Agrarian Dispute vs Qualified Theft: When Courts Must Refer Cases to DAR

The Supreme Court recently settled a recurring question in Philippine criminal procedure: when does a criminal case for qualified theft become an agrarian dispute that must be handled by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) instead of the regular courts? In Bacar v. People (G.R. No. 226098, August 23, 2023), the Court ruled that criminal cases involving tenants who have been declared as such by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Facts of the Case

Roberto Bacar and Michael Mercado were copra-makers in a coconut plantation owned by Vicente Tan in Palawan. In 2008, Tan filed separate criminal complaints for qualified theft against both men, alleging they stole sacks of copra worth PhP1,400 and PhP711, respectively.

Before the criminal cases were filed, however, Bacar and Mercado had already initiated proceedings before the DARAB to be declared tenants of the land. In December 2011, the DARAB ruled in their favor, declaring them tenants de jure of Tan's landholdings.

Armed with this DARAB decision, both men filed motions to quash the criminal informations, arguing that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had no jurisdiction because their cases involved an agrarian dispute. The RTC denied both motions, holding that qualified theft is a criminal matter that does not pertain to the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

The Court of Appeals reached conflicting results: it affirmed the RTC's denial in Bacar's case but ordered the referral of Mercado's case to the DARAB. The Supreme Court consolidated both petitions.

The Twin Requisites for Automatic Referral

The pivotal provision is Section 50-A of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700. This provision mandates that no court or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of CARP. More importantly, it requires automatic referral to the DAR when two requisites concur:

1. There is an allegation from any party that the case is agrarian in nature; and
2. One of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant.

Citing Chailese Development Company, Inc. v. Dizon, the Court emphasized that once these twin requisites are present, the judge or prosecutor has no discretion—the case must be referred to the DAR for determination of whether an agrarian dispute exists.

Why the Criminal Cases Were Dismissed

In this case, both requisites were clearly present. Bacar and Mercado alleged that the cases were agrarian in nature, and the DARAB had already declared them tenants de jure. The Court noted that the DARAB decision itself created a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists.

The Court rejected the argument that the RTC's jurisdiction over qualified theft under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 should prevail. While the RTC does have jurisdiction over qualified theft cases, this must be read together with R.A. No. 6657, as amended. When an agrarian dispute exists, the DAR—not the regular courts—has jurisdiction.

The Court also cited Ligtas v. People for the proposition that a DARAB declaration of tenancy can negate a finding of guilt in theft cases. As the Court explained, tenants who have rights to the harvest cannot be deemed to have taken their own produce. The existence of a tenancy relationship implies that the tenant has authority to harvest, which negates the element of taking without the owner's consent.

Practical Takeaways

• Automatic referral is mandatory. When a party alleges that a case is agrarian in nature and that party is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the judge or prosecutor must refer the case to the DAR—regardless of whether the case is criminal or civil.
• A prior DARAB decision is powerful evidence. If the DARAB has already declared a person a tenant de jure, courts should give that finding respect and treat it as a prima facie indication of an agrarian dispute.
• Criminal cases are not exempt. Even crimes like qualified theft, estafa, or malicious mischief may fall under DAR jurisdiction if they arose out of or are connected to an agrarian dispute.
• Compliance with referral procedures prevents wasted litigation. The Court reminded litigants and judges that the mandatory referral mechanism exists to avoid unnecessary and prolonged litigation—especially in criminal cases where liberty is at stake.

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