JOSE MENDOZA v. NARCISO GERMINO, GR No. 165676, 2010-11-22
Facts:
1988, the petitioner and Aurora C. Mendoza[
MTC) of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija against respondent Narciso Germino for forcible entry.
plaintiffs claimed that they were the registered owners of a five-hectare parcel of land... 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... 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... the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)... tenancy issue
Without conducting a hearing, and despite respondent Narciso's objection... remanding the case to the DARAB... plaintiffs... 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
In 1987, they discovered that respondent Benigno had transferred possession of the subject property to respondent
Narciso... the respondents filed their answer denying the allegations in the complaint, claiming... plaintiffs had... 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... refused to receive the balance and execute the deed of conveyance... respondents also asserted that jurisdiction over the complaint lies with the Regional Trial
Court since ownership and possession are the issues
PARAD RULING... found that the respondents were mere usurpers... respondents filed a notice of appeal with the DARAB, arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the MTC's referral to the DARAB was void with the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657,[14] which repealed the rule on...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
DARAB decided... held that it acquired jurisdiction because of the amended complaint that sufficiently alleged an agrarian dispute, not the MTC's referral of the case.
CA RULING... 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... and remanded the case to the MTC for further proceedings.
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.
Issues:
whether the MTC or the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling:
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.
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.
R.A. No. 6657... the DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all... agrarian disputes
An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to, among others, tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture.
In the present case, the petitioner, as one of the plaintiffs in the MTC, made the following allegations and prayer
That so defendant thru stealth, strategy and without the knowledge, or consent of administrator
Inspite of x x x demands, defendant Germino, refused and up to the filing of this complaint, still refused to vacate the same
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.
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.
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.
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
Neither did the amendment of the complaint confer jurisdiction on the DARAB.
the action was for recovery of possession of real property that was within the jurisdiction... of the regular courts.[... the petition is DENIED
Principles:
