G.R. No. 226098 - ROBERTO BACAR, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VICENTE TAN.[G.R. No. 233817] VICENTE TAN, VS. MICHAEL MERCADO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, complainants Roberto Bacar and Michael Mercado are hereby declared as tenants de jure of the properties owned by respondents Vicente Tan and Tan Development Company, Incorporated (now respondent Lorenzo Tan Development Corporation) registered with the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Palawan under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3810, 5610, and 5611. As tenants de jure, they are entitled to reinstatement as they are hereby declared reinstated, to their respective areas of tillage, and must be maintained in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said landholdings. Therefore, respondents Vicente Tan and Lorenzo Tan Development Corporation and their agents, successors-in-interest or assigns including respondent Stephen Tan, are hereby directed to respect the rights of complainants Bacar and Mercado as tenants de jure, accorded to them under Republic Act No. 3844, as amended and other related laws. They are directed to immediately reinstate complainants Bacar and Mercado on the subject landholdings and maintain them in peaceful possession of the same. x x x x SO ORDERED . [14] (Emphases in the original) Based on the DARAB Decision, Bacar filed a Motion to Quash [15] the Information in Criminal Case No. 23639, arguing that, since he had been adjudged as a tenant de jure by the DARAB, the RTC has no jurisdiction to try his case as the same involves an agrarian dispute. Hence, Bacar claimed that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), in accordance with Section 50-A of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700. [16] On November 29, 2012, the RTC issued an Order, [17] which denied Bacar's Motion to Quash. In denying the same, the RTC held that it has jurisdiction over the case and ruled that the criminal case for Qualified Theft against Bacar did not pertain to the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) nor did it involve an agrarian dispute. [18] Bacar moved for reconsideration, [19] but the same was denied by the RTC in its Order [20] dated September 11, 2013. Thus, Bacar filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Issuance of a Writ of Prohibitory Injunction [21] before the CA, primarily arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied Bacar's Motion to Quash, considering that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. [22] On February 4, 2016, the CA rendered its Decision, [23] which dismissed Bacar's Petition and affirmed the Orders [24] of the RTC: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Issuance of a Writ of Prohibitory Injunction is DISMISSED . The Orders dated November 29, 2012 and September 11, 2013 issued by the Public Respondent Judge Bienvenido C. Blancaflor are hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . [25] (Emphases and it