February 10, 1999
DAR OPINION NO. 12-99
ATTY . REUEL S. DALGUNTAS
F.V. Hofileña and R.A. Dalguntas
3rd Floor, Barrios Bldg.
8105 Panabo, Davao del Norte
Dear Atty. Dalguntas:
This has reference to your letter-appeal dated 04 January 1999, requesting for revocation of the certification issued by Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) Sibbaluca stating that the criminal cases for estafa filed by your client, Mariano P. Jaen, Jr., in the Municipal Trial Court of Maco against spouses Jose and Lilia Cabañal "are not proper for hearing and trial" since, according to you, it should be the Provincial Adjudicator who is the proper authority to issue such certification.
Relative to the above issue, Presidential Decree Nos. 316 and 1038 were already expressly repealed by Section 76 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), to quote:
"Section 76. Repealing Clause. — Section 35 of Republic Act No. 3844, Presidential Decree No. 316, the last two paragraphs of Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, Presidential Decree No. 1038, and all other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly."
Pursuant to the aforequoted provision of law, the Department issued Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 1988, entitled: "Disposition of Referral Cases Upon the Effectivity of R.A. No. 6657." The Second Paragraph (Nos. 2 and 3) and the last paragraph of the said Memorandum provides the guideline in the disposition of referral cases, quote:
"xxx xxx xxx
2. All cases that have been filed with the courts and/or the Fiscal's offices and were referred to the DAR after June 15, 1988, shall be returned to the courts of origin and/or Fiscal's offices for their proper disposition; and
3. Henceforth, all cases, civil and criminal, which are within the coverage of the aforesaid decrees, and are filed with the courts and/or the Fiscal's offices shall no longer be referred to the DAR.
With the grant of the quasi-judicial powers to the DAR by R.A. No. 6657, the original and exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate and settle if possible all agrarian matters, conflicts, concerns and suits on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is now vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), except those involving the determination of the just compensation for the land to the landowners, natural and juridical, and the prosecution of criminal offenses or cases arising out of the violation or infringement of the CARL-88, R.A. No. 6657." (emphasis supplied).
In the instant case, as culled from your letter's attached documents, it is observed that there are pending cases before the DARAB for "Peaceful Possession, Fixing of Lease Rental, etc." (on appeal before the DARAB Central Office) and, concurrently, criminal cases for Estafa filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Maco, Davao del Norte. It is believed that notwithstanding the repeal of P.D. Nos. 316 and 1038 by Section 76 of R. A. No. 6657 and the aforequoted provisions of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 1988 (particularly the second paragraph, nos. 2 and 3), it should be noted, however, that the pending case for "Peaceful Possession, Fixing of Lease Rental, etc." before the DARAB is a pre-judicial question which must first be resolved before the criminal cases for estafa may be instituted or may proceed (Article 36, Civil Code of the Philippines). Moreover, considering that the material issues of tenancy relationship and fixing of lease rental are essentially involved in this case, the same is basically an agrarian matter or controversy of which the DAR Adjudication Board has exclusive and original jurisdiction (Section 50, R.A. No. 6657 and Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure).
In view of all the aforegoing, we believe that the PARO Certification is not in order and the Provincial Adjudicator's certification is likewise no longer necessary by reason of the abovequoted repealing clause (Section 76) of R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing guideline, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 1988. Moreover, considering that a case for "Peaceful Possession, Fixing of Lease Rental, etc." is still on appeal before the DARAB, we submit that the prosecution of the criminal cases for estafa in the MTC should await the finality of the DARAB decision on the ground of "prejudicial question".
We hope to have clarified the matters with you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) HORACIO R. MORALES, JR.
Secretary
Copy furnished:
Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
DAR-Provincial Office
Tagum City, Davao del Norte
Saturnino D. Sibbaluca
DAR-Provincial Office
Tagum City, Davao del Norte
Municipal Trial Court of Maco
Province of Davao
Davao del Norte
Atty. Donalito M. Elona
Counsel for the Accused
DAR, Tagum City
Davao del Norte
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
DAR-Provincial Office
Davao del Norte