Application to the instant case. [ G.R. No. 201631. December 07, 2021 ] ANGELINA DAYRIT vs. ORQUILLAS et al. Penned by: HERNANDO, J. Guided by David and Chailese, the Court now resolves the instant case. Preliminarily, as found by the trial courts and the appellate court in the instant case, it is undisputed that the allegations in the complaint herein pertain to forcible entry. However, pursuant to David, it is not automatic that the MCTC has jurisdiction over the forcible entry case. There is a need to determine if the case involves an agrarian dispute. From this, the Court rules that the MCTC has no jurisdiction on the instant complaint for forcible entry. As pointed out by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, this case meets the two requirements for automatic referral, as set out by RA 9700 and as summarized in Chailese.89 Thus, the Court finds that the case is cognizable by the DAR through the DARAB. The first requirement is the presence of an allegation from any one or both of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature. Here, despite the filing of the forcible entry case, respondents have been consistent on alleging that the controversy is agrarian in nature. In their answer filed before the MCTC, they alleged that the land in dispute were awarded to them as CARP beneficiaries. The RTC, on appeal, also touched upon matters of allegations of agrarian dispute in relation with jurisdiction of the courts. The CA also did the same and in fact dismissed the complaint after finding that the issue of possession was linked to an agrarian dispute brought by the issuance of CLOAs to respondents. In their comment filed before this Court, respondents maintain that the case is an agrarian dispute. As stated by RA 9700, mere allegation of the existence of an agrarian dispute is enough. In this case, this requirement was met when respondents made consistent allegations of the existence of an agrarian dispute pursuant to the CLOAs issued to them. As to the second requirement, Chailese adds that proof must be adduced as to the person's status as farmer, farmworker, or tenant. In this case, it is undisputed that respondents are farmers of the subject lands. Indeed, the records did not expressly show any agreement of whatever kind that respondents were farmers of Angelina's lands. However, the CA and the DAR Secretary (in the exemption from CARP case) here recognized the status of respondents as farmers.95 This was not disputed by Angelina. Further, their status as farmers was cemented by the subsequent award of Angelina's lands to them by virtue of CLOAs. This is also shown by the cases Angelina initiated regarding the annulment of CLOAs, exemption from CARP coverage, and this forcible entry case. Thus, the second requirement is met. In any case, even without the mandate of automatic referral at that time, the MCTC should have dismissed the case after hearing the parties as the law is clear prior to the amendment that the DAR, through the DARAB, has jurisdiction on agrarian disputes involving transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries.96 CLOAs were issued to respondents being the beneficiaries of CARP. Recipients of CLOAs acquire ownership of the lands awarded. As respondents entered the subject parcel of lands by virtue of the CLOAs, this entry, despite being characterized by Angelina as forcible entry, is clearly a controversy relating to and arising from the terms and conditions of transfer of ownership to agrarian reform beneficiaries. The Court, therefore, agrees with the CA in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The DAR, through the DARAB, has jurisdiction over the instant case for forcible entry for being an agrarian dispute. Nonetheless, the Court is aware that Angelina herself also availed of remedies by moving for the cancellation of the CLOAs and requesting for the exemption of the subject lands from CARP coverage. The Court takes note of the DAR Secretary's June 8, 2011 Decision and January 19, 2012 Resolution of the DAR Secretary exempting her parcels of land from CARP coverage.98 However, as based from the records, these suits have not yet attained conclusion or finality; thus, the rights of the parties may still change. Still, the Court must resolve the instant case as it still presents a justiciable controversy regarding jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, G.R. No. 201076 is ordered DECONSOLIDATED from G.R. No. 201631. The Petition in G.R. No. 201631 is hereby DENIED. The January 27, 2012 Decision and March 28, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03121-MIN are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Read full decision here: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/dec2021/gr_201631_2021.html FOLLOW US! Phil Juris | Website: https://bit.ly/m/AttyEblogger