Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

JOSE MENDOZA, G.R. No. 165676

Petitioner,
Present:
CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO MORALES, Chairperson,
BRION,
- versus - VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO, JJ.

Promulgated:
NARCISO GERMINO and November 22, 2010
BENIGNO GERMINO,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

BRION, J.:

Before us is the petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by petitioner Jose

Mendoza to challenge the decision[2] and the resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 48642.[4]

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts of the case, gathered from the records, are briefly summarized
below.
 On June 27, 1988, the petitioner and Aurora C. Mendoza[5] (plaintiffs) filed a
complaint with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija against
respondent Narciso Germino for forcible entry.[6]

The plaintiffs claimed that they were the registered owners of a five-hectare
parcel of land in Soledad, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija (subject property) under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 34267. Sometime in 1988, respondent Narciso unlawfully
entered the subject property by means of strategy and stealth, and without their
knowledge or consent.Despite the plaintiffs repeated demands, respondent Narciso
refused to vacate the subject property.[7]

On August 9, 1988, respondent Narciso filed his answer, claiming, among

others, that his brother, respondent Benigno Germino, was the plaintiffs agricultural
lessee and he merely helped the latter in the cultivation as a member of the immediate
farm household.[8]

After several postponements, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case
to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), in view of the
tenancy issue raised by respondent Narciso.

Without conducting a hearing, and despite respondent Narcisos objection, the

MTC issued an order on October 27, 1995, remanding the case to the DARAB,
Cabanatuan City for further proceedings.[9]
On December 14, 1995, the plaintiffs[10] filed an amended complaint with the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), impleading respondent Benigno
as additional defendant.

The plaintiffs alleged that Efren Bernardo was the agricultural lessee of the
subject property. Respondent Benigno unlawfully entered the subject property in
1982 or 1983 through strategy and stealth, and without their knowledge or
consent. He withheld possession of the subject property up to 1987, and appropriated
for himself its produce, despite repeated demands from the plaintiffs for the return
of the property. In 1987, they discovered that respondent Benigno had transferred
possession of the subject property to respondent Narciso, who refused to return the
possession of the subject property to the plaintiffs and appropriated the lands
produce for himself. The subject property was fully irrigated and was capable of
harvest for 2 cropping seasons. Since the subject property could produce 100 cavans
of palay per hectare for each cropping season, or a total of 500 cavans per cropping
season for the five-hectare land, the plaintiffs alleged that the respondents were able
to harvest a total of 13,000 cavans of palay from the time they unlawfully withheld
possession of the subject property in 1982 until the plaintiffs filed the
complaint. Thus, they prayed that the respondents be ordered to jointly and severally
pay 13,000 cavans of palay, or its monetary equivalent, as actual damages, to return
possession of the subject property, and to pay P15,000.00 as attorneys fees.[11]

On January 9, 1996, the respondents filed their answer denying the allegations
in the complaint, claiming, among others, that the plaintiffs had no right over the
subject property as they agreed to sell it to respondent Benigno for P87,000.00. As
a matter of fact, respondent Benigno had already made a P50,000.00 partial payment,
but the plaintiffs refused to receive the balance and execute the deed of conveyance,
despite repeated demands. The respondents also asserted that jurisdiction over the
complaint lies with the Regional Trial Court since ownership and possession are the
issues.[12]

THE PARAD RULING

In a March 19, 1996 decision, PARAD Romeo Bello found that the
respondents were mere usurpers of the subject property, noting that they failed to
prove that respondent Benigno was the plaintiffs bona fide agricultural lessee. The
PARAD ordered the respondents to vacate the subject property, and pay the
plaintiffs 500 cavans of palay as actual damages.[13]

Not satisfied, the respondents filed a notice of appeal with the DARAB,
arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the MTCs referral to the
DARAB was void with the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657,[14] which
repealed the rule on referral under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 316.[15]

THE DARAB RULING

 The DARAB decided the appeal on July 22, 1998. It held that it acquired
jurisdiction because of the amended complaint that sufficiently alleged an agrarian
dispute, not the MTCs referral of the case. Thus, it affirmed the PARAD decision.[16]

The respondents elevated the case to the CA via a petition for review under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.[17]

THE CA RULING

The CA decided the appeal on October 6, 2003.[18] It found that the MTC erred
in transferring the case to the DARAB since the material allegations of the complaint
and the relief sought show a case for forcible entry, not an agrarian dispute. It noted
that the subsequent filing of the amended complaint did not confer jurisdiction upon
the DARAB.Thus, the CA set aside the DARAB decision and remanded the case to
the MTC for further proceedings.

When the CA denied[19] the subsequent motion for reconsideration,[20] the

petitioner filed the present petition.[21]

THE PETITION

The petitioner insists that the jurisdiction lies with the DARAB since the
nature of the action and the allegations of the complaint show an agrarian dispute.

THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents submit that R.A. No. 6657 abrogated the rule on referral
previously provided in P.D. No. 316. Moreover, neither the Rules of Court nor the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (RRSP) provides that forcible entry cases can
be referred to the DARAB.

THE ISSUE

The core issue is whether the MTC or the DARAB has jurisdiction over the
case.
 OUR RULING

We deny the petition.

Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint

It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint.[22] It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and
the law. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or
acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor
conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither for the
court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in
character.[23]

Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,[24] as amended by R.A. No. 7691,[25] the
MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer. The RRSP[26] governs the remedial aspects of these suits.[27]

Under Section 50[28] of R.A. No. 6657, as well as Section 34[29] of Executive
Order No. 129-A,[30] the DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both
original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving
the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.

An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to, among others,

tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture.[31] For a case to involve an agrarian
dispute, the following essential requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship
must be present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is
agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5)
there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvest or payment of
rental.[32]

In the present case, the petitioner, as one of the plaintiffs in the MTC, made
the following allegations and prayer in the complaint:
 3. Plaintiffs are the registered owners of a parcel of land covered
by and described in Transfer Certificate of Title Numbered 34267, with
an area of five (5) hectares, more or less situated at Bo. Soledad, Sta. Rosa,
Nueva Ecija. x x x;

4. That so defendant thru stealth, strategy and without the

knowledge, or consent of administrator x x x much more of the herein
plaintiffs, unlawfully entered and occupied said parcel of land;

5. Inspite of x x x demands, defendant Germino, refused and up to

the filing of this complaint, still refused to vacate the same;

6. The continuos (sic) and unabated occupancy of the land by the

defendant would work and cause prejudice and irreparable damage and
injury to the plaintiffs unless a writ of preliminary injunction is issued;

7. This prejudice, damage or injury consist of disturbance of

property rights tantamount to deprivation of ownership or any of its
attributes without due process of law, a diminution of plaintiffs property
rights or dominion over the parcel of land subject of this dispute, since
they are deprived of freely entering or possessing the same;

8. The plaintiffs are entitled to the relief demanded or prayed for,

and the whole or part of such relief/s consist of immediately or
permanently RESTRAINING, ENJOINING or STOPPING the defendant
or any person/s acting in his behalf, from entering, occupying, or in any
manner committing, performing or suffering to be committed or
performed for him, any act indicative of, or tending to show any color of
possession in or about the tenement, premises or subject of this suit, such
as described in par. 3 of this complaint;

9. Plaintiffs are ready and willing to post a bond answerable to any

damage/s should the issuance of the writ x x x;

10. As a consequence of defendants malevolent refusal to vacate

the premises of the land in dispute, plaintiffs incurred litigation expenses
of P1,500.00, availing for the purpose the assistance of a counsel at an
agreed honorarium of P5,000.00 and P250.00 per appearance/ not to
mention the moral damages incurred due to sleepless nights and mental
anxiety, including exemplary damages, the award and amount of which
are left to the sound discretion of this Honorable Court.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court

that pending the resolution of the issue in this case, a restraining order be
issued RESTRAINING, ENJOINING, or STOPPING the defendant or
any person/s acting in his behalf, from ENTERING OR OCCUPYING the
parcel of land, or any portion thereof, described in paragraph 3 of this
complaint, nor in any manner committing, performing or suffering to be
committed or, performed for him, by himself or thru another, any act
indicative of, or tending to show any color of possession in or about the
premises subject of this suit;

THEREAFTER, making said writ of preliminary injunction

PERMANENT; and on plaintiffs damages, judgment be rendered ordering
the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the sum alleged in paragraph 10
above.

GENERAL RELIEFS ARE LIKEWISE PRAYED FOR.[33]

Based on these allegations and reliefs prayed, it is clear that the action in the
MTC was for forcible entry.

Allegation of tenancy does not divest the MTC of jurisdiction

Although respondent Narciso averred tenancy as an affirmative and/or special

defense in his answer, this did not automatically divest the MTC of jurisdiction over
the complaint. It continued to have the authority to hear the case precisely to
determine whether it had jurisdiction to dispose of the ejectment suit on its
merits.[34] After all, jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by
the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would
become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.[35]

Under the RRSP, the MTC is duty-bound to conduct a preliminary

conference[36] and, if necessary, to receive evidence to determine if such tenancy
relationship had, in fact, been shown to be the real issue.[37] The MTC may even opt
to conduct a hearing on the special and affirmative defense of the defendant,
although under the RRSP, such a hearing is not a matter of right.[38] If it is shown
during the hearing or conference that, indeed, tenancy is the issue, the MTC should
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.[39]

In the present case, instead of conducting a preliminary conference, the MTC

immediately referred the case to the DARAB. This was contrary to the
rules. Besides, Section 2[40] of P.D. No. 316, which required the referral of a land
dispute case to the Department of Agrarian Reform for the preliminary
determination of the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship, has indeed
been repealed by Section 76[41] of R.A. No. 6657 in 1988.

Amended complaint did confer jurisdiction on the DARAB

Neither did the amendment of the complaint confer jurisdiction on the

DARAB. The plaintiffs alleged in the amended complaint that the subject property
was previously tilled by Efren Bernardo, and the respondents took possession by
strategy and stealth, without their knowledge and consent. In the absence of any
allegation of a tenancy relationship between the parties, the action was for recovery
of possession of real property that was within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.[42]

The CA, therefore, committed no reversible error in setting aside the DARAB
decision. While we lament the lapse of time this forcible entry case has been pending
resolution, we are not in a position to resolve the dispute between the parties since
the evidence required in courts is different from that of administrative agencies.[43]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 6, 2003 Decision and

October 12, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48642
areAFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.