GR 201631 Lazaro Javier (Digest)
G.R. No. 201631, December 7, 2021
ANGELINA DAYRIT, REPRESENTED BY JULIE E. DAYRIT, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE I. NORQUILLAS, ROGELIO I. NORQUILLAS, ROMIE I. NORQUILLAS, HERDANNY I. NORQUILLAS, DANILO M. NORQUILLAS, ANTHONY APUS, TECLO P. MUGOT, ALLAN A. OMPOC, JONI CLARIN, CANDELARIA MEJORADA, LILIA O. TAGANAS, SYLVIA SABAYANON, ARSENIO CATIIL, VERONICO MAESTRE, AND MARIO TAGAYLO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Angelina Dayrit filed a complaint for forcible entry against the respondents before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Opol and El Salvador, Misamis Oriental. In their Answer with Counterclaim, the respondents assailed the jurisdiction of the regular court, alleging that the case was agrarian in nature. The MCTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, holding that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), not the regular courts, had jurisdiction over the case. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), and not the regular courts, has jurisdiction over the petitioner’s complaint for forcible entry against the respondents.
RULING
Yes, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) has primary and exclusive jurisdiction over the complaint, as it involves an agrarian dispute. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The jurisdiction of the DAR is vested by Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). This exclusive jurisdiction was further amplified by the amendment introduced by Section 19 of Republic Act No. 9700, which added Section 50-A to RA 6657. This provision mandates that no court or prosecutor’s office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), except under Section 57 of RA 6657. It further requires automatic referral to the DAR if: (a) there is an allegation from any party that the case is agrarian in nature; and (b) one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant.
In this case, the first requisite was satisfied by the respondents’ allegation in their Answer with Counterclaim that the case was agrarian in nature. Regarding the second requisite, the concurring opinion clarifies that while a mere allegation suffices for the first element, the party claiming to be a farmer, farmworker, or tenant must adduce proof of such status; a self-serving allegation is insufficient. The opinion notes that the respondents are tenants-farmers of the petitioner, satisfying the second element.
The amendment under RA 9700, being procedural in nature, applies to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its passage. Therefore, the MCTC should have automatically referred the case to the DAR upon the respondents’ jurisdictional challenge. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be waived or altered by the parties. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the CA decision was affirmed, reversing the decisions of the MCTC and the RTC.