter of this case, were not yet within the purview of the law on leasehold. They likewise refuted the fact
that they agreed to fix the lease rental at P30,000.00 per annum. Although they admitted that the petitioner
was indeed declared as an agricultural tenant of the fishpond, they, however, argued that the petitioner
should already be ejected therefrom for his failure to pay the rent.
Thus, on 17 April 1991, respondent Zenaida F. Marin filed a Complaint before the PARAD Region IV,
docketed as DARAB Case No. IV-QI-0167-91, primarily to eject the petitioner from the fishpond because
of the latters failure to pay the rent and to make an accounting, in violation of Sections 17 and 50 of
Republic Act No. 1199. She also sought to compel the petitioner to pay the total amount of P650,000.00
representing the lease rentals from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1991 and to make an accounting of the total
production or income of the subject fishpond from 1 August 1987 to 25 October 1991.
The petitioner denied having any liability to respondent Zenaida F. Marin in the amount of P650,000.00 as
rental arrears. He stressed that he failed to pay the lease rentals from July 1987 to July 1989 because he
failed to harvest anything from the fishpond during the said period due to respondent Zenaida F. Marins
refusal to defray the expenses of production. Accordingly, he cannot be evicted on the basis of non-payment
of rent because his obligation to pay the same merely depends on the actual harvest made. Similarly, the
petitioner emphasized that from March 1989 to September 1990, he deposited the rent due respondent
Zenaida F. Marin in Philippine National Bank (PNB) Account No. 66375 13 under the name of the Deputy
Sheriff of the RTC of Lucena City, Branch 53, and respondent Zenaida F. Marin withdrew the said amount.
Considering that the two cases involved the same parties and the same subject matter, the Provincial
Adjudicator consolidated the same. On 2 March 1993, he rendered a Decision 14 in favor of the petitioner. Its
dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
xxxx
3. Ordering that [petitioner] be maintained in the peaceful possession of subject farm-holding.15
Respondents moved for the reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision but the same was denied in a
Joint Order,16 dated 15 May 1995, rendered by the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD).
Aggrieved, respondents appealed the PARAD Decision dated 2 March 1993 to the DARAB, reiterating their
position that the fishpond was excluded from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) of the government. The cases before the DARAB were docketed as DARAB Cases No. 3799 (Reg.
Case No. IV-QI-0175-91) and No. 3800 (Reg. Case No. IV-QI-0167-91).
On 25 September 2000, the DARAB rendered a Decision affirming in toto the Decision of the Provincial
Adjudicator dated 2 March 1993.
Still refusing to admit defeat, respondents filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review of the
aforesaid DARAB Decision maintaining that the DARAB grossly erred in not finding that substantial
evidence exists to warrant the dispossession of the petitioner from the subject fishpond.

On 23 May 2005, the appellate court rendered its assailed Decision wherein it granted in part the Petition of
the respondents by annulling and setting aside the DARAB Decision dated 25 September 2000 on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court ruled that Section 2 of Republic Act No.
7881,17 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, excluded private lands actually, directly and
exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL); clearly then, the operation of a fishpond is no longer considered an agricultural activity, and a
parcel of land devoted to fishpond operation is not anymore an agricultural land. Additionally, the appellate
court declared that under Section 1, Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, governing
proceedings before the DARAB and its different regional and provincial adjudicators, the DARAB et al.s
jurisdictions were limited only to agrarian disputes or controversies and matters or incidents involving the
implementation of Republic Act No. 6657, Republic Act No. 3844 and other agrarian laws. Consequently,
the disputes involved in DARAB Cases No. 3799 and No. 3800 were not agrarian disputes, and since the
DARAB, et al. then acted without jurisdiction when they heard and adjudicated the aforesaid cases, their
decisions and orders therein were null and void. There is, however, no obstacle for the opposing parties to
institute the proper action before the regular courts. Lastly, the appellate court held that the petitioner cannot
avail himself of the protection under Section 2(b) of Republic Act No. 7881, which protects vested rights of
those who have already been issued a CLOA, for the reason that the petitioner had not shown that he had
been issued a CLOA to the subject fishpond as an agrarian reform beneficiary.
Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision, but it was denied in a Resolution dated
25 January 2006.
Hence, this Petition.
Petitioner presents the following issues for this Courts resolution:
I. Whether the burden of proof to show that a fishpond is not an agricultural land rests on the agricultural
lessor.
II. Whether this burden was sufficiently discharged by the respondents.
III. Whether the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform should first determine the
exclusion of a fishpond from the coverage of CARP before it could be finally said that it is indeed excluded
therefrom.
IV. Whether the subject fishpond is covered by the [CARL].
V. Assuming that the fishpond is not covered by the CARL, whether the [DARAB] has jurisdiction over the
case.
Petitioner maintains his contention that Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7881, which was the basis of the appellate court in declaring that the subject fishpond was not an
agricultural land, does not mention any presumption as regards the exemption of prawn farms and fishponds
from the coverage of the CARL. According to him, before a fishpond can be considered exempted from the
coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, two things must concur, to wit: (1) the fishpond has not been
distributed; and (2) a CLOA has been issued to the agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP. And the
burden of proof to establish the existence of the aforesaid elements falls upon the agricultural lessor. Absent
any of these two elements, the fishpond will remain within the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657. He also
argues that Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 7881, cannot be given

retroactive effect. Neither can it prevail over a right which has already been vested in him by virtue of the
final and executory Decision dated 11 September 1989 of the Court of Appeals, affirming the Decision
dated 20 July 1987 of the Lucena City RTC, which declared him as an agricultural tenant of the subject
fishpond and therefore entitled to security of tenure. Similarly, petitioner contends that respondents
unsubstantiated claim that no CLOA had been issued to him was not enough to discharge their burden of
proving that the subject fishpond was already exempted from the coverage of the CARL.
Petitioner further avers that although Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 already provides that prawn
farms and fishponds are exempted from the coverage of the CARL, the said provision of law still has to be
construed in relation to Section 3, Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, which requires an
application for exemption to be filed before the Office of the Secretary of the DAR to determine if prawn
farms and fishponds are indeed excluded from the coverage of the CARL. And considering that the
respondents failed to file the said application for exemption, petitioner then alleges that the subject fishpond
cannot be considered excluded from the coverage of the CARL.
Finally, petitioner argues that granting arguendo that the subject fishpond was excluded from the coverage
of the CARL, still, the DARAB had jurisdiction over his case. Petitioner asserts that his status as an
agricultural tenant of the subject fishpond has long been settled. And being a tenant, he has various rights
which are recognized and protected under the law, among which is his right to security of tenure. Thus,
when the respondents filed a Complaint before DARAB Region IV to eject him from the fishpond, in
violation of his rights, it cannot be denied that an agrarian dispute arose between him and the respondents
and the same properly fell within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. And so, even though the fishpond was
excluded from the coverage of the CARL, the petitioner asserts that it does not necessarily follow that no
tenancy relation existed between him and the respondents and it cannot be used as basis to deprive the
DARAB of its jurisdiction over the present case.
In sum, the issues in this case may be summarized as follows:
I. Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program of the government by virtue of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7881 to R.A. No.
6657.
II. Granting that the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the coverage of the CARL, whether the
DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.
The Petition is meritorious. The Court of Appeals grounded its Decision on this Courts pronouncements in
Romero v. Tan.18 In the said case, this Court traced the classification of fishponds for agrarian reform
purposes. Section 166(1) of Republic Act No. 3844 19 defined an agricultural land as land devoted to any
growth, including but not limited to crop lands, salt beds, fish ponds, idle land and abandoned land. Thus, it
is beyond cavil that under this law, fishponds were considered agricultural lands. Even when Republic Act
No. 6657 entitled, "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988," took effect on 15 June 1988, fishponds
were still considered as agricultural land. However, when Republic Act No. 7881 was passed by Congress
on 20 February 1995, it amended several provisions of Republic Act No. 6657. Section 2 of Republic Act
No. 7881 amended Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 by expressly exempting/excluding private lands
actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the CARL.
Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, now defines agricultural land as land devoted to
agricultural activity and not otherwise classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial
land. As to what constitutes an agricultural activity is defined by Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended, as the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of

such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such
farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical. By virtue of the foregoing amendments,
the operation of fishponds is no longer considered an agricultural activity, and a parcel of land devoted to
fishpond operation is no longer an agricultural land.20
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 7881, explicitly provides:
SEC. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions.
x x x x.
b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from
the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law, by voluntary offer to sell, or commercial farms deferment or notices of compulsory acquisition, a
simple and absolute majority of the actual regular workers or tenants must consent to the exemption within
one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act. When the workers or tenants do not agree to this exemption, the
fishponds or prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the workers-beneficiaries or tenants who shall
form a cooperative or association to manage the same
In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have not been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law, the consent of the farm workers shall no longer be necessary; however, the provision of
Section 32-A hereof on incentives shall apply. (Emphasis supplied.)
From the afore-quoted provision, it is crystal clear that fishponds are excluded/exempted from the coverage
of the CARL. This Court affirmed such exemption/exclusion in Atlas Fertilizer Corp. v. Secretary,
Department of Agrarian Reform.21 In view of the foregoing, it is beyond doubt that the subject fishpond is
indeed now exempted/excluded from the coverage of the CARL. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that
the subject fishpond cannot be exempted/excluded from CARL coverage because respondents failed to
prove that the fishpond has not yet been distributed and a CLOA has been issued to the beneficiary of the
agrarian reform, as required by Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No.
7881, is now unavailing. Moreover, this Court notes that the DARAB already made a finding in its Decision
that no CLOA had been issued to the petitioner as a beneficiary of the fishpond. Neither was the fishpond
voluntarily offered for sale to the petitioner. Section 54 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, expressly
states that the findings of fact of the DARAB shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence.
Since the issue as to whether a CLOA has been issued to the petitioner is a question of fact, and being
convinced that the findings of the DARAB on such issue was not based on mere surmises or conjectures,
this Court upholds the same. Similarly, in this case, the character of the land was never put in issue as it has
long been settled that the 10-hectare lot was indeed used actually, directly and exclusively as fishponds.
Hence, it is not necessary for the respondents to file an application for the exemption of the subject fishpond
from the coverage of the CARL, contrary to the claim of the petitioner.
Even as we recognize that the fishpond is not covered by the CARL, pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 7881, this Court, nonetheless, does not agree in the conclusion
arrived at by the Court of Appeals that since the subject fishpond is no longer an agricultural land, it follows
then that there can be no tenurial arrangement affecting the parties in this case. And in view of the fact that

there is no agrarian dispute cognizable by the DARAB, then the DARAB had no jurisdiction to resolve
petitioners case.
It bears emphasis that the status of the petitioner as a tenant in the subject fishpond and his right to security
of tenure were already previously settled in the Decision dated 20 July 1987 of the RTC of Lucena City in
Agrarian Case No. 86-8, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 11 September
1989. Having been declared as a tenant with the right to security of tenure as provided in Section 35 22 of
Republic Act No. 3844 in relation to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1199, the law enforced at the time of the
filing of the Complaint before the RTC of Lucena City, the petitioner has acquired a vested right over the
subject fishpond, which right or interest has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or
controversy.23 Therefore, even if fishponds, like the subject matter of this case, were later
excluded/exempted from the coverage of the CARL as expressly provided in Section 10 of Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 7881, and despite the fact that no CLOA has been issued to the
petitioner, the same cannot defeat the aforesaid vested right already granted and acquired by the petitioner
long before the passage of Republic Act No. 7881. And being in the nature of a substantive law, the
amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7881 to Republic Act No. 6657 in the year 1995 cannot be
given a retroactive application as to deprive the petitioner of his rights under the previous agrarian
legislation.24
Verily, DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1995, expressly respects and acknowledges the tenancy
relationship that existed between the parties prior to the amendments made to Republic Act No. 6657 by
Republic Act No. 7881, that is, before fishponds and prawn farms were exempted/excluded from the
coverage of the CARL. The aforesaid DAR Administrative Order provides:
II. POLICY STATEMENT
D. Acts of harassment by landowners intended to eject or remove the workers or tenants or the loss of their
rights, benefits and privileges to which they are entitled shall be sanctioned and dealt with under existing
laws, rules and regulations.
E. Fishpond or prawn farmworkers affected by exemption/exclusion have the option to remain as workers
or become beneficiaries in other agricultural lands.
A worker who chooses to remain in the exempted area shall remain therin and shall be entitled to such
rights, benefits and privileges granted to farmworkers under existing laws, decrees, and executive orders.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Indubitably, despite the amendments to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, the petitioners right to
tenancy and security of tenure over the subject fishpond must still be honored.
This Court likewise affirms that the DARAB correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case, contrary to the
declaration made by the appellate court in its Decision. Notably, the present case was instituted as early as
1991 when the petitioner filed a Petition before the PARAD for the fixing of his lease rental on the subject
fishpond. Respondents subsequently filed a countercharge against the petitioner for the accounting,
collection of sums of money, and dispossession. At such point, the law applicable was Republic Act No.
6657, wherein fishponds and prawn farms were not yet exempted/excluded from the CARL coverage.
Evidently, there was an agrarian dispute existing between the petitioner and the respondents, cognizable by
the PARAD at the time it rendered its Decision on 2 March 1993 in favor of the petitioner. On 20 February
1995, however, Republic Act No. 7881 came into being which expressly exempted/excluded fishponds and

prawn farms from the coverage of the CARL. In effect, cases involving fishponds and prawn farms are no
longer considered agrarian disputes as to make the case fall within the jurisdiction of the DARAB or its
Adjudicators. Nevertheless, considering that prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 7881, this case was
already pending appeal before the DARAB, the aforesaid amendments then cannot be made to apply as to
divest the DARAB of its jurisdiction over the case. It is well-settled that once jurisdiction is acquired by the
court, it remains with it until the full termination of the case.25
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision and the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61955, dated 23 May 2005 and 25 January 2006,
respectively, which annulled and set aside the Decision of the DARAB, dated 25 September 2000, for lack
of jurisdiction, are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Thus, the said Decision of the DARAB dated 25
September 2000 is hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED