Agrarian Dispute vs Ejectment: Who Has Jurisdiction Over Land Disputes in the Philippines

When a landowner files a forcible entry case against farmers who entered the property under Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs), which tribunal has jurisdiction—the regular courts or the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)? This question has long confused litigants and judges alike. In Dayrit v. Norquillas (G.R. No. 201631, December 7, 2021), the Supreme Court En Banc settled the matter: when an ejectment case is actually an agrarian dispute, the regular courts lose jurisdiction.

The Facts of the Case

Angelina Dayrit owned two parcels of land in Bolisong, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental. In 1993, these lands were placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Her titles were cancelled, and new titles were issued to respondents as CARP beneficiaries under CLOAs.

Dayrit filed a petition to annul the CLOAs before the DARAB and separately applied for exemption from CARP coverage with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). While these were pending, she claimed that on September 17, 2006, the respondents surreptitiously entered the property and refused to vacate. She filed a complaint for forcible entry before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC).

The respondents admitted Dayrit was the previous owner but argued that she lost ownership when the lands were awarded to them as CARP beneficiaries. They insisted the case was an agrarian dispute within DARAB's exclusive jurisdiction.

The Issue

The sole question before the Supreme Court was whether the MCTC had jurisdiction over the forcible entry complaint, or whether the case should have been referred to the DARAB as an agrarian dispute.

The Ruling: DARAB Has Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court ruled that the MCTC had no jurisdiction. The Court clarified the seeming overlap between the jurisdiction of first-level courts over forcible entry cases and the DARAB's jurisdiction over agrarian disputes.

The general rule. Under Section 33 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129), first-level courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. In forcible entry, the inquiry centers on prior physical possession (possession de facto).

The exception. Section 50 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (Republic Act No. 6657) vests the DAR with primary jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. Section 50-A, added by Republic Act No. 9700, mandates that if a party alleges the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the judge must automatically refer the case to the DAR, which must determine within fifteen days whether an agrarian dispute exists.

Clarifying prior rulings. The Court distinguished its earlier ruling in David v. Cordova (502 Phil. 626 [2005]). In that case, the Court upheld MCTC jurisdiction over a forcible entry case involving public agricultural land. But David did not mean all ejectment cases belong to the first-level courts. The controlling factor is the nature of the dispute—whether it is agrarian—not the character of the land. If the ejectment case is an agrarian dispute, the first-level courts are divested of jurisdiction.

Applying the test. In Dayrit, both requirements for automatic referral were met. First, the respondents consistently alleged the controversy was agrarian in nature, citing their CLOAs. Second, their status as farmers was undisputed and was recognized by the Court of Appeals and the DAR Secretary. Because the respondents entered the property by virtue of their CLOAs, the case involved a controversy relating to the terms and conditions of transfer of ownership to agrarian reform beneficiaries—clearly an agrarian dispute.

The Court also held that Republic Act No. 9700 applies retroactively to pending cases, as it is procedural in nature and merely reinforced the DAR's existing jurisdiction.

Practical Takeaways

• Not all forcible entry cases over agricultural land belong to the regular courts. If the dispute is agrarian in nature, the DARAB has jurisdiction.
• A mere allegation of an agrarian dispute triggers automatic referral. Under Section 50-A of RA 9700, the judge must refer the case to the DAR when a party alleges the case is agrarian and one party is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant.
• The character of the land is not decisive. Whether the land is public or private agricultural land does not determine jurisdiction; the nature of the dispute does.
• CLOA recipients enter land by right, not by stealth. When farmers enter property under CLOAs, the dispute concerns transfer of ownership and belongs to the DARAB, not the MCTC.
• A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void. Parties should raise jurisdictional issues early, as a void judgment can be attacked at any time.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.