G.R. No. L-45916 October 18, 1977
MAXIMINO ENTIENZA, AGRIPINO ENTIENZA and RAYMUNDO CUBAR, petitioners, vs. HON. ALFREDO C. LAYA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XII, Argao, Cebu and FILEMON DURANTE, respondents.

FACTS

Filemon Durante, the landowner, filed an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. AV-251) in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to recover possession of an agricultural land occupied by petitioners Maximino Entienza, Agripino Entienza, and Raymundo Cubar. The land is partly planted with coconuts and partly developed into rice paddies. Prior to the court action, the dispute was investigated by Atty. Mussolini Batucan, a legal officer of the Department of Agrarian Reform. His report indicated the petitioners claimed to be tenants, sharing harvests with Durante, and that Durante had allegedly agreed to their continued rice cultivation for a fixed rental. The report, however, recommended that for the coconut area, Durante should seek judicial recourse.
Durante’s complaint alleged the petitioners forcibly entered the land. In their answer, prepared by the same DAR legal officer Atty. Batucan, the petitioners explicitly asserted they were tenants, detailing instances of sharing harvests of palay and other crops with the landowner since the 1960s, and the planting of coconut trees at the behest of the landowner’s predecessor. They contended the court lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment case due to the tenancy relationship.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court should have referred the ejectment case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for a preliminary determination of the tenancy relationship as mandated by Presidential Decrees Nos. 316 and 1038.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s orders and directed the referral of the case. Presidential Decree No. 316, as amended by P.D. No. 1038, explicitly prohibits courts from taking cognizance of any ejectment case involving a tenant in an agricultural land primarily devoted to crops other than rice and corn (such as coconut) unless the Secretary of Agrarian Reform first certifies it as a proper case for trial. The law requires a preliminary determination of the relationship between the parties by the DAR Secretary or an authorized representative.
The legal logic is clear: the petitioners’ answer, coupled with the prior DAR investigation report, squarely raised a tenancy issue. Their allegations of sharing harvests and performing cultivation activities under the landowner’s direction constitute a prima facie claim of a tenancy relationship, which places the dispute under the ambit of agrarian laws. The jurisdiction of the regular court is conditioned upon a prior certification from the DAR. Since a tenancy issue was genuinely raised, the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the case without the required referral. The preliminary certification is a jurisdictional step designed to prevent the ouster of tenants without an initial administrative finding, although such finding remains non-binding on the court after due hearing.