Primary jurisdiction

When jurisdiction over a controversy has been lodged with an administrative body of special competence, courts are precluded from resolving any other controversy thereon. This is the doctrine applied in this case of Hilda.

Hilda was the registered owner of an agricultural land with an area of 10.2048 hectares covered by TCT No. M-5757. By virtue of a notice of coverage dated September 1, 1997, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of the town where the land was located declared 5.2048 hectares of Hilda’s land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government. Among those identified as potential farmer beneficiaries were Modesto, Crisanto, Remedios and Benito on the basis of their actual and physical possession and tillage of the subject property.

Hilda protested the inclusion of her land and the identification of the four farmer beneficiaries averring that they were neither tenants nor occupants thereon. But her protest was denied by the Provincial agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).

So on March 28, 1998, Hilda filed an action before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) for forcible entry with a prayer for preliminary injunction against Modesto, Crisanto and Remedios alleging that the latter entered her land and committed depredations thereon by cutting Ipil-Ipil and bamboo trees and built a house without her knowledge and consent and over the vigorous objection of her caretaker.

The MTC rendered a decision in favor of Hilda and ordered the three tenants to peacefully surrender possession of the premises, pay P2,000 monthly rentals for use and occupation and attorney’s fees of P10,000.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the decision of the MTC for lack of jurisdiction and ordered the case to be forwarded to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for proper disposition. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Were the RTC and the CA correct?

Yes. Under Republic Act 6657, the DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

It is of no moment whether a tenancy relationship existed between the parties or whether proof thereof was adduced. The case filed with the MTC clearly concerned an agrarian dispute involving the implementation of the CARP which Hilda is fully aware of. It was obvious that Hilda filed the ejectment suit with the MTC in order to thwart the unfavorable ruling she obtained from PARO. Such legal maneuvering cannot be countenanced.

Although the case before the agrarian office involves an issue of ownership and the cause of action in the MTC is one of possession, a judgment in the latter would render the declaration made in the former inutile. Modesto, Crisanto and Remedios, as potential farmer beneficiaries of CARP would be the owners of agricultural land to which they cannot exercise acts of ownership because the decision of the MTC would effectively bar them from possession thereof. This absurd situation would make a mockery of the judicial system by utilizing it to circumvent and evade the policy of the State to promote social justice for the welfare of the farmers pursuant to the provisions of CARP (Hilario vs. Prudente et. al., G.R. 150635, September 11, 2008).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]