FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 96882. March 12, 1996.]

EUTIQUIANO PAGARA, ALEJANDRO BUTOHAN, JUANITO ARJA,

REMIGIO SARONA, BALDOMERO MONTALBO, RAYMUNDO MUÑOZ,
BERNARDO LIMBAGA, ANDRES PROCORATO, CRISPOLO AMAGA,
EUTIQUIO AMATANIS, SEVERO BUTOHAN, FRANCISCO BUTOHAN,
BONIFACIO TORRES, GENEROSO MAPA and the SECRETARY OF
AGRARIAN REFORM , petitioners, vs . THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, JORGE C. PADERANGA, OSCAR REMULLA, ROMMEL
GEORGE PADERANGA, HILDA GENER PADERANGA AND GOERING
GEORGE C. PADERANGA , respondents.

Bureau of Agrarian Assistance for petitioners.

Goering George C. Paderanga for private respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; REGIONAL TRIAL COURT; HAS THE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL

JURISDICTION OVER AGRARIAN CASES. — Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946,
promulgated on 17 June 1976, expressed the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Court of Agrarian Relations. On 14 August 1981, the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,
also known as Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, took effect and vested on Regional Trial Courts
exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions and special proceedings theretofore falling
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. When,
accordingly, the complaint was led by private respondents on 03 September 1986,
jurisdiction thereover was already and appropriately with the Regional Trial Court.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; RULE ON EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES; WHEN NOT APPLICABLE; CASE AT BAR. — The rule regarding exhaustion of
administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable (1) where the
question in dispute is purely a legal one, or (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal
or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the
respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear
the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or (4)
where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, . . . Gonzales
vs. Hechanova, L-21897, October 22, 1963, 9 SCRA 230; and other cases cited. Said
principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy, ( Cipriano vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291), where there is no due process observed
(Villanos vs. Subido, 45 SCRA 299), or where the protestant has no other recourse (Sta.
Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637). "The foregoing jurisprudence when applied to the case at
bar will point out that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable. First, the
issue of 'tenancy involves legal questions as tenancy is not purely factual relationship
dependent on what the alleged tenants does upon the land, but it is also a legal
relationship' (Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 484). Second, one of the principal
respondents herein is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who acts as the alter ego of the
President, and whose act of issuing land transfer certi cate is the subject matter of this
case. Third, plaintiffs' claims of denial of due process in the issuance of the land transfer
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 certi cates nds merit in this case for it was only after the certi cates were issued that
they were able to protest. Finally, there is an exhaustive presentation of evidence that
plaintiffs availed of the administrative processes, that fourteen (14) years had already
elapsed and the Department Secretary had not yet resolved plaintiffs' protest leaving
plaintiffs with no other recourse but to seek the relief of this Court as there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law."

DECISION

VITUG , J : p

The Court of Appeals, in its resolution of 18 October 1990, denied due course to the
special civil action of certiorari interposed to it by petitioners assailing the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Branch 18, 1 that ordered petitioners to vacate the
parcels of land here in dispute and the cancellation of the Operation Land Transfer ("OLT")
Certificates of Title issued to them by the Department of Agrarian Reform ("DAR").
The instant petition for review on certiorari questions the above resolution 2 of the
appellate court.
In 1967, private respondents acquired from Santiago Ceniza parcels of land, each
with an average area of ve (5) hectares, in Taguitic, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, evidenced
by transfer certi cates of title. Originally, the parcels were part of a large tract of land
covered by Original Certi cate of Title No. P-9515. The property was later subdivided into
twenty-four (24) sub-lots under Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-187203 which, on 10
September 1973, was approved by the Land Registration Commission.
On 22 December 1973, the Department of Agrarian Reform, through a certain
Honorio Tequero, sent a telegram to private respondent Jorge C. Paderanga informing him
that the several parcels had been placed under the Operation Land Transfer of the Land
Reform Program of the government. In February 1974, a parcellary map was prepared by
the Department of Agrarian Reform in collaboration with the Bureau of Lands. Forthwith,
the parcels were adjudicated to private petitioners and corresponding OLT certi cates
were issued to them.
Private respondents thereupon led their complaint with the then Ministry of
Agrarian Reform o ce in Pagadian City and Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, vehemently
contesting the issuance of the OLT certi cates. On 23 October 1978, after the local
agency had failed to act on the protest, private respondents elevated their case to the
Minister of Agrarian Reform. The matter remained pending with the agency.
On 03 September 1986, private respondents nally decided to le a complaint
against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City to regain possession
of the parcels of land, as well as for the annulment and/or cancellation of the OLT
certi cates, and for recovery of damages. Private respondents averred that private
petitioners were mere "opportunist and/or squatters" who took advantage of the
government's operation land transfer program; that private petitioners were not quali ed
under the program with each of them already owning over four (4) hectares of agricultural
land; that, not being tenanted, the land was not covered by the land reform program and
thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform; and that, even assuming
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 that private petitioners were tenants, the property should still be deemed excluded from
the program since the parcels of land averaged less than five (5) hectares each.
Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint due allegedly to the failure of
private respondents "to ( rst) refer the matter to the Department of Agrarian Reform." The
motion was denied by the trial court. Petitioners thereupon filed their answer reiterating, by
way of affirmative defenses, the grounds that they relied on in their motion to dismiss.
The court found for private respondents and, on 26 March 1990, it rendered a
decision disposing of the case; thus:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants:

"1. Ordering the defendants to vacate and relinquish their respective

possessions over the lands subject of this case to the plaintiffs and to pay yearly
rentals of 18 cavans of palay or its equivalent based on the government support
price for every hectare from the ling of this complaint on August 25, 1986, and
until the said possession is returned to the plaintiffs;

"2. Ordering the Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform to cancel

the OLT Certificates as issued to the defendants;

"3. Ordering the Registry of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur to cancel the
annotations of the OLT liens in the titles of the plaintiffs over the lands subject of
this case;
"4. Ordering the defendants Eutiquiano Paraga, Juanito Aroja and
Alejandro Butohan to pay the plaintiffs the value of the coconut trees,
approximately 150 coconut trees, cut or uprooted at P150.00 per tree;

"5. Ordering the defendants to jointly and severally pay attorney's fees
of P10,000.00, plus expenses of litigation in the amount of P10,000.00, and to
pay the costs.
"SO ORDERED." 3

Grappling initially with the issues raised in the a rmative defenses, the lower court
ruled (a) that private respondents had substantially complied with the requirement of
having the case rst referred to the Department of Agrarian Reform, and (b) that the
latter's recommendatory resolution that found the existence of a tenant-landlord
relationship was not binding on the court, citing Graza vs. Court of Appeals, 4 as well as
the last paragraph of Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1038 providing that —
"The preliminary determination of the relationship between the contending
parties by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, or his authorized representative, is
not binding upon the court, judge or hearing o cer to whom the case is certi ed
as a proper case for trial. Said court, judge or hearing o cer may, after due
hearing, confirm, reverse or modify said preliminary determination as the evidence
and substantial merits of the case may warrant."

The lower court went on to hold that private petitioners, having failed to prove the
existence of a tenancy relationship with private respondents, as well as their
membership in the Samahang Nayon, were disquali ed from the land reform program.
In the case of petitioners Pagara, Mapa and Torres, furthermore, the court said that
they were also disquali ed as bene ciaries for being themselves owners of other
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 agricultural lands.
A copy of the court's decision was received on 03 April 1990 by private petitioners.
A motion for its reconsideration 5 was denied in the court's order of 15 May 1990 which
private petitioners received on 28 May 1990. A notice of appeal was led by public
petitioner on 14 May 1990 and that of private petitioners on 15 May 1990. The notices of
appeal were both denied in two separate orders, dated 30 May 1990 and 31 May 1990, of
the court for having been filed out of time.
Upon motion of private respondents to have the structures found on the property
removed or demolished, the lower court, on 29 August 1990, issued a writ of demolition.
The Sheriff's Report, dated 27 September 1990, would show that the writs of execution
and of demolition were satis ed except for the payments of rentals and other money
judgments awarded to private respondents. On 26 September 1990, the OLT liens
annotated on the titles of private respondents were voided. Likewise cancelled were the
OLT certi cates issued to private petitioners by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform through
the Zamboanga del Sur Agrarian Reform Office.
Petitioners sought the extraordinary remedy of certiorari before the respondent
Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 23111). On 18 October 1990, however, the appellate
court dismissed the petition for its failure to comply with the requirement set forth in
Section 2, Rule 6, of the Revised Internal Rules 6 of the Court of Appeals and for its lack of
su cient legal basis. The appellate court held that the court a quo had lawfully acquired
jurisdiction over the case for recovery of possession and annulment of titles.
There is no merit in the instant petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioners, proceeding from the premise that a tenancy relationship existed
between the private parties, would posit that the court of origin was devoid of jurisdiction
and thus all its acts, including the issuance of the writs of execution and demolition, were
null and void on the basis of Section 12 7 of P. D. No. 946 which withdrew from regular
courts jurisdiction over issues relating to the administrative implementation of land-
transfer under P.D. 27, along with its amendatory and related laws, and conferred the
matter on the Department of Agrarian Reform whose authority, petitioners added,
remained unaffected by the passage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1981. Moreover, petitioners averred, the lower court was in error
when it applied the Rules of Court in holding that the notices of appeal were led out of
time.
It should be said at the outset that the present petition can outrightly be discarded
(a) for its failure to have a veri ed statement of material dates and an a davit of service in
violation of Circular No. 1-88, 8 and (b) because of the pendency of another petition with
the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 23993), led by petitioners, for annulment
of the same decision of the lower court in disregard of No. 17 of the Interim Rules which
prohibits forum-shopping. 9
Even on merits, the instant petition must still be denied.
The primordial issue is whether or not the Regional Trial Court has acquired
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action taken by private respondents against
petitioners.
Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, 10 promulgated on 17 June 1976,
expressed the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. 1 1 On
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 14 August 1981, the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, also known as Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, took effect and vested on Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction in all
civil actions and special proceedings theretofore falling under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. 1 2 When, accordingly, the complaint was
led by private respondents on 03 September 1986, jurisdiction thereover was already and
appropriately with the Regional Trial Court. 1 3
Petitioners assail, nevertheless, the exercise of jurisdiction by the court a quo on the
ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and for failure to secure a referral
from the Secretary of Agrarian Reform pursuant to Section 12 of P.D. 946. The court,
however, has correctly pointed out that —
"The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard
and fast rule. It is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal
one, or (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the respondent is a
department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied
or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or (4)
where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, —
Gonzales vs. Hechanova, L-21897, October 22, 1963, 9 SCRA 230; Abaya vs.
Villegas, L-25641, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA; Mitra vs. Subido, L-21691,
September 15, 1967, 21 SCRA 127.
"Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy, ( Cipriano vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291), when there
is no due process observed (Villanos vs. Subido, 45 SCRA 299), or where the
protestant has no other recourse (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637).

"The foregoing jurisprudence when applied to the case at bar will point out
that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable. First, the issue of
tenancy involves legal questions as 'tenancy is not purely factual relationship
dependent on what the alleged tenants does upon the land, but it is also a legal
relationship' (Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals , 118 SCRA 484). Second, one of the
principal respondents herein is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who acts as the
alter ego of the President, and whose act of issuing land transfer certi cate is the
subject matter of this case. Third, plaintiffs' claims of denial of due process in the
issuance of the land transfer certi cates nds merit in this case for it was only
after the certi cates were issued that they were able to protest. Finally , there is an
exhaustive presentation of evidence that plaintiffs availed of the administrative
processes, (testimonies of Attys. Jorge and Goering Paderanga and exhibits 'J,'
'K,' 'L,' 'L-1' to 'L-3' and 'L-4' to 'L-11' that fourteen (14) years had already elapsed
and Department Secretary had not yet resolved plaintiffs' protest leaving
plaintiffs with no other recourse but to seek the relief of this Court as there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law." 1 4

Relative to the question of prior referral to the Department of Agrarian Reform, it

would appear that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of P.D. 946. In
fact, Exhibit 6 is a resolution of the DAR Regional Director, nding, although
recommendatory in nature, a tenancy relationship between the parties.
Having arrived at the foregoing conclusions, the Court need not further delve on the
other issues raised by the parties.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., concur.

Footnotes

1. Presided by Judge Fausto H. Imbing.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Luis L. Victor and concurred in by Associate Justices
Vicente V. Mendoza and Segundino Chua.

3. Rollo, p. 42.
4. 163 SCRA 39.
5. According to petitioners, their motion for reconsideration was filed on 17 April 1990.
However, the court order denying said motion states that it was dated 27 April 1990,
which means it could not have been filed on an earlier date (Rollo, p. 43).

6. Sec. 2. Special Civil Action. — Original verified petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, habeas corpus, quo warranto and other writs may be filed in the Court of
Appeals.
Except in cases involving execution of judgment pending appeal, the verification of
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, quo warranto and other
writs shall include a certification that no other similar petition involving the same subject
matter has been previously filed, withdrawn or dismissed in the Supreme Court or in the
Court of Appeals.
a. What Should be Filed. — The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies and a
copy thereof shall be served on each of the respondents, and must be accompanied by a
certified true copy of the decision or order complained of and true copies of the
pleadings and other pertinent documents and papers. (As amended by S. Ct. Res., dated
November 24, 1992)
b. Processing of Petition. — The provisions of Section 1(b) of this rule shall apply to
petitions in special civil actions.
c. Judicial Action. — The Court may either deny due course or dismiss the petition
outright, or require the private respondent or respondents to comment on the petition, or
give due course thereto.
(1) If the petition is denied due course or dismissed outright, the reasons for such
dismissal shall be stated in a resolution. If the resolution is reconsidered, the subsequent
disposition shall be embodied in an amended resolution. (As amended by S. Ct. Res.,
October 20, 1988)
(2) The Court may, without giving due course to the petition, require the private
respondent to comment within ten (10) days from notice.
(3) If the petition is given due course, the private respondent shall be required to
answer the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of notice which shall be served on
the respondent either by personal service when he is easily accessible or otherwise by
registered mail and to serve a copy of his answer on the petitioner. The public
respondent shall be served a copy of the petition but need not file an answer unless so
required by the Court.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (4) After the expiration of the period for filing the answer or the reply, the case shall be
deemed submitted for resolution. (As amended by S. Ct. Res., October 20, 1988).
(5) If it appears that there is need for reception of evidence, the Division to which the
Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report belongs shall conduct the
hearing. The Division shall have the power to perform any acts necessary to resolve the
factual issues raised in the case.

7. SEC. 12. Jurisdiction over Subject Matter. — The Courts of Agrarian Relations shall
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over:

a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons in the cultivation and use of
agricultural land except those cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission;
Provided, That no case involving the determination of rentals over any kind of tenanted
agricultural land shall be taken cognizance of by the Courts of Agrarian Relations unless
there has been a prior fixing of provision rental by the Department of Agrarian Reform,
except that the tenant-farmer may directly bring the case for immediate determination by
the Courts of Agrarian Relations.
b) Questions involving rights granted and obligations imposed by laws, Presidential
Decrees, Orders, Instructions, Rules and Regulations issued and promulgated in relation
to the agrarian reform program;
Provided, however, That matters involving the administrative implementation of the
transfer of the land to the tenant-farmer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and
amendatory and related decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations, shall be
exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, namely:
(1) classification and identification of landholdings;
(2) identification of tenant-farmers and landowners, and determination of
their tenancy relationship;
(3) parcellary mapping;

(4) determination of the total production and value of the land to be

transferred to the tenant-farmer;
(5) issuance, recall or cancellation of certificates of land transfer in cases
outside the purview of Presidential Decree No. 816;
(6) right of retention of the landowner;

(7) right of the tenant-farmer to a home lot;

(8) disposition of the excess area in the tenant's farmholding;
(9) change of crop from rice and/or corn to any other agricultural crop;
(10) issuance of certification for the conversion of tenanted rice and/or corn
land for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes, it being
understood that the authority to issue certificates for conversion of other kinds
of tenanted agricultural land for the same purposes remains vested in the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform;
(11) transfer, surrender or abandonment by the tenant-farmer of his
farmholding and its disposition; and
(12) increase of tillage area by a tenant-farmer;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Provided, further, That the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform may be appealed
to the President of the Philippines.
(c) Cases involving the collection of amortizations on payments for lands acquired
under Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended, Commonwealth Act Numbered twenty, as
amended, Commonwealth Act Numbered five hundred thirty-nine, as amended, Republic
Act Numbered eleven hundred and sixty, as amended, Republic Act Numbered fourteen
hundred, as amended, Republic Act Numbered thirty-eight hundred and forty-four, as
amended, and other related laws, decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations, as
well as payment for residential, commercial and industrial lots within the settlement and
resettlement areas under the administration and disposition of the Department of
Agrarian Reform;
(d) Cases involving collection of amortizations on payments for farm machineries and
implements distributed and sold by the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land
Bank of the Philippines to tenant-farmers, agricultural lessees, settlers, owner-cultivators,
amortizing owner-cultivators, the Samahang Nayon, compact farms, farmers'
cooperatives, and other registered farmers' associations or organizations, as well as
payment for indebtedness of settlers by reason of the assistance given them by the
Department of Agrarian Reform in the form of seeds, work animals, houses, subsistence,
transportation, medicines, farms implements, tools, and the like;
(e) Cases involving collection of amortizations on payments for irrigation systems
and/or water rights grants, as well as irrigation fees, charge and/or rentals;
(f) Cases involving collection of rentals on agricultural lands leased by the Department
of Agrarian Reform or Land Bank and collection of agricultural loans granted to tenant-
farmers, agricultural lessees, settlers, owner-cultivators, amortizing owner-cultivators, the
Samahang Nayon, compact farms, farmers' cooperatives and other registered farmer
associations or organizations;
(g) Cases involving the annulment or rescission of lease contracts and deeds of sale,
and the cancellation or amendment of titles pertaining to agricultural lands under the
administration and disposition of the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land
Bank, as well as emancipation patents issued under Presidential Decree No. 266,
homestead patents, free patents, and miscellaneous sales patents to settlers in
settlement and resettlement areas under the administration and disposition of the
Department of Agrarian Reform;
h) Cases involving boundary disputes over lands under the administration and
disposition of the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank, which are
transferred, distributed and/or sold to tenant-beneficiaries and are covered by deeds of
sale, patents and certificates of titles;
i) Cases arising out of, or in connection with, membership in the Samahang Nayon,
compact farms, farmers' cooperatives and other registered farmers' associations or
organizations, and the rights and obligations arising from such membership;
j) Cases arising directly or indirectly between corporations or partnerships covered by
General Order No. 47 and tenant-farmers, agricultural lessees, settlers, owner-cultivators,
amortizing owner-cultivators, the Samahang Nayon, compact farms, farmers'
cooperatives, and other registered farmers' associations or organizations, and between
such corporation or partnerships and other corporations, partnerships, associations or
single proprietorships where the question involved affects the rights and interests of the
persons herein mentioned;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 k) Cases involving the determination of title to agricultural lands where this issue is
raised in an agrarian dispute by any of the parties or a third person in connection with
the possession thereof for the purpose of preserving the tenure of the agricultural lessee
or actual tenant-farmer and effecting the ouster of the interloper or intruder in one and
the same proceeding;
l) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage foreclosure, preemption and
redemption of tenanted agricultural land;
m) Cases involving expropriation of all kinds of land in furtherance of the agrarian
reform program;
n) Expropriation proceedings for public purpose of all kinds of tenanted agricultural
land, whether instituted by the State, its political subdivisions and instrumentalities, or
corporations and entities authorized by law to expropriate;

o) Cases involving acquisition by the Department of Agrarian Reform of irrigation

systems and/or water rights grants for the benefit of tenant-farmers, agricultural lessees,
settlers, owner-cultivators, amortizing owner-cultivators, the Samahang Nayon, compact
farms, farmers' cooperatives, and other registered farmers' associations or
organizations, the Department of Agrarian Reform being hereby vested with the authority
to construct irrigation systems and apply for water rights grants for the purpose herein
provided;
p) Ejectment proceedings instituted by the Department of Agrarian Reform and the
Land Bank involving lands under their administration and disposition, except urban
properties belonging to the Land Bank;
q) Cases involving violations of the penal provisions of Republic Act Numbered eleven
hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, Republic Act Numbered thirty eight hundred and
forty-four, as amended, Presidential Decrees and laws relating to agrarian reform;
Provided, however, That violations of the said penal provisions committed by any Judge
shall be tried by the courts of general jurisdiction; and
r) Violations of Presidential Decrees Nos. 815 and 816.
No tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and/or corn shall be ejected
or removed from his farmholding until such time as the respective rights of the tenant-
farmer and the landowner shall have been determined in accordance with the rules and
regulations implementing Presidential Decree No. 27.
No Judge of the Courts of Agrarian Relations, Courts of First Instance, municipal or city
courts, or any other tribunal or fiscal shall take cognizance of any ejectment case or any
other case designed to harass or remove a tenant of an agricultural land primarily
devoted to rice and/or corn, unless certified by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform as a
proper case for trial or hearing by a court or judge or other officer of competent
jurisdiction, and if any such case is filed, the case shall first be referred to the Secretary
of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative in the locality for a preliminary
determination of the relationship between the contending parties. If the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative in the locality finds that the case is a
proper case for the Court or Judge or other hearing officer to hear, he shall so certify and
such court, Judge or other hearing officer may assume jurisdiction over the dispute or
controversy.

The preliminary determination of the relationship between the contending parties by the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative, is not binding upon the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 court, Judge or hearing officer to whom the case is certified as a proper case for trial.
Said court, Judge or hearing officer, after hearing, may confirm, reverse or modify said
preliminary determination as the evidence and substantial merits of the case may
warrant.
8. Circular No. 19-91, which was issued on 13 August 1991 after the petition here was filed,
explicitly requires that "(I)f service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by
such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office."
9. Circular No. 28-91, which was issued on 03 September 1991 subsequent to the filing of
the petition at bench, expressly requires a certification under oath from the petitioner that
he has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any
other court.
10. Reorganizing the Courts of Agrarian Relations, Streamlining their procedures, and for
Other Purposes.
11. See Footnote No. 6.
12. Section 19, paragraph 7.

13. Jurisdiction should be determined by the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action. (Philippine-Singapore Ports Corporation vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 218 SCRA 79).
14. Rollo, pp. 35-36.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com