G.R. No. 244433 - Concurring Opinion

G.R. No. 244433, April 19, 2022,
♦ Decision, Rosario, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Perlas-Bernabe, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Concurrence, Lazaro-Javier, [J]

ANTONIO R. CRUZ AND LORETO TERESITA CRUZ-DIMAYACYAC, AS HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES DR. PROGEDIO R. CRUZ AND TERESA REYES, PETITIONERS, VS. CARLING CERVANTES AND CELIA CERVANTES SANTOS AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, RESPONDENTS.

I concur with the ponencia's finding that the Municipal Trial Court correctly referred the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform. This mandatory referral mechanism under Section 50-A of Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, as amended,1 provides substantial mitigation against dilatory lawsuits filed against legitimate agrarian beneficiaries under the guise of unlawful detainer actions. That the Department of Agrarian Reform is given the initial opportunity to determine the existence of an agrarian dispute affords beneficiaries additional protection against suits that prevent them from enjoying their rights under our agrarian reform programs.2 This is the very rationale of the amendment, as well as of the prior enlightened cases before such amendment.

I also concur with the ponencia's pronouncement, citing the observation of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, that "any kind of evidence which, on its face, tends to show that one of the parties is indeed a farmer, farmworker, or tenant"3 is sufficient to trigger the mandatory referral mechanism. This is a very wise interpretation which augurs well with the requirement of social justice found in our Constitution.

Likewise, I concur with the finding that the Certification issued by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office failed to expound on the factual and legal basis for the finding of tenancy. The Certification violated the Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 03-11, as amended, which requires the Certification to state the following:

The Certification in this case did not meet the rules' requirements. While it followed the contents as required by Section 9(a), it only declared that "the case is agrarian in nature for it involves an agricultural land and the cause of action is ejectment of a farmer, farmworker or tenant which is within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the [Department of Agrarian Reform]"5 without stating the basis for its determination that the case involves an agrarian dispute as required by the last paragraph. Its brevity was inordinate and clearly arbitrary.

However, I disagree with the ponencia's characterization that the findings of the Department of Agrarian Reform's Provincial Agrarian Reform Office are only recommendatory. The mandatory referral mechanism under Section 50-A is a recognition of the Department of Agrarian Reform's unique and integral role in the resolution of agrarian disputes. Describing its findings as only recommendatory forecloses any further administrative remedy within the Department of Agrarian Reform should there be a factual finding based on substantial evidence at the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office's level. Such a strong and broad characterization of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office's role as merely recommendatory weakens the agency's primary administrative jurisdiction. Any consideration on this specific point should be done in an appropriate case where this issue is squarely raised.1a⍵⍴h!1

In this case, however, the issue is the Certification's lack of articulation of its factual basis. Its mere pronouncement that the case is agrarian in nature without stating the basis violates the requirement of the Department of Agrarian Reform's rules. This error is what made the Certification defective and unreliable. A further declaration on whether the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office's findings are recommendatory or conclusive on the courts is therefore unnecessary in this case.