Quevedo v. Naesa

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 228648. September 29, 2021.]

ATTY. ROGELIO V. QUEVEDO, petitioner, vs.ALBERTO NAESA AND RICKY NAESA, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 228648 (Atty. Rogelio V. Quevedo, Petitioner, v. Alberto Naesa and Ricky Naesa, Respondents.) — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 03 December 2015 and Resolution 3 dated 06 December 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 137563-UDK. The CA reversed the Decision 4 dated 16 April 2014 and Order 5 dated 12 September 2014 of Branch 20, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos in Civil Case No. 320-M-2013 and reinstated the Order 6 dated 30 April 2012 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pandi, Bulacan dismissing the unlawful detainer case filed by petitioner Atty. Rogelio Quevedo (petitioner).

Antecedents

On 05 December 2012, petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents Alberto Naesa and Ricky Naesa (collectively, respondents) before the MTC docketed as Civil Case No. 12-624-12. Petitioner averred that he is one of the co-owners of a parcel of land (subject lot) located at Barangay Bagong Bario, Pandi, Bulacan, with an area of 42,231 square meters and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 34505. Respondents have been occupying the subject lot upon mere tolerance of petitioner with an understanding that the said occupancy will be temporary in nature. However, respondents refused to vacate the subject lot despite the demand to do so sent by petitioner on 14 August 2012.

Respondents, for their part, moved for the referral of the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the determination and certification of the existence of an agrarian dispute in accordance with Section 19 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9700. They alleged that they were tenants of petitioner's parents or predecessors and that they have a pending Petition for Tenancy Recognition filed before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Bulacan docketed as DCN R-03-02-0497'12 (Tenancy Case). SDAaTC

The MTC, in the Order dated 22 January 2013, referred the case to DAR Baliuag, Bulacan (DAR Baliuag) for determination if an agrarian dispute existed between the parties.

On 24 April 2013, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of DAR Baliuag transmitted to the MTC a Report and Recommendation dated 22 April 2013 7 and a Certification dated 23 April 2013 8 (collectively, DAR Recommendation), both stating that Civil Case No. 12-624-12 is "NOT PROPER FOR TRIAL" due to the existence of an agrarian dispute between the parties.

Accordingly, the MTC issued the Order dated 30 April 2012 9 dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner, thus:

Considering the Report/Certification dated April 22 and 23, 2013, and submitted to this Court by the DAR (Baliuag, Bulacan) that the instant case is NOT proper for trial being an agrarian dispute, and within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), the case for unlawful detainer (Civil Case No. 12-624-12) filed with this Court is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner assailed the Order before the RTC, alleging that he was deprived of due process when the MTC dismissed the case without allowing him judicial recourse as provided in Section 19 of RA No. 9700. He claimed that he was neither notified or the referral of the case to the DAR, nor was he given a copy of the DAR Recommendation. Petitioner likewise manifested that in the Tenancy Case, the PARAD found that the respondents were not tenants of the subject lot and accordingly dismissed the petition for tenancy in the Decision 10 dated 13 June 2012 and Resolution dated 18 June 2012. 11

Ruling of the RTC

In a Decision dated 16 April 2014, the RTC ruled in favor of petitioner. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Order dated 22 January 2013, issued by the Municipal Trial Court in Pandi, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 12-624-12, is hereby SET ASIDE.

The case is remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings pursuant to Section 12 of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2011.

SO ORDERED.

The RTC ruled that the referral of the case to the DAR was automatic; hence, MTC was not mandated to notify petitioner of the referral pursuant to Section 19 of RA No. 9700 and OCA Circular No. 62-2010. 12 However, the RTC held that the MTC erred in dismissing the case in view of the remedy under Section 12 of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, s. 2011 13 (AO No. 03-11), which allows any party who disagrees with the recommendation of the PARO to submit his/her/its position to the referring court.

Respondents moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC in the Order dated 12 September 2014.

Ruling of the CA

On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC Decision and ruled in respondents' favor. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision dated 03 December 2015 reads: acEHCD

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 15, 2014 and the Order dated September 12, 2014, which were both issued by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 20 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Order of the MTC dated April 30, 2013 is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

The CA held that petitioner, as an aggrieved party, should have filed an appeal before the RTC to assail the findings of the PARO for lack of substantial evidence, instead of an appeal claiming violation of due process. Thus, the CA agreed with respondents that the findings of the PARO as regards the existence of an agrarian dispute has attained finality.

The petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in the Resolution dated 06 December 2016.

Hence, the instant petition.

Issues

The arguments raised by petitioner all revolve on the central issue of whether or not the CA erred in upholding the findings contained in the DAR Recommendation despite the existence of a PARAD Decision dated 18 June 2013 and Resolution dated 27 September 2013 categorically finding the absence of tenancy relationship between the parties.

Ruling of the Court

Petitioner argues that the CA erred when it upheld the DAR Recommendation notwithstanding the categorical finding of the PARAD that respondents are not tenants of the subject lot. He also reiterates that the dismissal of his complaint based on the DAR Recommendation was done without affording him judicial recourse. On the other hand, respondents maintain that the DAR Recommendation attained finality when petitioner failed to appeal the same before the RTC. 14

The Court rules for petitioner.

The DAR, through the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), 15 is granted primary and exclusive original jurisdiction over matters involving agrarian disputes 16 under Section 19 of RA No. 9700, to wit:

Section 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.

xxx xxx xxx" (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

Consistent with this provision, DAR issued AO No. 03-11 laying down the rules on referral of cases alleged to be agrarian in nature. Under AO No. 03-11, cases alleged to involve an agrarian dispute shall be referred to DAR, which shall conduct summary proceedings to determine whether the cause of action of the pending case with the referring court is agrarian in nature, or whether the matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR is a prejudicial question to the issue pending with the referring court. 17 SDHTEC

Thereafter, the PARO shall issue a certification stating a preliminary determination of whether or not the referred case is agrarian in nature. 18 The PARO shall recommend to the referring court (1) the dismissal of the referred case, if it is agrarian in nature; (2) the archiving of the same if it involves a prejudicial question the determination of which is agrarian in nature; or (3) the conduct of further proceedings, if it is not agrarian in nature. 19 The remedy of the aggrieved party is provided under Section 12 of AO No. 03-12, thus:

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

As aptly found by the RTC, petitioner was indeed deprived of the judicial recourse provided under Section 12 of AO No. 03-11 when the MTC summarily dismissed his complaint. The MTC should have given petitioner the opportunity to interpose his contention against the PARO's recommendation before it dismissed the complaint.

To be clear, Section 12 of AO No. 03-11, read in conjunction with Section 19 of RA No. 9700, should be construed to mean that the determination of the PARO may be questioned with the referring court before the latter's issues an order dismissing, archiving, or giving due course to the case. The determination of the DAR, as implemented in the order of the referring court, may then be appealed to the RTC. This construction is in line with the principle that the court interprets administrative regulations in harmony with the law that authorized them, avoiding as much as possible any construction that would annul them as invalid exercise of legislative power. 20

Notably, the recommendation of the PARO was based on a prima facie presumption of agrarian dispute in view of the pendency of the Tenancy Case, to wit:

The defendant [respondents herein] substantially established that there is pending dispute lodged at the PARAD of Bulacan prior to the filing of an Unlawful Detainer Case before the Municipal Trial Court of Pandi, Bulacan.

The pendency of a case before the PARAD of Bulacan involving the same property give rise to a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in nature (Section 8, DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2011). 21

Under Section 8 of AO No. 03-11, the existence of a pending action with DAR automatically gives rise to a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in nature. Such presumption, however, may be rebutted by contrary evidence.

Verily, the PARAD Decision dated 13 June 2012 and Resolution 18 June 2012, as affirmed by DARAB Decision dated 30 March 2017 22 and Resolution dated 03 January 2019, 23 should have been considered by the MTC especially considering that these were rendered in full-blown proceedings involving the same parties and issues, in contrast to the summary proceedings conducted by the PARO.

The pendency of the Tenancy Case notwithstanding, findings of the PARAD, as affirmed by the DARAB, bolster the position of petitioner that the case does not involve an agrarian dispute, and hence, should not have been dismissed by the MTC. Thus, the CA committed reversible error when it upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint in the Order dated 30 April 2012 of the MTC.

WHEREFORE, premised considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 03 December 2015 as well as the Resolution dated 06 December 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137563-UDK is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. AScHCD

Accordingly, the Decision dated 16 April 2014 and Order dated 12 September 2014 of Branch 20, Regional Trial Court of Malolos remanding the case to the Municipal Trial Court in Pandi, Bulacan for further proceedings is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 24-46.

2.Id. at 47-56; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Pedro B. Corales of the Former Special Seventeenth Division, Court of Appeals.

3.Id. at 57-58.

4.Id. at 71-78; penned by Presiding Judge Mirasol O. Dychingco.

5.Id. at 79-80.

6.Id. at 211.

7.Id. at 212-213.

8.Id. at 214.

9.Id. at 211.

10.Id. at 60-68. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the basic 'Complaint' dated 13 June 2012 for lack of merit and further declaring complainants NOT a tenant on the subject landholdings.

Claims for damages and counterclaims are likewise DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence."

11.Id. at 69-70.

12. 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).

13. Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 19 of R.A. No. 9700 (Jurisdiction on and Referral of Cases that are Agrarian in Nature).

14.Rollo, pp. 92-99.

15. 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure, Rule II, Section 1.

16. Section 3 (d) of RA No. 6557 defines "agrarian dispute" to refer 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.

17. AO No. 03-11, Section 5.

18.Id. at Section 10.

19.Id.

20.See Granger Associates v. Microwave System, Inc., 267 Phil. 665 (1990).

21.Supra note 7.

22.Rollo, pp. 145-151.

23.Id. at 194-196.