July 19, 2011
DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 03-11
SUBJECT : Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 19 of R.A. No. 9700 (Jurisdiction on and Referral of Cases that Are Agrarian in Nature)
SECTION 1. Prefatory Statement. — Section 19 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9700 provides:
"SEC. 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows:
"SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. — No court or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.
"In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights and/or interests under the CARP. IASCTD
"The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies.""
Whether or not a case is agrarian in nature is discussed in the case of DAR vs. Roberto Cuenca, et al., (G.R. No. 154112, 23 September 2004) where the Supreme Court held that: "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."
From the foregoing, it is therefore declared that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) shall have exclusive jurisdiction on all cases that are agrarian in nature.
SECTION 2. Cases Covered. — These guidelines shall apply to the procedure on the referral of cases which are agrarian in nature to the DAR by the Prosecutor's Office, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court (MCTC, MTC, MeTC, and RTC, respectively), whether it be criminal or civil in nature, except those involving issues of just compensation or the prosecution of criminal offenses as provided for by Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700.
SECTION 3. When Automatic Referral Shall Be Made. — The referral to the DAR of a case by the Prosecutor's Office, MCTC, MTC, MeTC, or RTC, shall be made in accordance with Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 40, dated 10 June 2010, Supreme Court Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 62-2010, dated 28 April 2010, and other related circulars and issuances.
DOJ Circular No. 40 states:
"When a complaint for a felony or a criminal offense is filed before the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, the investigating prosecutor shall refer the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who has jurisdiction over the place of the incident when:
(a) there is an allegation by any of the parties (e.g., allegation in the complaint, affidavit or counter-affidavit, etc.) that the case is agrarian in nature or an agrarian dispute and one of the parties is a tenant, lessee, farmer-beneficiary, farmer, or farmworker; or
(b) the case pertains to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended."
"When the case is subject of inquest and there is an allegation by any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature or an agrarian dispute and one of them is a farmer, farmworker or tenant, or involves the implementation of the CARP, the inquest prosecutor shall immediately refer the case to the PARO and release the respondent for further preliminary investigation. The above allegations must be written, made under oath, and the party making such allegations signs the Minutes of the Inquest."
OCA Circular No. 62-2010, on the other hand, directs all courts and judges concerned to "refer all cases before it alleged to involve an agrarian dispute to the DAR".
For easy reference, copies of DOJ Circular No. 40 dated 10 June 2010 and OCA Circular No. 62-2010 shall be attached hereto.
SECTION 4. To Whom Shall Referral Be Made. — If the case to be referred to the DAR by the Prosecutor's Office, MCTC, MTC, MeTC, or RTC is not directly referred to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of the place where the agricultural land subject of the case is located, the receiving DAR Office shall transmit it to him within twenty-four (24) hours from its receipt of the referral.
SECTION 5. Issues to Be Determined. — Upon referral, the PARO may only give a ruling as to two issues:
(1) Whether or not the cause of action of the pending case with the referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor is agrarian in nature, the jurisdiction of which is lodged exclusively with the DAR; or
(2) Whether or not a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR is a prejudicial question to the issue pending with the referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor.
No other issue may be adjudicated or determined by the PARO.
SECTION 6. Procedures. —
1. Upon receipt of the records of the case, the PARO shall, on the same day, immediately assign the said case to the Chief of the Legal Division of the DAR Provincial Office concerned for the conduct of a summary investigation proceedings for the sole purpose of determining whether or not an agrarian dispute exists or if the case is agrarian in nature. The Chief of the DAR Legal Division concerned may assign the case to a DAR lawyer or legal officer for the purpose of conducting the said summary proceeding or fact-finding investigation.
2. The Chief of the DAR Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned shall, within three (3) days from receipt of the case referred from the PARO, personally or in such a manner that will ensure the receipt thereof (e.g., commercial couriers, fax, electronic mail, phone call, etc.), serve upon each party to the case a notice stating therein the hour, date, and place of the proceedings. The summary proceedings shall be held, as far as practicable, in the municipality or barangay where the agricultural landholding is located or where the biggest portion of the landholding is located if the land overlaps two (2) or more municipalities or barangays. The parties shall be required to present their witnesses, documentary evidence, or any object evidence to support their respective positions as to the existence of an agrarian dispute on whether the case is agrarian in nature. The Chief of the DAR Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned shall require the Agrarian Reform Program Technologist (ARPT) of the place where the subject agricultural landholding is located to submit his comments thereto.
3. The said notice shall likewise require the parties to submit their respective verified position papers, attaching thereto all their evidence, within five (5) non-extendible days from receipt of such notice.
4. After the conclusion of the summary proceedings and the submission of all position papers, or upon the expiration of the five (5) day period as provided herein, the matter or issue shall be deemed submitted for resolution. No other pleading or motion shall thereafter be received or given due course.
5. Within three (3) days from the time the matter or issue is deemed to be submitted for resolution, the Chief of the DAR Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned, shall, after a thorough examination of the testimonies of the parties and his/her witnesses, the respective verified position papers, and the documentary evidence thus submitted, submit his/her report to the PARO. The report shall indicate his/her initial findings of the facts and circumstances of the case and as to whether an agrarian dispute exists or not or on whether the case is agrarian in nature. The position papers, transcript of stenographic notes, and the entire records of the case shall be attached to the report.
The determination by the DAR as to whether an agrarian dispute exists or not, or on whether the case is agrarian in nature, shall be done through a summary proceeding involving a strictly factual investigation. No motion for extension of time or any similar pleading of a dilatory character shall be entertained nor given due course. To this end, the Chief of the Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned, shall exert all reasonable means to ascertain the facts based on the testimonies and evidence presented. They may verify the position papers submitted by the parties, ascertaining that the concerned party is the one causing the preparation thereof, and that the allegations therein are true based on personal knowledge or authentic records and documents.
To preclude conflict of interest, in no case should the DAR lawyer serving as counsel for the farmer-beneficiary be assigned as the hearing officer. Moreover, no hearing officer should handle a case involving a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity who is a party thereto.
SECTION 8. Prima Facie Presumption of an Existence of Agrarian Dispute or that the Case is Agrarian in Nature. — The presence of any of the following facts or circumstances shall automatically give rise to a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in nature:
(a) A previous determination by the DAR that an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in nature, or the existence of a pending action with the DAR, whether an Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) case or a case before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), which involves the same landholding;
(b) A previous determination by the National Labor Relations Commission or its Labor Arbiters that the farmworker is/was an employee of the complainant;
(c) A notice of coverage was issued or a petition for coverage under any agrarian reform program was filed on the subject landholding; or
(d) Other analogous circumstances.
If there is a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in nature, the burden of proving the contrary shall be on the party alleging the same.
SECTION 9. Facts Tending to Prove that a Case is Agrarian in Nature. — In addition to the instances mentioned in Section 7 hereof, the Chief of the Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned, in determining whether the case is agrarian in nature, shall be guided by the following facts and circumstances:
1. Existence of a tenancy relationship;
2. The land subject of the case is agricultural;
3. Cause of action involves ejectment or removal of a farmer, farmworker, or tenant;
4. The crime alleged arose out of or is in connection with an agrarian dispute (i.e., theft or qualified theft of farm produce, estafa, malicious mischief, illegal trespass, etc.), Provided, that the prosecution of criminal offenses penalized by R.A. No. 6657, as amended, shall be within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian Courts;
5. The land subject of the case is covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), Emancipation Patent (EP), or other title issued under the agrarian reform program, and that the case involves the right of possession, use, and ownership thereof; or
6. The civil case filed before the court of origin concerns the ejectment of farmers/tenants/farmworkers, enforcement or rescission of contracts arising from, connected with, or pertaining to an Agribusiness Ventures Agreement (AVA), and the like.
The existence of one or more of the foregoing circumstances may be sufficient to justify a conclusion that the case is agrarian in nature. The Chief of the Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned, shall accordingly conclude that the case is agrarian in nature cognizable by the DAR, and thus recommend that the referred case is not proper for trial.
SECTION 10. DAR Certification. — The PARO shall issue the Certification within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt of the report of the Chief of the Legal Division, DAR lawyer, or legal officer concerned. Such Certification shall state whether or not the referred case is agrarian in nature, as follows:
(a) Where the case is NOT PROPER for trial for lack of jurisdiction:
After a preliminary determination of the relationship between the parties pursuant to Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, this Office hereby certifies that the case is agrarian in nature within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR. It is therefore recommended to the referring (court/prosecutor) that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
(b) Where the case is NOT YET PROPER for trial due to a prejudicial question:
After a preliminary determination of the relationship between the parties pursuant to Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, this Office hereby certifies that a prejudicial question exists the determination of which is agrarian in nature and thus within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR. It is therefore recommended to the referring (court/prosecutor) that the case be archived until the determination of the DAR of the prejudicial question.
(c) Where the case is PROPER for trial:
This Office hereby certifies that the case is not agrarian in nature. It is therefore recommended to the referring (court/prosecutor) to conduct further proceedings.
The Certification shall state the findings of fact upon which the determination by the PARO was based.
SECTION 11. Return of Referred Case. — The PARO shall transmit the Certification, together with the complete records of the case and pertinent documentation, to the referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor within twenty-four (24) hours from its issuance.
SECTION 12. Recommendation of the PARO is Final. — The recommendation of the PARO is final and non-appealable. Any party who may disagree with the recommendation of the PARO has judicial recourse by submitting his/her/its position to the referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor in accordance with the latter's rules.
SECTION 13. Separability Clause. — Any judicial pronouncement declaring unconstitutional any provision of these Rules shall have no effect on the validity of the other provisions not affected thereby.
SECTION 14. Repealing Clause. — A.O. No. 4, Series of 2009 is hereby repealed.
SECTION 15. Transitory Provision. — This A.O. shall apply to all cases pending with all Prosecutor's Office, MCTCs, MTCs, MeTCs, and RTCs at the time of the effectivity of this A.O.
SECTION 16. Effectivity. — This A.O. shall take effect upon its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
Diliman, Quezon City, July 19, 2011.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Secretary
Published in The Manila Times and Manila Standard Today on July 23, 2011.
ATTACHMENT
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2011 entitled "REVISED RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING SECTION 19 OF R.A. NO. 9700 (JURISDICTION ON AND REFERRAL OF CASES THAT ARE AGRARIAN IN NATURE)" was published last Saturday, 23 July 2011 at Manila Times and Manila Standard Today newspapers.
Issued this 25th day of July 2011 for whatever purpose it may serve.
(SGD.) HUGO D. YONZON III
Public Affairs Staff Director
ATTACHMENT
June 7, 2010
DOJ DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 040-10
SUBJECT : Guidelines on the Investigation and Referral of Cases to the Department of Agrarian Reform
Pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Act No. 9700 1
In the interest of expeditious administration of justice in agrarian reform cases and to effectively implement Section 19 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9700, the following guidelines on the handling of agrarian reform cases, to be known as the GUIDELINES ON THE INVESTIGATION AND REFERRAL OF CASES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM PURSUANT TO SECTION 19 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9700, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 1. Prefatory Statement. — It is one of the policies of the Department of Justice, as shown by its creation of the National Task Force on Agrarian Cases in 2007, among other measures, to ensure the speedy resolution of agrarian cases by the agency with the jurisdiction over the same and to address the persistent problem of disputes that are agrarian in nature but are being filed with the National Prosecution Service. Indeed, if genuine agrarian justice is to be achieved, this problem characterized by conflict of jurisdiction, legal harassment of farmers, tenants and farmworkers (i.e., through the filing of nuisance suits in regular courts) must be addressed.
On 1 July 2009, R.A. No. 9700 became effective. One of the more critical sections (Section 19) of the said Act pertains to the referral of cases filed before the prosecutors and the courts. Clearly intended to address the problem of conflict of jurisdiction and legal harassment of farmers, tenants, and farmworkers, Section 19, provides:
"SEC. 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows:
"SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. — No court or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists:
Provided, That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court, and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.
"In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights and/or interests under the CARP.
"The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies."
It is in the light of the above policy of this Department and the adoption of the referral system under Section 19 of R.A. No. 9700 that this Circular is issued.
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Rule, the following terms are defined as shown:
a. Agrarian Dispute — refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee (R.A. No. 6657, Section 3-d).
As used in this Guidelines, the term also includes disputes over the interpretation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations, including those pertaining to the rights and obligations of agrarian reform beneficiaries and landowners/former landowners.
b. Agricultural Enterprise — means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, 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 person whether natural or juridical. AISHcD
c. Agricultural Leasehold Contract — A formal tenurial arrangement reduced into writing between a lessor-landholder and lessee-farmer where the former consents to the latter's cultivation in consideration for fixed rental either in money or produce or both.
d. Agricultural Leasehold Relation — It is limited to the person who furnishes the landholding, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and the person who personally cultivates the same (R.A. No. 3844, Sec. 166 [2]).
e. Agricultural Lessee — A person who, by himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by another, with the latter's consent for purposes of production, for a price certain in money or in produce or both. It is distinguished from civil lessee as understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 3844, Sec. 166 [2]).
f. Agricultural Lessor — A person, natural or juridical, who either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor, lets or grants to another the cultivation and use of his land for a certain price (R.A. No. 3844, Sec. 16b [3]).
g. Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries or Farmer-Beneficiaries — Actual agrarian reform or farmer-beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program are those which have been awarded either Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) under the CARP (R.A. 6657) or Emancipation Patents (EPs) under Operation Land Transfer (P.D. 27), or have been confirmed as tenants or leaseholders by the DAR or the DARAB. Potential agrarian reform or farmer-beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program are those who are eligible to be awarded CLOAs or EPs, and recognized as such by the DAR, but are still awaiting their actual award; also those who are eligible to be tenants or leaseholders.
h. Farmworker — is a natural person who renders services for value as an employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm, regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly, monthly or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular farm employment (R.A. 6657, Section 3-g).
As used in this Rule, the term also includes the following:
1) Regular Farmworker — a natural person who is employed on a permanent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm (R.A. 6657, Section 3-h).
2) Seasonal Farmworker — a natural person who is employed on a recurrent, periodic or intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or non-permanent laborer, such as "dumaan", "sacada", and the like (R.A. 6657, Section 3-i).
3) Other Farmworker — a farmworker who does not fall under any of the foregoing categories (R.A. 6657, Section 3-j).
SECTION 3. Scope. — This Guidelines shall cover offenses committed under the following:
1) Title 9, Chapter 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as applicable;
2) Title 10 of the RPC, as applicable; and
3) Such other provisions of the RPC and other laws, as applicable.
SECTION 4. Procedure. —
A. Preliminary Investigation.
(1) Grounds of Referral. — When a complaint for a felony or a criminal offense is filed before the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, the investigating prosecutor shall refer the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who has jurisdiction over the place of the incident when:
(a) there is an allegation by any of the parties (e.g., allegation in the complaint, affidavit or counter-affidavit, etc.) that the case is agrarian in nature or an agrarian dispute and one of the parties is a tenant, lessee, farmer-beneficiary, farmer, or farmworker; or
(b) the case pertains to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 2 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended.
(2) Process of Referral.
(a) The investigating prosecutor shall, within three (3) days from receipt of the complaint or pleading that alleges either of the above grounds of referral, recommend to the chief of office the referral of the case, stating therein the basis for his/her recommendation;
(b) Within two (2) days from receipt of the recommendation, the chief of office shall endorse the same to the PARO together with the records of the case, copy furnished the parties concerned.
(c) While the case is on referral with the PARO, the investigating prosecutor shall defer further proceedings and shall await the certification from the PARO as to whether the case is "PROPER FOR TRIAL" OR "NOT PROPER FOR TRIAL". 3 aHCSTD
(d) If the Certification states that the case is not proper for trial, the investigating prosecutor shall dismiss the case within five (5) days from receipt of the certification.
(e) If the Certification states that the case is proper for trial, the investigating prosecutor shall proceed with the preliminary investigation and resolve the case, accordingly.
(f) After the lapse of fifteen (15) days required by law for the PARO to issue a Certification and none was issued, the investigating prosecutor may dispose of the case pending before him in accordance with his appreciation of law and evidence attendant to the case.
B. Inquest
When the case is subject of inquest and there is an allegation by any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature or an agrarian dispute and one of them is a farmer, farmworker or tenant, or involves the implementation of the CARP, the inquest prosecutor shall immediately refer the case to the PARO and release the respondent for further preliminary investigation. The above allegations must be written, made under oath, and the party making such allegations signs the Minutes of the Inquest.
SECTION 5. Transitory Provision. — For cases that are already pending and are under preliminary investigation (at the time of the effectivity of this Circular), upon motion by any of the parties or motu propio, if previous pleadings filed contain allegations which may be the grounds for referral, the investigating prosecutor shall proceed in accordance with Section 4.A.2 hereof.
SECTION 6. The provisions of the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory manner.
SECTION 7. This Circular shall take effect immediately.
(SGD.) ALBERTO C. AGRA
Acting Secretary
Footnotes
1. An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, As Amended, and Appropriating Funds Therefor.
2. Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.
3. DAR Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 2009.
April 28, 2010
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 62-10
TO : All Judges of Lower Courts
SUBJECT : Implementation of Sections 7 and 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, Also Known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, as Respectively Amended by Sections 5 and 19 of R.A. No. 9700 (An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program [CARP], Extending the Acquisition
and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, as Amended, and Appropriating Funds Therefor)
Republic Act No. 9700 (R.A. No. 9700), extending the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for the next five (5) years, introduced several reforms to Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. No. 6657) otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Among others, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9700 amended Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657 on the priorities in the land acquisition and distribution, while Section 19 of R.A. No. 9700 amended Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 on the quasi-judicial powers of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
With respect to Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657 as amended by Section 5 of R.A. No. 9700, the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), through Hon. Nasser C. Pangandaman, DAR Secretary and Chairman, PARC Executive Committee, invited the attention of this Court concerning the refusal of some municipal judges to administer the oath in applications of intended beneficiaries under the CARP, pursuant to paragraph 2 thereof, to wit:
"xxx xxx xxx
Provided, finally, as mandated by the Constitution, Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, only farmers (tenants or lessees) and regular farmworkers actually tilling the lands, as certified under oath by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) and attested under oath by the landowners, are the qualified beneficiaries. The intended beneficiary shall state under oath before the judge of the city or municipal court that he/she is willing to work on the land to make it productive and to assume the obligation of paying the amortization for the compensation of the land and the land taxes thereon; . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)
Henceforth, all concerned are hereby DIRECTED to judiciously and faithfully OBSERVE the above-mentioned provision of the law in order to ensure the prompt and smooth acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands to our farmers in the countryside.
With respect to Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657, it should be noted that as early as 1 July 2002, Administrative Circular No. 29-2002 was issued to remind all trial court judges of the need for a careful and judicious application of R.A. No. 6657, in view of the increasing number of complaints on matters of jurisdiction over agrarian disputes. The circular cited therein Section 50 as follows:
Section 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 Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
With the enactment of R.A. No. 9700, Section 19 thereof further amended Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 by adding Section 50-A, thus:
"SEC. 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
'SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. — No court or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.
In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights and/or interests under the CARP.
The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies."' (Emphasis Supplied.)
This is in consonance with Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca, 1 where the Court stated that "[a]ll 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." (Emphasis supplied)
In Salazar v. de Leon, 2 the Court dismissed the Complaint for recovery of possession of real property and declared that the dispute between the parties as landowner and tenant is agrarian in nature falling within the domain of the DARAB. The Court also noted that such ruling is "in line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which precludes the regular courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has been lodged with an administrative body of special competence."
This jurisprudential trend shows the Court's recognition of DAR as the administrative body of special competence and expertise granted by law with primary and exclusive original jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. In furtherance of the Court's policy to expedite the resolution of cases involving agrarian disputes and to fully implement the objectives of agrarian reform laws, all courts and judges concerned are hereby enjoined to strictly observe Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, and refer all cases before it alleged to involve an agrarian dispute to the DAR for the necessary determination and certification.
For your information, guidance, and strict compliance.
(SGD.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
Footnotes
1. G.R. No. 154112, 23 September 2004, 439 SCRA 15.
2. G.R. No. 127965, 20 January 2009.