596 Phil. 472
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 251-B-1 of the subdv. Plan LRC Psd-195529, being a portion of Lot 251-B LBC Psd-176315, LRC Cad. Record No. Hom. Patent), containing an area of 2.0000 Hectares, more or less; Bounded on the NE., points 6-1 by Lot 244, Gamu Pls-15; on the SE., points 1-3 by Lot 251-A LRC Psd-176315; on the SW., points 3-4 by Road; and on the NW., points 4-6 by Lot 251-B-2 of the subdv. Plan; covered by Tax Dec. No. 92-26-3073-A of the Tax Rolls of the municipality of Roxas, Isabela, and is assessed at P11,050.00.The subject property is an unirrigated rice land, capable of only one rice cropping in a calendar year.[5] Petitioner is not a tenant of respondent, but since the two are close relatives by consanguinity, respondent allowed him to cultivate the subject property without paying any rental, with the understanding that when respondent needs the property, petitioner will peacefully vacate and surrender the same to him. Subsequently, respondent demanded that he already vacate and surrender possession of the subject property to him because he wanted to personally cultivate the same. Petitioner, however, refused, claiming that he could acquire the subject property from him through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Operation Land Transfer Program of the Government.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed of this Honorable Court, that after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of [herein respondent] and against the [herein petitioner], to wit:Upon motion of respondent,[7] the RTC issued an Order dated 20 May 1993 declaring petitioner in default for his failure to file an answer and/or any responsive pleading to respondent's Complaint despite service of summons.[8]GRANTING to [respondent] such further relief deemed just and equitable in the premises.[6]
- Ordering the [petitioner] to peacefully vacate and peacefully surrender and restore possession of the land described in paragraph 2 hereof to the [respondent];
- Ordering [petitioner] to pay to [respondent] the sum of P10,000.00 as damage, representing attorney's fee, plus the total sum of appearances of counsel at P500.00 per hearing;
- Ordering [petitioner] to pay to [respondent] 120 cavans of palay per calendar year with the average weight of 50 kilos per cavan, or its money equivalent, commencing from the filing of the case, until [respondent] is restored in possession of the land in suit;
- Ordering [petitioner] to pay P2,000.00 as damage, representing expenses incurred by [respondent] in the filing of the case in court against the [petitioner], and another sum of P10,000.00 litigation expenses incurred by [respondent];
- Ordering [petitioner] to pay the costs of this suit; and
The court having been convinced that the [herein respondent] as absolute owner is entitled to the possession of the land in question, the [herein petitioner] should now be enjoined to vacate the said land and surrender the peaceful possession thereof to the [respondent]. Ownership implies the right to enjoy the thing owned and this right carries with it the right to recover the same (Article 428, New Civil Code).[10]The fallo of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing findings, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [herein respondent] and against the [herein petitioner] and hereby orders him:Petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial and Lift Order of Default,[12] wherein he claimed that being unlettered, he completely relied on his counsel to take charge of the case and he was unaware that his counsel failed to file an Answer to respondent's Complaint. Petitioner also insisted that the dispute between him and respondent involved a tenancy relationship over which the trial court had no jurisdiction.
- To vacate and surrender the peaceful possession of that parcel of land mentioned in paragraph 2 of the [respondent's] complaint embraced in and covered by TCT No. T-85610 of Isabela, standing in the name of the [respondent];
- To pay the [respondent] the sum of P20,000.00 representing the unrealized fruits of the land from the filing of the case up to the present;
- To pay the sum of P5,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fee's; and
- To pay the costs.[11]
[T]he settled rule is that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint. Thus, "if the complaint shows jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain the action and the remedy sought is merely to obtain possession, the court will have jurisdiction, regardless of any claim of ownership set forth by either the plaintiff or the defendant." (Ganadin v. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613).Hence, the Court of Appeals decreed:
The same case also holds that:"x x x The jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant." (Ganadin, supra, citing Moran, on the Rules of Court, 1970 ed.)In the case at bar, allegations in the complaint make out a case cognizable by the court a quo, to wit: (1) the [herein respondent] is the registered owner of a parcel of land, which was: (2) tilled by the [herein petitioner] by [respondent's] mere tolerance; and (3) [petitioner] refused to surrender possession of the land despite demand, the dispossession lasting for more than a year (p. 1-2, Complaint).[16]
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against [herein petitioner].[17]Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration[18] was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated 8 January 1997,[19] prompting him to file the Petition at bar.
Respondent filed his Comment[21] on the present Petition, whereby he asked that this Court dismiss the present Petition for lack of merit. Petitioner next submitted a Reply.[22] As a matter of course, the Court required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda.
- THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE TRIAL COURT WHICH ERRONEOUSLY TOOK COGNIZANCE OF CIVIL CASE NO. 419 AND FORTHWITH RENDERED A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT THEREON DESPITE A CLEAR SHOWING IN THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION AS THE SUBJECT MATTER IS AGRARIAN IN NATURE.
- THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING CIVIL CASE NO. 419-ON APPEAL VIS-À-VIS A PRIOR DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) FINDING THE Existence Of a tenancy relationship between petitioner and private respondent.
- THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE TRIAL COURT WHICH FORTHWITH RENDERED A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AND IGNORING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN AND PROVED BEYOND PERADVENTURE (sic) THE EXISTENCE OF A BONA FIDE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP.
- THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR BY PETITIONER.[20]
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[33] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the DAR concerns the (1) determination and adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform; (2) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and (3) approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural use. The DAR, in turn, exercises this jurisdiction through its adjudicating arm, the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board (DARAB).[34]
Sec. 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. - The Board shall have primary exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 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. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to cases involving the following:The Court affirmed in Monsanto v. Zerna[35] that the DARAB exercises primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, controversies, matters or incidents involving the implementation of agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws x x x.
[T]he DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program. The DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R.A. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. 3844 as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations."Agrarian dispute" is defined in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6657 as 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 Republic Act No. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner 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. It refers to any controversy relating to, inter alia, tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture.[37]
EXHIBIT "A" - receipt of payment of rental, dated November 5, 1990;These led the DARAB to rule that:
EXHIBIT "A-1" - receipt of payment of rental, dated April 4, 1991;
EXHIBIT "A-2" - receipt of payment of rental, dated January 13, 1992;
EXHIBIT "A-3" - receipt of payment of rental, dated April 16, 1992;
EXHIBIT "A-4" - receipt of payment of rental, dated December 23, 1992;
EXHIBIT "A-5" - receipt of payment of rental, dated March 8, 1993;
EXHIBIT "B" - ARBA CERTIFICATION dated October 26, 1993, to the effect that [herein petitioner] is the tenant-tiller of the subject property;
EXHIBIT "C" - Barangay Certification dated October 26, 1993, to the effect that [petitioner] is the rightful tenant of the land in suit from 1962 to the present;
EXHIBIT "D" - MARO Certification, dated October 26, 1993, to the effect that [petitioner] was, per records kept, the tenant-tiller of the property in suit;
EXHIBIT "E" - Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-85610 as proof ownership of the land by [herein respondent] Reynaldo de Leon.
A cursory examination and appreciation of all the documentary exhibits submitted by the [herein petitioner] would readily show one and common established fact that [petitioner] is the bona-fide tenant of the land subject matter of controversy. As tenant the mantle of protection of Agrarian Reform Laws must shield and protect the [petitioner] from undue molestation thereof. In a nutshell he must be secured of his right as tenant, and cannot be ejected therefrom, unless for causes provided by law.The Court has previously held that substantial evidence, defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required to establish a tenancy relationship. To support a finding that a tenancy relationship is present, the Court has repeatedly required the presentation of concrete evidence to prove the element of sharing, compensation in the form of lease rentals or a share in the produce of the landholding involved.[41] Going over the Decision dated 17 November 1995 of the DARAB and the documentary evidence considered therein, which were likewise presented by the petitioner before this Court, the Court can only conclude that there is substantial evidence to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent. The receipts presented by petitioner covering his rental payments to respondent for the subject property, unrebutted by the latter, constitute concrete evidence of tenurial relations between them.
[Herein respondent, et al.], who failed to tender their answer, despite service of summons and copy of the complaint, and worst, likewise failed to submit documentary exhibits, despite order to do so, shall be considered to have admitted the accusation against them. For settled is the rule in evidence "that an innocent person when charged is as bold as a lion, whereas a guilty person flees even if no one pursueth."
VERILY, in the light of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby issued in favor of the [petitioner] and against the [respondent, et al.];
1) FINDING, [petitioner] the bona-fide tenant of the [respondent, et al.] on the land subject matter of controversy described in paragraph 2 of the complaint;
2) DIRECTING, [respondent, et al.], their agents and cohorts to respect and maintain the peaceful possession and cultivation of the plaintiff on the land in suit;
3) ORDERING, [respondent, et al.] jointly and severally to pay P10,000.00, representing attorney's fee and exemplary damages.
No pronouncement as to cost.[40]
[I]t is safe to conclude that the existence of prior agricultural tenancy relationship, if true, will divest the MCTC of its jurisdiction the previous juridical tie compels the characterization of the controversy as an "agrarian dispute." x x x.Therefore, the Court could only rule that the dispute herein between respondent as landowner and petitioner as tenant is agrarian in nature falling within the jurisdictional domain of the DARAB. This is in line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which precludes the regular courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has been lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[47]