G.R. No. 206120. March 23, 2022.
RAQUEL G. DY BUNCIO, PETITIONER, VS. LEONTINA SARMENTA RAMOS AND FERNANDO RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Raquel G. Dy Buncio filed a complaint for Accion Reinvindicatoria and Damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City, claiming to be a registered co-owner of a parcel of land and alleging that respondents Leontina Sarmenta Ramos and Fernando Ramos were unlawful possessors. Respondents asserted the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to an existing agricultural leasehold (tenancy) agreement between their predecessors and the parents of the registered owners. In a January 30, 2008 Order, the RTC initially held it had jurisdiction, finding respondents failed to prove all elements of a tenancy relationship, noting their admission in a sworn statement that they were “mere hired farm helpers.” After pre-trial and an ocular inspection, the RTC, in an October 28, 2010 Resolution, motu proprio referred the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for determination under Section 50-A of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, citing that the land was devoted to palay production and there was an allegation of a landowner-tenant relationship. Buncio’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Instead of awaiting the DAR’s determination, Buncio filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC’s orders. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari was an improper remedy as Buncio had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by first awaiting the DAR’s resolution and then appealing if aggrieved. Buncio’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Buncio’s Petition for Certiorari for being a wrong remedy.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling. Under Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, when there is an allegation that a case is agrarian in nature and involves a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge to the DAR, which shall determine and certify within fifteen days whether an agrarian dispute exists. The law provides that from the DAR’s determination, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. Therefore, Buncio’s proper course of action was to await the DAR’s resolution following the RTC’s referral. If aggrieved by the DAR’s determination, she could then appeal to the Court of Appeals. Her immediate resort to a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 was premature and improper, as she had another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. The Court also rejected Buncio’s argument that the RTC’s initial January 30, 2008 Order finding jurisdiction created a vested right that could not be set aside by the subsequent referral, noting that jurisdiction is conferred by law and any error in its assumption does not create a vested right. The petition was devoid of merit.