SPS.
TERESITO Y. VILLACASTIN G.R. No. 170478
and
Petitioners, Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
TINGA,
VELASCO,
JR.,
-
versus - DE CASTRO, and
BRION,
JJ.
PAUL PELAEZ, Promulgated:
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
A conflict of jurisdiction between the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and the regular trial
courts is at the core of the present case. Petitioners question the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
The facts, as culled from the record, are as follows:
On
The purported tenants of the property, Anastacio Alob, Francisco Alob, Jesus Cordova, Manuel Sanchez, Elia Giltendez, Flora dela Peña, Eliseo Rayco, Benjamin Santillan, Pascual Gilbuena, Jesus Alob, Renaldo Grande, and Julieto Manzueto, filed an action to annul the mortgage, foreclosure and sale of the properties, claiming that they are the owners thereof under Presidential Decree No. 27. the case was docketed as Reg. Case No. VII-76-C-90.
In the meantime, on May 10, 1988, petitioners filed a
Complaint for Forcible Entry with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction,[2] docketed
as Civil Case No. 79, with the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
Bantayan, Cebu, against respondent and a certain Elesio Monteseven. The complaint averred that plaintiffs
(petitioners herein) are the owners and actual possessors of the subject
landholding and that defendants, having entered the property through stealth
and strategy, unlawfully deprived plaintiffs of possession thereof.
Respondent countered that he is the
owner of the subject property, which was foreclosed by the DBP and later
purchased by petitioners at an auction sale.
Petitioners, however, were allegedly never in possession of the subject
property as they failed to apply for a writ of possession therefor. Respondent further claimed that he had
redeemed the property on
Meanwhile, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator in
WHEREFORE,
in the light of the foregoing view, DECISION is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Declaring complainants herein with the
exception of Silbino Arranquez[,] Jr. and Claro Gilbuela who earlier withdraw
from this case as bonafide tenant farmers of the parcels in question covered by
P.D. [No.] 27;
2. Declaring the mortgage executed by Sps. Paul
and Elnora Pelaez to respondent DBP and the subsequent foreclosure and eventual
sale thereof to Sps. Teresito and
Lourdes Villacastin as null and void ab
initio as it is contrary to law, public order and public policy;
3. Declaring complainants herein to properly
account their deposited shares/lease rentals before the DAR office of Bantayan[,]
Cebu and deliver the said deposited [share/lease] rentals including the
forthcoming harvest thereon to respondent landowners Sps. Paul and Elnora
Pelaez with the assistance of the MARO of Bantayan, Madridejos,
4. No pronouncement as to cost.[4]
This decision was affirmed by the DARAB in a Decision[5]
dated
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
defendant is hereby ordered:
a)
To return to plaintiffs possession of the parcel of land above-described
and vacate the premises;
b) To pay the costs of litigation;
c)
Moral and exemplary damages not recoverable in ejectment suit is denied;
d) Expenses
claimed not duly proven are disallowed;
e)
To release in favor of the plaintiffs the cash bond the sum of P5,000.00
deposited pursuant to the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction.[6]
In a Decision[7]
dated
The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that regular courts should respect the primary jurisdiction vested upon the DARAB in cases involving agricultural lands such as the property subject of this case. Accordingly, it set aside the decision rendered by the RTC and the MCTC, and dismissed the complaint for forcible entry filed by petitioners in this case.
The appellate court denied
reconsideration in its Resolution[8]
dated
Petitioners contend that Civil Case No. 79 did not involve any agrarian matter and thus, the MCTC correctly exercised jurisdiction over the case.
In his Comment[9]
dated
Petitioners filed a Reply[10] dated July 28, 2006, insisting that the tenant-farmers involved in the DARAB case were not parties to the forcible entry case, the only defendant therein being respondent in this case. Respondent, in turn, raised the defense of ownership, thereby joining the issues regarding possession and ownership.
Petitioners further note their
argument in their Motion for Reconsideration[11]
of the Decision of the Court of Appeals that the subject property had been
declared as wilderness area and the same had been classified as alienable and
disposable on
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint.[13] In ascertaining, for instance, whether an action is one for forcible entry falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the inferior courts, the averments of the complaint and the character of the relief sought are to be examined.[14]
A review of the complaint reveals that the pertinent allegations thereof sufficiently vest jurisdiction over the action on the MCTC. The complaint alleges as follows:
III
That the plaintiffs are the owners and
legal as well as actual possessors of a parcel of agricultural land more
particularly described as follows:
x x x
IV
That the defendant, sometime in the
second week of March 1988, by strategy and through stealth entered the
above-described land of the plaintiffs and took possession thereof; thus,
depriving said plaintiffs of the possession thereof;
V
That several demands were made the
plaintiffs upon the defendants to restore to them the possession of the
above-described parcel of land; but, defendants refused and still refuse to
restore possession of said property to the plaintiffs;[15]
It has not escaped our notice that no landowner-tenant vinculum juris or juridical tie was alleged between petitioners and respondent, let alone that which would characterize the relationship as an agrarian dispute.[16] Rule II of the DARAB Rules[17] provides that the DARAB “shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No, 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.”
Petitioners’ action is clearly for the recovery of physical or material possession of the subject property only, a question which both the MCTC and the RTC ruled petitioners are entitled to. It does not involve the adjudication of an agrarian reform matter, nor an agrarian dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the DARAB.
Courts have jurisdiction over possessory actions involving public or private agricultural lands to determine the issue of physical possession as this issue is independent of the question of disposition and alienation of such lands which should be threshed out in the DAR.[18] Thus, jurisdiction was rightfully exercised by the MCTC and the RTC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 83873 dated February 7, 2005, and its
Resolution dated November 11, 2005, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dakit,
Bogo,
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]Rollo, pp. 22-30; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio P. Abarintos and Vicente L. Yap.
[16]Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law defines “agrarian dispute” over which the DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction as:
(d) . . . refer[ing] to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
[17]Rules of Procedure Governing Proceedings Before the DAR Adjudication Board and Different Regional and Provincial Adjudicators.