Page 1 of 6

Republic of the Philippines

PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICE
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

IN RE: REFERRAL OF CIVIL CASE NO. 101 (MTC-BUGUEY) FOR

NECESSARY DETERMINATION UNDER DAR
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 04, DOJ CIRCULAR NO.
040-10, AND CIRCULAR NO. 62-10 OF THE OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, SUPREME COURT
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS FELISA FLORES and EDDIE UTANES to this
HONORABLE OFFICE respectfully state:

LAW IN POINT

Section 19 of Republic Act No. 9700.

Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows:

“Section 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. xxxx
xxxx”

THE ANTECEDENTS

Spouses Alex Perez and Genita F. Perez (plaintiffs, for brevity) filed
an action for forcible entry and damages against Felisa Flores and Eddie
Utanes (defendants, for brevity). The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
101 and it is pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Buguey,
Cagayan.

In Civil Case No. 101, plaintiffs advanced the theory that they are
in actual possession of Lot No. 4084, Pls-570, a portion of which is
 Page 2 of 6

devoted in the production of “palay”. According to the plaintiffs, Lot No.

4084, Pls-570 has an area of 26,123 square meters and it is still
registered in the name of Santos Flores under OCT No. P-31620. Upon
the death of spouses Santos Flores and Adelina Flores, they were
survived by children named Genita Flores Perez, Angelita Flores De Ladia
and Bernie Flores, the latter being the husband of defendant Felisa
Flores. On July 26, 2014 or thereabout, defendants and their heirlings
entered into the premises of the lot in question through force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth and planted it with “palay” to the
unlawful ouster of the plaintiffs.

In their Answer with Special/Affirmative Defenses and with

Counterclaim, the defendants invoked the following special/affirmative
defenses: (1) defendant Felisa Flores and her husband Bernie Flores
became the owner and legal possessor of the subject land when it was
publicly given to them as gift by the registered owners on May 1990 on
the occasion of their wedding; (2) defendant Felisa Flores and her
husband accepted the gift and who at once owned and possessed the
subject land in a manner that is open, public, notorious, adverse,
peaceful, continuous and in the concept of owners where in the process
they have engaged farmworkers and tenants to cultivate the land among
whom is defendant Eddie Utanes who worked on this land since May
1990 and (3) the mortgage of this lot in favor of spouses Quirino and
Anching Magayano to secure the performance of a monetary obligation is
not a mode of extinguishing the rights of Eddie Utanes as a farmworker
and as a tenant over the lot in controversy.

The defendants marked in evidence the following documentary

exhibits on May 12, 2015 during the scheduled conference called upon
by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Legal Officer of Cagayan and attended
by both plaintiffs and defendants and their respective counsels:

EXHIBIT “1” Defendants’ Answer to the complaint

in Civil Case No. 101 before MTC,
Buguey, Cagayan;

EXHIBIT “2” Agricultural Leasehold Contract

between Felisa A. Flores and Edison
U. Utanes involving a 2.6 hectare land
embraced in OCT No. P-31620;

EXHIBIT “3” Electronic copy of OCT No. P-31620

registered in the name of Santos
Flores;

EXHIBIT “4” Certificate of Death of Santos Flores;

EXHIBIT “5” Certificate of Death of Adelina B.

Flores;

EXHIBIT “6” Official Receipt No. 0565464;

 Page 3 of 6

EXHIBIT “7” Official Receipt No. 0565352;

EXHIBIT “8” Official Receipt No. 0816010;

EXHIBIT “9” Official Receipt No. 0816009;

EXHIBIT “10” Affidavit of Loss dated September 30,

2011;

EXHIBIT “11” Agreement/Certification executed by

Bernie Flores and Quirino Magayano
and witnessed by Brgy. Captain
Florante Molina; and

EXHIBIT “12” Joint-Affidavit executed by Rufino

Labinay, Florentino Peralta and Jose
Alonzo

ISSUE

Whether or not there exists an agrarian dispute between or among

the parties in Civil Case No. 101.

DISCUSSION

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to

arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy which is initially
lodged with an administrative body of special competence. This dictum is
being observed. It is pronounced in strong terms in the case of
TANTOCO, SR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 523 PHIL 257 (2006).

Under Section 50-A of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, it

provides that “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 xxxx xxxx
whether an agrarian dispute exists.” From its substance, the DAR is
duty-bound to determine whether a party in the civil or criminal
complaint is a farmworker or tenant and the case involves an agrarian
dispute.

Pursuant to said amendment, the Department of Agrarian Reform

promulgated the rules and regulations implementing Section 19 of
Republic Act No. 9700 as to the jurisdiction and referral of agrarian
dispute. Under the rules, the court or prosecutor concerned shall not
take cognizance of the case until such time that the DAR makes a
certification that an agrarian dispute does not exist. In this light, the
Department of Justice issued Circular No. 040-10 adopting the referral
system in the investigation of cases to achieve the expeditious
 Page 4 of 6

administration of justice and to address the problem of conflict of

jurisdiction.

Consistent with the policy to fully implement the objectives of the

agrarian reform laws, the Office of the Court Administrator issued
Circular No. 62-10 enjoining all courts and judges to strictly observe
Section 50-A of Republic Act No. 6657 and refer all cases involving an
agrarian dispute to the DAR for the necessary determination and
certification. Thus, in OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs.
CUENCA, G.R. No. 154112, September 23, 2004, the Supreme Court
held that “all controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions
that are also legal or constitutional in nature.”

To emphasize the importance of the aforequoted law in point, DAR

Administrative order No. 04, Series of 2009 was promulgated including
DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2011 which provides for the
revised rules and regulations implementing Section 19 of Republic Act
No. 9700 (Jurisdiction and referral of cases that are agrarian in nature).
Section 2 thereof provides:

“This guideline shall apply to cases filed before the

prosecutor’s office, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and
the Regional Trial Court whether it be criminal or
civil in nature, by landowners/ lessors or their
representatives against a tenant/ lessee/ farmer
beneficiary/ farmer/ farmworker and/or cases that
may arise out of or in connection with an agrarian
dispute except those cases provided for under
Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657.”

Section 8 of the aforesaid DAR Administrative Order provides for

the issues to be determined by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer or
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Legal Officer. It provides that the hearing
officer shall determine whether one of the following exists: (1)
tenancy/actual tiller; (2) agricultural land; (3) involves ejectment,
harassment/removal of tiller; and (4) the crime complained of arose out
of or connected with an agrarian dispute.

The following facts may be gathered from the documentary exhibits

of the defendants: (1) there is an allegation in EXHIBIT “1” to the effect
that Eddie Utanes is not only a farmworker over the subject lot but he is
also a recognized tenant; (2) it is also clear from EXHIBIT “1” that the
land in controversy is an agricultural land devoted to the production of
“palay”, which fact was admitted by the plaintiffs in their civil complaint;
(3) it is likewise clear in EXHIBIT “2” that Edison U. Utanes (who is also
known as Eddie Utanes) has an existing agricultural leasehold contract
with Felisa A. Flores involving that property that is covered by OCT No.
P-31620, a property that is still registered in the name of Santos Flores;
 Page 5 of 6

(4) Felisa Flores have exercised ownership over the subject lot as
manifested by her possession of the same and also by paying the taxes
that are due thereon as evidenced by EXHIBITS “6”, “7”, “8” and “9”; (5)
from the content of EXHIBIT “10”, the subject land was donated to
spouses Bernard Flores and Felisa Flores on the occasion of their
marriage on May 7, 1990 as embodied in a document entitled “Sagot”
duly signed by Santos Flores and Adelina Flores in the presence of
Rufino Labinay and Edwin Labinay; (6) this fact was made elaborate in
the Joint-Affidavit of Rufino Labinay, Florentino Peralta and Jose Alonzo
who declared in their Join-Affidavit marked as EXHIBIT “12” that the
subject land was given as gift to spouses Felisa Flores and Bernard
Flores on the occasion of their marriage at San Vicente, Buguey,
Cagayan in 1990; that the same land was delivered by spouses Santos
Flores and Adelina Flores to spouses Felisa Flores and Bernard Flores
right on the date of their marriage; that Edison U. Utanes was thus
installed as tenant and farmworker over the land in dispute who have
enjoyed tenancy and farmworker’s rights since 1990; and (7) the death of
Santos Flores on June 26, 1999 and the death of Adelina B. Flores on
July 12, 2002 as evidenced by EXHIBITS “4” and “5”, respectively,
without exercising the right to reclaim the property they have given as a
gift during their lifetime serve as a legal disqualification on the part of
plaintiffs to testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of
such deceased persons upon a claim or demand upon the estate of such
deceased persons which is popularly known in legal circles as
“survivorship disqualification rule” or “dead man statute”.

From the aforesaid documentary exhibits, there are enough proof to

show that Edison “Eddie” Utanes is not only a farmworker but also a
tenant over the subject agricultural land devoted in the production of
“palay” whose rights as a farmworker/tenant may be railroaded and
extremely violated should he be ejected, removed and/or harassed in a
forcible entry case before the courts of justice. In effect, there is indeed
an agrarian dispute that exists in Civil Case No. 101 that would prevent
the court from acquiring jurisdiction to try the same.

Finally, we should never lose sight of the lofty ideals that brought
about the agrarian reform program, the burning desire to feed the
hungry and our common goal to dignify the farmworkers and/or tenants
in our society. This is the only way to realize a century-old dream of truly
emancipating the tenants and farmworkers from the bondage of the soil.
This is also the same reason why the farmers, the tenants and the
farmworkers receive zealous protection of their rights not only from the
comprehensive agrarian reform law but also from the constitution and
other special laws.

It is therefore necessary that we stay vigilant in protecting the

rights of the special people in our society so that in the end their rights
may not be taken away from them through indirection, such as the
institution of civil action in courts of justice in violation of the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction which in essence states that “the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to
 Page 6 of 6

resolve a controversy which is initially lodged with an administrative

body of special competence.” This is observed in our jurisdiction. We
must respect it.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto

this HONORABLE OFFICE to issue a certification conformably with the
requirement as embodied in Section 9 of DAR Administrative Order No.
4, Series of 2009 certifying that after preliminary determination of the
relationship between the parties pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Act
No. 9700 amending Republic Act No. 6657, Civil Case No. 101 involves
an agrarian dispute as it affects the rights of defendant Edison “Eddie”
Utanes as a farmworker and tenant and his ejectment or ouster from the
agricultural landholding in question is a matter that is within the special
competence of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) and consequently it is not proper for trial with the Municipal
Trial Court of Buguey, Cagayan.

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan – June ____, 2015.

ATTY. VICTOR R. SALUD

Counsel for the Defendants
Door 11, 2nd Floor, Palatan Bldg.
Maharlika Highway, Carig Sur
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
IBP OR No. 856579 – 1/2/14
PTR No. 1365903 – 1/2/14
Roll of Attorneys No. 32828
CTC No. 22936823 – 1/2/14
TIN No. 116-096-541
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0013107
salud.victor@yahoo.com