NINTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 47498. April 12, 1999.]
SPOUSES SEGUNDO CRISOSTOMO and PURIFICATION CRISOSTOMO, petitioners, vs. ELISEO FERRER, ANGEL FERRER, RAMON MAGNO, LEONCIO FERRER, CATALINO RAMOS, ATSOY DELA CRUZ, ANTONIO TINIO and AGATAN YOLA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
VILLARAMA, JR., J p:
This is a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, as amended, which seeks to nullify and set aside the proceedings and Decision 1 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (or "DARAB", for brevity) in DARAB Case No. 2287 (Reg. Case No. 2687-NE-93) dated August 5, 1997, as well as the Order 2 dated March 26, 1998 denying the Motion for Reconsideration thereof. The dispositive portion of the assailed Order is quoted verbatim hereunder:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the questioned Order is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
"1. Declaring petitioners as tenants on the subject landholding;
"2. Ordering the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in their peaceful possession and cultivation of the subject landholding;
"3. Ordering the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija to execute a leasehold contract between the parties in accordance with existing laws;
"4. Ordering the respondents, their heirs successors, and assign in interest to refrain from committing acts that will disturb petitioners peaceful possession and cultivation of the subject landholding;
"5. Ordering both parties to strictly maintain and comply with all terms and conditions of tenancy relationship existing between them prior to the controversy.
"No costs."
Years prior to the DARAB's taking cognizance of Case No. 2287 (Reg. Case No. 2687-NE-93) in 1997, two (2) complaints 3 for forcible entry had been filed by petitioners and eventually decided in their favor on April 27, 1993, 4 where it basically ordered private respondents from entering and disturbing petitioners' peaceful occupation of the subject properties.
Sensing that a new forum would eventually turn the tide of initial defeat in their favor, private respondents Eliseo Ferrer, Angel Ferrer, Ramon Magno, Leoncio Ferrer, Catalino Ramos, Atsoy Dela Cruz, Antonio Tinio and Agaton Yola brought the case to the DARAB-REGION III Office on October 25, 1993, apparently disregarding that the Order dated April 27, 1993 was still pending appeal before the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 36, docketed as Civil Case No. 1737; however, the said DARAB-REGION III case was dismissed, 5 and subsequently the same order of dismissal reaffirmed, 6 for lack of jurisdiction, by Provincial Adjudicator Benjamin M. Yambao.
The subject landholdings, described as a natural fish habitat or "pusawan" located at Papaya, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, and covered by TCT No. 122170 and TCT No. 122165, are owned in common by Amelia, Concolacion and Purificacion, all surnamed Crisostomo, but the first and second of whom, however, have been impleaded 7 as parties to the protracted controversy in any pertinent proceeding before the DARAB or any of its regional offices.
Petitioners Segundo and Purificacion, Crisostomo, who claim as trustees 8 of the subject landholdings, and who are the ones impleaded in the assailed decision of the DARAB now avail themselves of the instant petition and raise before us the following issues, viz:
a. DID THE DARAB ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT LAND OF THE PETITION DOCKETED AS DARAB CASE NO. 2687'NE'93 COVERED BY TCT NO. 122176 AND TCT NO. 122085 WHEN THE LANDOWNERS NAMELY, AMELIA, PURIFICACION AND CONSOLACION ALL SURNAME CRISOSTOMO WERE NOT IMPLEADED AS PARTIES?
b. IS THE DISMISSAL ON THE MERIT OF DARAB CASE NO. 2687'NE'93 BY THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 15, 1994 WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SUBJECT OF "NOTICE OF APPEAL" FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW DARAB RULES AND PROCEDURES FINAL AND EXECUTION?
c. CAN THE DARAB, CENTRAL OFFICE, DAR, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY, DISREGARD THE FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL ON THE MERIT DATED FEBRUARY 15, 1994 REOPENED AND TAKE COGNIZANCE OF DARAB CASE NO. 2687'NE'93 DOCKETED AS DARAB CASE NO. 2287 (REG. CASE NO. 2687'NE'93) WITHOUT IMPLEADING THE LANDOWNERS OF THE SUBJECT LAND COVERED BY TCT NO. 122085 DECLARE THE RESPONDENTS AS TENANTS OF THE SUBJECT LAND?
d. DID THE DARAB, CENTRAL OFFICE, DAR, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY, WITH FAIRNESS, JUSTICE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW CONSIDERED [sic] THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR EARLY RESOLUTION DATED DECEMBER 24, 1997 AS CONTAINED IN ITS RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 26, 1998 RECEIVED ON APRIL 12, 1998?
The petition is meritorious.
First. It is well-established that under Section 50 of Republic Act 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, it is the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) which is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 9 All actions pursued under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DAR, in accordance with the same section aforecited, must be commenced in the PARAD of the province where the property is located and the DARAB only has appellate jurisdiction to review the PARAD's orders, decisions and other dispositions. 10
We cannot allow, however, the patent imfirmity affecting the manner by which the DARAB took cognizance of the present controversy without due regard for established procedures.
Under Rule V, Section 1 OF DARAB New Rules of Procedure, it states:
"Parties in Interest. Every agrarian case must be initiated and defended in the name of the real party in interest. All parties having an interest in the matter shall be joined as complainant or petitioner. All persons who claim an interest in the dispute or subject matter thereof adverse to the complainant or petitioner, or who are necessary to a complete determination or settlement of the issue involved therein shall be joined as defendants or respondents." [Emphasis supplied]
Based on the aforecited rule, We believe that a fair and just resolution of the case at bench could be very well achieved with the inclusion of the children of the Crisostomo spouses who have been alleged as among the real parties in interest.
In the recent case of DARAB v. CA, 13 the High Tribunal had the occasion to rule that "Any suggestion that the DARAB has unfettered discretion to suspend its own rules is unacceptable." For one, it should have set the example or observance of orderly procedure; for another, it would render its own Revised Rules of Procedure uncertain and whose permanence would be dependent upon the instability of the whims and caprices of the DARAB. 14
Second. It is well-established that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a (regular) court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. 15
However, it is also well-settled jurisprudence that a court does not lose its jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. 16 The court continues to have the authority to hear the evidence for the purpose precisely of determining whether or not it has jurisdiction. 17 And upon such hearing, if tenancy is shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. 18
Thus, it was correct that the DARAB-REGION III case was dismissed, 19 and subsequently reaffirmed, 20 for lack of jurisdiction, by Provincial Adjudicator Benjamin M. Yambao, who took note that the Order dated April 27, 1993, was still pending appeal before the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 36, docketed as Civil Case No. 1737.
If at all, it must be pointed out that forum shopping is frowned upon in Our jurisdiction. Circular 28-91 was magnified through Administrative Circular No. 04-94 to include all court and agencies other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to prevent forum shopping. 21
Third. Under Republic Act 6657, § 3, par. (d) the term "agrarian dispute" is defined as referring to any controversy relating to tenural arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farm workers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange the terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangement. 22
For the purpose of determining the experience of tenurial relationship between the parties, the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship, as laid down, among others, in the case of Isidro v. CA, 23 are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. 24 In other words, in the absence of any essential requisite, tenancy relationship cannot exist.
There is no doubt that, anent the first essential element, the subject land, under RA 6657, not being classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land, is an agricultural land. 25
However, assuming arguendo that the subject landholding is within the ambit of "agricultural land" as defined in RA 6657, the mere fact that the same is agricultural does not ipso facto make the possessor an agricultural lessee or tenant, in the same manner that a case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian dispute upon the DARAB has jurisdiction. 26
We agree with petitioners' contention that there was no third element, or consent whatsoever that binds them with private respondents.
The DARAB upheld the creation of implied 27 tenancy between the parties, based on the claim of the supposed tenants that they have been in lawful, actual and peaceful possession of the subject landholding from 1961 up to 1991 and disturbed from their possession and cultivation in December 1991 by force. 28 However, We believe otherwise.
Judge Rodolfo R. De Guzman of the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija found that:
"As these facts was [sic] vividly ventilated during the hearing of these cases and which was admitted by the defendants, that they have not occupied the landholding continuously but on one occasion only it is therefore, a conclusive presumption that no tenancy relationship exist and therefore, as there is no tenancy controversy the action filed before this Court is really a Forcible Entry case which this Court has jurisdiction." [Emphasis supplied]
While leases, like other deeds and other grants, may be presumed from long possession which cannot be explained, 29 the admission by private respondents lends dubious, nay unconvincing, credence to the contention that a tenancy relationship exists, especially when the admission by private respondents was made based on an implied creation of tenancy relationship. 30
Fourth. Finally, We uphold the import of Section 73 of RA 6657 as regards persons guilty of prohibited acts of forcible entry or illegal detainer, as enunciated through the ponencia of Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr., in the case of Central Mindoro University v. DARAB: 31
"A person entering upon lands of another, not claiming in good the right to do so by virtue of any title of his own, or by virtue of some agreement with the owner or with one whom he believes holds title to the land, is a squatter. Squatters cannot enter the land of another surreptitiously or by stealth, and under the umbrella of the CARP, claim rights to said property as landless peasants. Under Section 73 of RA 6657, persons guilty of committing prohibited acts of forcible entry or illegal detainer do not quality as beneficiaries and may not avail themselves of the rights and benefits of agrarian reform. Any such person who knowing and willfully violates the above provision of the Act shall be punished with imprisonment or fine at the discretion of the Court." [Emphasis supplied]
On the foregoing premises and with these conclusions, We find no necessity upon the other matters and issues in the petition at bar.
WHERE, the instant petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and accordingly GRANTED, and the judgment of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 2287 (Reg. Case No. 2687-NE-93) is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija dated April 27, 1993 in Civil Case No. 881 and Civil Case No. 882, which both declared herein petitioners' right to possession of the subject landholdings, and subject of appeal before the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 36, docketed as Civil Case No. 1737, which is the just and rightful dispensation of the present case, is hereby REINSTATED, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, 39-50.
2. Rollo, pp. 71-73.
3. Docketed as civil Cases Nos. 881 & 882, and jointly decided per Judge Rodolfo R. De Guzman's ponencia of the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija; [Vide: Annex "1", Rollo, pp. 22-26].
4. Rollo, p. 26.
5. Ibid., p. 31.
6. Ibid., 36-37.
7. Rollo, p. 5.
8. Ibid., p. 44.
9. DARAB v. CA, 266 SCRA 404.
10. DARAB v. CA, 266 SCRA 404.
11. Rollo, p. 41.
12. Ibid., p. 5.
13. 266 SCRA 404.
14. DARAB v. CA, 266 SCRA 404.
15. Machete v. CA, 250 SCRA 176.
16. Isidro v. CA, 228 SCRA 503.
17. Isidro v. CA, supra.
18. Isidro v. CA, supra.
19. Rollo, p. 31.
20. Ibid., p. 36-37.
21. Viva Productions, Inc., v. CA, 269 SCRA 664.
22. Isidro v. CA, 228 SCRA 503, Machete v. CA, 250 SCRA 176.
23. supra.
24. Isidro v. CA, 228 SCRA 503.
25. S 3 (c)
26. Isidro v. CA, supra.
27. Rollo, p. 43.
28. Rollo, p. 40.
29. 49 Am Jur § 11.
30. Rollo, p. 43.
31. 215 SCRA 86.