| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
107 OG No. 2, 123 (January 11, 2011)
[ SP No. 95855, November 07, 2007 ]
JESSE CO SAY, MICHAEL T. CO SAY, ERIC C. COSAY, YVETTE CO SAY, MA. EDITHA C. QUINTO AND ABIGAIL C. LITAM, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY: EMELITA N. DE JESUS, PETITIONERS, VS. ANGEL BUENA, JR., RESPONDENT.[*]
The plaintiffs come to this Court by petition for review, praying for the reversal of the decision dated July 10, 2006 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, in Pili, Camarines Sur,[1] affirming the decision dated January 31, 2006 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Ocampo, Camarines Sur,[2] dismissing their complaint for unlawful detainer against the respondent for lack of jurisdiction.
On September 7, 2005, the petitioners commenced this action for unlawful detainer in the MTC,[3] alleging that they were the lawful and registered absolute co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Mabatobato, Pili (now Ocampo), Camarines Sur; that they acquired the property from the heirs of the late Teofilo Yamson, by virtue of which acquisition Transfer Certificate of Title No. 39613 was issued in their names; that they were paying the real property tax on the property; that the respondent occupied and possessed the property since December 2004 by their tolerance with the implied promise to vacate the property upon demand; and that demand to vacate was made upon the respondent on June 10, 2005 but he refused to vacate the property.
In his answer with counterclaim,[4] the respondent averred that he and his wife, Jovita Yamson-Buena, were the legitimate agricultural tenants in the property since the lifetime of Jovita's mother, Severa Lanozga-Yamson, to whom they paifj the land share; that when the property was transferred to the petitioners, the respondent tried to remit the succeeding land shares but was refused by Maximo Co Say, the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest; that the respondent saved the money value of the land shares for remittance to the petitioners should they be willing to accept it; that on September 18, 2003, a demand letter to vacate was sent to Jovita Yamson-Buena, to which a reply dated October 15, 2003 was made; that on June 8, 2004, another demand letter to vacate was sent to Jovita, which was responded to in a letter dated June 20, 2004; that Jovita filed in the Office of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Camarines Sur an affidavit of her adverse claim as agricultural tenant in the property; and that the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) Chairman had no authority to pass upon the issue of agricultural tenancy relations between the parties in this case because jurisdiction on the matter was vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
On January 31, 2006, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondent, viz:
In every case, it is very important to determine jurisdiction, i.e., over the nature of the action; over the subject matter or property; and over the parties. However, in the light of the facts admitted, stipulated, and undisputed by the parties there is a need to determine the jurisdiction over the nature of the action. Without dwelling on the other substantive issue if the instant case is agrarian in nature, the determination of jurisdiction is first concentrated as to the institution of the instant case if made within one (1) year from date of demand as a jurisdictional requirement in a summary action for unlawful detainer.[9]
In so doing, the MTC committed a serious error. Although the allegations of the complaint might have constituted a proper action for unlawful detainer against the respondent, the respondent averred in his answer that he was an agricultural tenant. Verily, if the respondent were an agricultural tenant under the agrarian law, then the MTC was devoid of jurisdiction over the ejectment case.[10] The issue of agricultural tenancy thus went deeper into its jurisdiction over the action than the nature of the demands to vacate. It is true that the mere allegation of agricultural tenancy made in the answer did not automatically deprive the MTC of its jurisdiction over the action,[11] for the mere allegation of agricultural tenancy, without evidence, was not enough.[12] But such defense undeniably called on the MTC to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine the tenability of the claim of tenancy.[13]
The need for a preliminary hearing was fundamental enough. In Bayog v. Judge Natino,[14] therefore, the Supreme Court explained that where the tenancy was established at such preliminary hearing, the MTC should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction,[15] rendering such preliminary hearing imperative in order that the MTC could meet and rule squarely first on the issue of tenancy before proceeding further.
As a result, we cannot decide this appeal unless the question of the jurisdiction of the MTC was first properly settled. To that extent did the RTC fail in its appellate responsibility of guarding against patent errors, particularly of jurisdiction, that the MTC might have committed. We remand this case with specific instructions to the MTC to conduct a preliminary hearing on the issue of agricultural tenancy and to render its disposition accordingly.
WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the Municipal Trial Court of Ocampo, Camarines Sur for a determination of the issue of agricultural tenancy.
SO ORDERED.
Aliño-Hormachueios and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Case remanded to the Municipal Trial Court of Ocampo, Camarines Sur for determination of the issue of agricultural tenancy.
[*] Court of Appeals Reports Annotated, Vol. 43.
[1] Annex A, petition.
[2] Annex B, petition.
[3] Annex C-1, petition.
[4] Annex C-2, petition.
[5] Rollo, pp. 24-25
[6] Annex A, petition.
[7] Rollo, p. 20.
[8] Rollo, p. 10.
[9] Annex B, petition; rollo, p. 23.
[10] Ignacio v. Court of First Instance, 42 SCRA 89, 95 [1971]; Isidro v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 503, 512 [1993].
[11] De la Cruz v. Bautista, 186 SCRA 517, 525 [1990]; De Luna v. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 703, 709 [1993]; Baranda v. Padios, 154 SCRA 720 (October 21, 1987).
[12] Isidro v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 503 (1994).
[13] Concepcion v. Presiding Judge, CFI of Bulacan. 119 SCRA 222, 232-233 (December 15, 1982).
[14] 258 SCRA 378 (July 5, 1996).
[15] E.O. No. 229; Sec. 50 and Sec 53, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (R.A. No. 6657); Quismundo v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 609 [1991]; Tiongson v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 197 [1992].
On September 7, 2005, the petitioners commenced this action for unlawful detainer in the MTC,[3] alleging that they were the lawful and registered absolute co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Mabatobato, Pili (now Ocampo), Camarines Sur; that they acquired the property from the heirs of the late Teofilo Yamson, by virtue of which acquisition Transfer Certificate of Title No. 39613 was issued in their names; that they were paying the real property tax on the property; that the respondent occupied and possessed the property since December 2004 by their tolerance with the implied promise to vacate the property upon demand; and that demand to vacate was made upon the respondent on June 10, 2005 but he refused to vacate the property.
In his answer with counterclaim,[4] the respondent averred that he and his wife, Jovita Yamson-Buena, were the legitimate agricultural tenants in the property since the lifetime of Jovita's mother, Severa Lanozga-Yamson, to whom they paifj the land share; that when the property was transferred to the petitioners, the respondent tried to remit the succeeding land shares but was refused by Maximo Co Say, the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest; that the respondent saved the money value of the land shares for remittance to the petitioners should they be willing to accept it; that on September 18, 2003, a demand letter to vacate was sent to Jovita Yamson-Buena, to which a reply dated October 15, 2003 was made; that on June 8, 2004, another demand letter to vacate was sent to Jovita, which was responded to in a letter dated June 20, 2004; that Jovita filed in the Office of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Camarines Sur an affidavit of her adverse claim as agricultural tenant in the property; and that the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) Chairman had no authority to pass upon the issue of agricultural tenancy relations between the parties in this case because jurisdiction on the matter was vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
On January 31, 2006, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondent, viz:
Under the rules, ejectment cases should be filed in court within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession of the land-in-question. It is also settled rule that demand to vacate is jurisdictional in unlawful detainer. While it is the genera! rule that where several demands are made, the running of the one-year period starts only from the date of the last demand but is admits of exception. As enunciated in the case of Desbaras v. Laureano, 18 SCRA 116. "However, the nature of the demand must be determined if the demand to vacate is only in the nature of a reminder of previous standing demand already made upon the lessee then there is no second or another demand to speak of. The one year period must still be counted from the date of the original demand was made.On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MTC,[6] decreeing:
The first demand letter (Exh "1") to Jovita Yamson-Buena was dated September 18, 2003 receipt of which was duly acknowledge in her response letter (Exh "2") dated October 15, 2003. The Second demand letter (Exh "3") to Jovita Yamson-Buena was dated June 8, 2004 receipt of which was duly acknowledged in her response letter (Exh. "4") dated June 20, 2004. From the text of both letters (Exhs. "1" and "3") are the latter letter (Exh. "3") is just a reiteration of the former letter (Exh. "1"). Even if the plaintiffs on June 10, 2005 sent a letter (Exh. "d" to Angel Buena, Jr., this time, which was unresponded, the nature of the demand is the same, for him to vacate the land-in-question, plainly reiteration of the previous demands. (Exhs. "1" and "3")
Considering that the first demand letter (Exh. "1") was made on September 18, 2003 and the instant case was filed on September 7, 2005 almost two (2) years had elapsed, in violation of the one-year limitation as jurisdictional requirement in unlawful detainer case. For lack of jurisdiction instant case for unlawful detainer is hereby ordered dismissed.
The counterclaim is likewise dismissed.
SO ORDERED.[5]
WHEREFORE, for lack of sufficient merit, the herein appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of the Court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.Aggrieved, the petitioners appeal, insisting that:[8]
SO ORDERED.[7]
Apparently, the MTC ignored the issue of being a legitimate agricultural tenant that the respondent raised in his answer, as borne out by the following portion of its decision, to wit:I
THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTII
THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ONE YEAR PERIOD IS COUNTED FROM THE FIRST DEMAND LETTER AND HOLDING THAT THE LAST DEMAND LETTER IS JUST A MERE REITERATION OF THE FIRST DEMAND LETTER
In every case, it is very important to determine jurisdiction, i.e., over the nature of the action; over the subject matter or property; and over the parties. However, in the light of the facts admitted, stipulated, and undisputed by the parties there is a need to determine the jurisdiction over the nature of the action. Without dwelling on the other substantive issue if the instant case is agrarian in nature, the determination of jurisdiction is first concentrated as to the institution of the instant case if made within one (1) year from date of demand as a jurisdictional requirement in a summary action for unlawful detainer.[9]
In so doing, the MTC committed a serious error. Although the allegations of the complaint might have constituted a proper action for unlawful detainer against the respondent, the respondent averred in his answer that he was an agricultural tenant. Verily, if the respondent were an agricultural tenant under the agrarian law, then the MTC was devoid of jurisdiction over the ejectment case.[10] The issue of agricultural tenancy thus went deeper into its jurisdiction over the action than the nature of the demands to vacate. It is true that the mere allegation of agricultural tenancy made in the answer did not automatically deprive the MTC of its jurisdiction over the action,[11] for the mere allegation of agricultural tenancy, without evidence, was not enough.[12] But such defense undeniably called on the MTC to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine the tenability of the claim of tenancy.[13]
The need for a preliminary hearing was fundamental enough. In Bayog v. Judge Natino,[14] therefore, the Supreme Court explained that where the tenancy was established at such preliminary hearing, the MTC should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction,[15] rendering such preliminary hearing imperative in order that the MTC could meet and rule squarely first on the issue of tenancy before proceeding further.
As a result, we cannot decide this appeal unless the question of the jurisdiction of the MTC was first properly settled. To that extent did the RTC fail in its appellate responsibility of guarding against patent errors, particularly of jurisdiction, that the MTC might have committed. We remand this case with specific instructions to the MTC to conduct a preliminary hearing on the issue of agricultural tenancy and to render its disposition accordingly.
WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the Municipal Trial Court of Ocampo, Camarines Sur for a determination of the issue of agricultural tenancy.
SO ORDERED.
Aliño-Hormachueios and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Case remanded to the Municipal Trial Court of Ocampo, Camarines Sur for determination of the issue of agricultural tenancy.
[*] Court of Appeals Reports Annotated, Vol. 43.
[1] Annex A, petition.
[2] Annex B, petition.
[3] Annex C-1, petition.
[4] Annex C-2, petition.
[5] Rollo, pp. 24-25
[6] Annex A, petition.
[7] Rollo, p. 20.
[8] Rollo, p. 10.
[9] Annex B, petition; rollo, p. 23.
[10] Ignacio v. Court of First Instance, 42 SCRA 89, 95 [1971]; Isidro v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 503, 512 [1993].
[11] De la Cruz v. Bautista, 186 SCRA 517, 525 [1990]; De Luna v. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 703, 709 [1993]; Baranda v. Padios, 154 SCRA 720 (October 21, 1987).
[12] Isidro v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 503 (1994).
[13] Concepcion v. Presiding Judge, CFI of Bulacan. 119 SCRA 222, 232-233 (December 15, 1982).
[14] 258 SCRA 378 (July 5, 1996).
[15] E.O. No. 229; Sec. 50 and Sec 53, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (R.A. No. 6657); Quismundo v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 609 [1991]; Tiongson v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 197 [1992].