MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS AND REFERRAL OF THE CASE TO

THE D.A.R.

1. The above-captioned cases happen on the same area and place but of different dates, accused
likewise are the same being relatives.

2. The defense of the herein accused is that they are actual tillers of this land and planted thereon,
corn, coconuts, bananas and other agricultural products.

3. Accused Caridad Bulandres is the one who planted the coconuts from where these coconuts
were taken that are now the subject of the present case of qualified theft and she also planted
bananas. Irene Ambay together with accused Ronilo Ambay, Felix Ambay also planted corn and
bananas on the area.

4. The owner of the land to whom they recognized is a certain NATIVIDAD BULANDRES who
executed an affidavit to her claim of ownership.

5. Irene Ambay had been the cultivator of corn on the lot in question since 1975 and was only
stopped in the year 2007 since while her corn was still growing Irena Ambay and her children
were jailed allegedly for the qualified theft of coconuts. The standing corn crop was harvested by
the private complainant and it was converted into sugarcane plantation which is existence today.

6. Accused Caridad Bulandres, then married Manuela Bulandres in 1960 and since then until she
was incarcerated she was the actual tiller of the subject lot.

7. It was in the year 1965 when Caridad Bulandres and his husband Manuel planted the coconuts
where these coconuts were taken and now the subject of the above-cases of qualified theft.

8. Being the actual tiller and possessor of these land before they were ousted because they were
incarcerated due to these cases of qualified theft, the controversy then about these qualified theft
of coconuts were agrarian in nature and the jurisdiction is lodged with the Department of
Agrarian Reform.

9. It can be surmised that by pursuing these cases of qualified theft against the actual tillers,
private offended party summarily ousted them from their respective cultivation and thus, in
violation of R.A. 3844 or the Law on Agricultural Leasehold System.

10. Clearly, these above-captioned cases are covered by the DARAB and the present controversy
has to be referred to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office of Negros Oriental pursuant to the
new law expanding the CARP Law.

11. The rationale of the referral can be found in Sec. 19 of R.A. 9700 which is quoted on Section
1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2009 which is the Rules and Regulations
implementing the above-mentioned provision.
R.A. 9700

AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP),

EXTENDING THE ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL LANDS, INSTITUTING
NECESSARY REFORMS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 6657, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS
AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR

Section 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding Section
50-A to read as follows:

"SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. - No court or prosecutor's office shall take
cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under
Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that
the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall
be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify
within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the
determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the
municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court,
and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.

"In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform
beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have legal standing and interest
to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights and/or interests under the CARP.

"The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government agency shall not be used against
them to deny the existence of their legal standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and
quasi-judicial bodies."

12. It provides, “Pursuant to the Supreme Court Ruling in DAR vs. Roberto Cuenca, et al. G.R.
154112, September 23, 2004, “All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature.
All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and
original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters.”

13. The DAR shall have exclusive jurisdiction on agrarian disputes. Agrarian disputes refer to
any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or
otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning, fixing, maintaining,
changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. (Section 1 of
DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2009 which is the Rules and Regulations).

14. Under the new CARP Law, the subject of prior referral of the case is for the PARO to
determine if indeed the case involves an agrarian dispute as defined by Section 3 (d) of R.A.
6657 and the results of the PARO’s investigation will be the basis of the Honorable Court either
to dismiss the case or continue the case.
15. Under the Agrarian Law of the Philippines, only two (2) ways can a leasehold relation be
established. First, by operation of the law that is by the enactment of R.A. 3844 or the Code of
Agrarian Reform which provides under Sec. 4, par. 1 thereof that “agricultural share tenancy
throughout the country is hereby declared contrary to public policy and shall be automatically
converted to agricultural leasehold.” Second, by agreement of the parties, either orally or in
writing, expressly or impliedly, in other cases, (R.A. 3844, Sec. 5).

16. As cited in the cases of Tapang vs. Robles, 72 Phil. 79; Cruz vs. Felipe, CA-G.R. No. 43479-
R, June 9, 1971; Cuano vs. Court of Appeals, 55 SCAD, 640, 237 SCRA 122 states that “The
most common manner by which it is established impliedly (Leasehold) is thru the toleration by
the Lessor of the cultivation of his landholding by another in the concept of a lessee. In the
absence of a written contract, the relationship shall be governed by the leasehold provisions of
the Code. (Secs. 4-38 of R.A. 3844)

The principal elements of a leasehold tenancy contract or relation are as follows:

1. The object of the contract or the relationship is an agricultural land which is leased for
the purpose of agricultural production;

2. The size of the landholding must be such that it is susceptible of personal cultivation
by a single person with assistance from members of his immediate farm household;

3. The tenant-lessee must actually and personally till, cultivate or operate said land solely
or with the aid of labor from his immediate farm household; and

4. The landlord-Lessor, who is either the lawful owner or the legal possessor of the land,
leases the same to the tenant-lessees for a definite price or ascertainable either in amount of
money or produce. (Teodoro vs. Macaraeg, 27 SCRA 7, Graza vs. Court of Appeals, 163 SCRA
139).

All of the above-elements are present in these cases as mentioned by the complaint; the
subject matter is a corn land and coconut plantation at the same time planted likewise with
Bananas, personally cultivated by the defendants, susceptible of personal cultivation by the
accused, and yearly accused pay a leasehold rent to their aunt Natividad Bulandres whom they
considered as the lawful owner of the land they cultivated.

The most important consequence is that one of the rights of an agricultural lessee is security of
tenure, that is he can only be ejected on causes provided by law and should first be proven
(Sections 7 and 8 of R.A. 3844).

Being the one who planted these coconut trees which are harvested and subsequently been
charged for qualified theft, the essential element of this crime is ownership of property, being a
lessee under a leasehold system, accused is afforded as the lawful owner of the produce of their
cultivation, the only concern of the Lessor is the yearly rent, being so accused could not therefore
be held liable for qualified theft.
Thus, the herein cases are ripe for determination whether an agricultural dispute is existing in
these cases before any further proceeding be had by the Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed unto the Honorable Court to refer the herein case to the
PARO for its determination whether an agrarian dispute is present in this case pursuant to Sec.
19, R.A. 9700 and Section 1 of DAR Administration Order No. 4, Series of 2009.