SPOUSES JUAN P. PUERTOLLANO AND ELENA A. PUERTOLLANO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT; DELFIN DELAVIN, REGALADO DABLEO, DAMIAN ESCOREL, ALBERTO ESCOREL AND JU…

On January 30, 1985, Juan P. Puertollano
filed a complaint for ejectment and damages in the
Regional Trial Court of Masbate against Delfin Delavin, Regalado Dableo, Damian Escorel, Alberto Escorel and Jun Almodal, who allegedly entered portions of the grazing land
located at Sitio Taheran, Barangay Sta. Rosa, San Jacinto, Masbate,
belonging to Puertollano, constructed nipa huts thereon and cultivated the same without the
knowledge, permission and consent of Puertollano and
that the complaint was filed only after efforts to have defendants to vacate
the land through the Barangay Captain failed. On February 15, 1985, said defendants
filed a motion to refer the case to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform claiming
that they are bona fide tenants of Puertollano
on said property, on February 18, 1985,
the Regional Trial Court issued the order of referral as follows:

“‘As prayed for by the counsel for the defendants to refer
this instant case to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, pursuant to PD 316 and
1038, the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to refer the above-entitled
case to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform Office, Legaspi
City. Let copy of this Order be furnished the
plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.'”^[1]

An opposition to the motion was filed by Puertollano before he learned of
said order of the trial court and on March
14, 1985 Puertollano
filed a motion for reconsideration of said order. However, on April 2, 1985 Puertollano also filed a notice of
appeal of the order. The case was elevated to the Intermediate Appellate Court
wherein on January 28, 1986
a decision was rendered in AC-G.R. SP No. 06543-CAR dismissing the appeal for
lack of merit with costs against the appellants.

Hence, the herein petition for review on certiorari raising the
following legal issues:

“I. IS PETITIONERS’ APPEAL OF THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 18, 1985 PREMATURE OR NOT?

II. IS THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY
18, 1985 ORDERING THE REFERRAL OF CIVIL CASE NO.
3529 TO THE MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN REFORM PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL DECREES NOS.
316 AND 1038 INTERLOCUTORY OR FINAL IN CHARACTER?

III. IS THE MERE CLAIM OR ALLEGATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HEREIN
IN THEIR MOTION FOR REFERRAL THAT THEY ARE THE DULY INSTITUTED OR BONA-FIDE
TENANTS OF HEREIN PETITIONERS SUFFICIENT BASIS TO JUSTIFY THE REFERRAL OF CIVIL
CASE NO. 3529 TO THE MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN REFORM PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL
DECREES NOS. 316 AND 1038 CONSIDERING THAT IT HAS NOT YET BEEN FIRST
ESTABLISHED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HEREIN ARE BONA-FIDE TENANTS OF
PETITIONERS HEREIN ON SUBJECT PARCELS OF LAND AND THAT IN THE CASE OR BENIGNO
CASTRO, ET AL. VERSUS COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., G.R. NO. L-44727,
SEPT. 11, 1980, 99 SCRA 722 IT WAS EXPRESSLY STATED THAT ‘FOR THE ACTION
TO COME WITHIN THE REFERRAL PROVISIONS OF PRES. DECREES NOS. 316 AND 946, IT
MUST FIRST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE ACTION INVOLVES TENANTS’ AMD THAT
PRESIDENTIAL DECREES NOS. 27, 316 AND 946 ‘CAN ONLY APPLY TO BONA-FIDE TENANTS’
AND CONSIDERING ALSO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 7, RULE 133 OF THE REVISED RULES
OF COURT?^[2]

Firstly, in the questioned decision, the appeal was considered
premature as there was still a motion for reconsideration pending before the
trial court which had yet to be resolved. However, considering that thereafter
a notice of appeal from the order was filed by petitioners, the legal effect
thereof is that petitioners abandoned their motion for reconsideration and
opted for the remedy of appeal. The appeal, therefore, is not premature.

Secondly, the appellate court also observed that the order sought
to be appealed is interlocutory and not final in character for it only seeks a
preliminary determination of the relationship between the parties by the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform.

The issue of whether an order is a final order is its effect on
the rights of the parties. A final judgment, order or decree is one that
finally disposes of, adjudicates or determines the rights, or some right or
rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on some definite and
separate branch thereof, and which concludes them
until it is reversed or set aside.^[3]
No doubt said order settles definitely the issue of whether the case should be
referred to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform pursuant to Presidential Decree
Nos. 316 and 1038 so that no further questions can come on the issue before the
trial court except the execution of the order. Said order concludes the right
of private respondent to such referral until it is reversed or set aside. It is
thus a final order that is appealable.

As to the third issue, Section 2 of Presidential Decree Nos. 316
and 1038 respectively provide:

“SECTION 2 – 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, no judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations,
Court of First Instance, municipal or city court, 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 corn, and if any such cases are filed, these
cases 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 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.”

“SEC. 2. No judge of the courts of
agrarian relations, courts of first instance, city or municipal 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 court, judge or hearing officer to whom
the case is certified as a proper case for trial. Said court, judge or hearing
officer may, after due hearing, confirm, reverse or modify said preliminary
determination as the evidence and substantial merits of the case may
warrant.”

From the foregoing provisions of the law it is clear that the
trial court cannot take cognizance of any “ejectment
case or any other case designed to harass or remove a tenant in an agricultural
land primarily devoted to rice and corn” without first referring the same
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 said officer finds that the case is proper for
determination by the court it shall so certify and thence said court may assume
jurisdiction over the dispute or controversy. Such preliminary determination of
the relationship, however, is not binding upon the court. Said court may after
due hearing confirm, reverse or modify said preliminary determination as the
evidence and substantial merit of the case may warrant.

It is mandatory for the trial court to refer the case to the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative for a preliminary
determination of the relationship between the contending parties if it is a
case of ejectment or attempt to harass or remove a
tenant in an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn. Even without
a motion, the trial court may motu propio order such referral.

Petitioners contend that the landholding is a grazing land and
not an agricultural land within the contemplation of the law. With more reason
that such preliminary determination should be made by the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform so that the nature of the landholding and whether it is covered by the
law may be inquired into.

Petitioners cite the ruling of the court in the case of Castro
versus Court of Appeals,^[4]
wherein this Court held “that for the land subject of the action to come
under Operation Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27, there must
first be a showing that they are tenanted lands and for the action to come
within the referral provisions of Presidential Decree Nos. 316 and 946 it must
first be established that the action involved tenants”. Petitioners
interpret this to mean that the trial court must first determine if private
respondents are tenants of petitioners before the case may be referred to the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative for preliminary
determination. On the contrary, such referral is for the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform or his authorized representative to make such a preliminary
determination if there is such a tenancy relationship and not for the trial
court to undertake this task.

Castro involves an action filed by the alleged tenants
against the land owner to seek the nullity of their contract as hired tillers
and to be declared tenants. After the trial court found that they were not bona
fide tenants they then sought to have the matter referred to the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform. This Court said it is not a case of harassment of tenants but
a suit instituted by the alleged tenant to harass the land owner and that there
was no more need of such preliminary determination of the relationship by the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform as it had been so determined by the trial court
that there is no such landlord and tenant relationship.

In the present case such a referral is precisely required for a
preliminary determination if private respondents are bona fide tenants before
the trial court can assume jurisdiction over the ejectment
case. The Castro ruling cannot be invoked in this case.

WHEREFORE, the
petition is dismissed without pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Paras and Cruz, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Page 10, Rollo.

^[2]
Pp. 12-13, Rollo.

^[3]
Antonio vs. Samonte, 1 SCRA 1074; Dela
Cruz vs. Hon. Paras, 69 SCRA 556, 560, Feb. 27, 1976.

^[4]
Castro vs. CA, 99 SCRA 722, 739, Sept.
11, 1980.