The case involved a parcel of land originally owned by Don Pablo with an area of 34,829 sq. m. In 1989, Don Pablo subdivided the land into seven parcels and gave each of his former tenants their home lots. Lots 1-B-153-A with an area of 27,064 sq. m. and 1-B-153-G with an area of 115 sq. m. were retained by Don Pablo. On the other hand, Lots 1-B-153-B with an area of 883 sq. m. and 1-B-153-E with an area of 624 sq. m. were given to Felipe; Lot 1-B-153-C with an area of 3,900 sq. m. to Graciano; Lot 1-B-153-D with an area of 2,019 sq. m. to Juan; and Lot 1-B-153-F with an area of 224 sq. m. to Eusebio.
In 1992 after Don Pablo died, his heirs sold to the spouses Luciano Lot 1-B-153-A covered by TC No.T-140417. In the course of fencing the lot, the spouses discovered that the house of Felipe was standing on the northwestern portion of the property; that Felipe’s widow, Isidora, was harvesting and picking fruits from the citrus trees planted in that area without their knowledge and consent; that Juan, Graciano and Eusebio were also surreptitiously planting palay on said portion. So on October 27, 1993, the Luciano spouses filed a complaint for ejectment and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction in the MTC against Isidora, Juan, Graciano and Eusebio.
In her answer, Isidora denied having entered the lot acquired by the spouses, claiming that her farmhouse was constructed on the very lot awarded to her family by the Department of Agrarian Reform. She thus asked for the dismissal of the Ejectment case for alleged lack of causes of action and interposed a counterclaim praying that as tenant of the late Don Pablo she be maintained in the peaceful possession and cultivation of said lot or, in the alternative, awarded disturbance compensation; and in either event, reimbursed for the expenses she incurred as a result of the Ejectment case.
At the preliminary conference, the parties mutually agreed to a relocation survey of the property to be considered by a geodetic engineer. When the results of the survey were submitted, Isidora and her co-defendants asked the court to allow another survey by an independent surveyor. But no such survey was made and they didn’t submit any survey plan. So on May 21, 1998, the MTC rendered its decision in favor of the spouses ordering all the defendants to surrender possession of the portion of the land belonging to them.
Isidora through her son Mario who succeeded her upon her death questioned this decision on the principal argument that the ejectment case properly falls within the jurisdiction of the DARAB and not the MTC because the case involves a tenancy issue raised in the answer. Was Mario correct?
NO. The MTC did not automatically lose its exclusive original jurisdiction over the ejectment case simple because Isidora and co-defendants raised tenancy as a defense. 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. To divest MTC of jurisdiction, the following essential requisites of tenancy must be shown to be present: (1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the tenancy relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessees; and (6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
In the present case, neither Mario nor his predecessor in interest submitted evidence to substantiate the existence of the essential requisites of tenancy. Thus there is no basis at all to support his claim that the MTC was without jurisdiction to render the questioned decision. Moreover, his late mother Isidora never questioned the jurisdiction of the MTC. Instead she based her prayer for dismissal on the spouses’ alleged lack of cause of action, with a counterclaim praying for affirmative relief in her answer. Considering that Mario’s mother Isidora actively participated in the proceeding before the MTC and invoked its jurisdiction to secure an affirmative relief, Mario cannot now turn around and question the court’s jurisdiction (Vda. De Victoria vs. Court of Appeals et. al. G.R. 147550, January 26, 2005).
E-mail: jcson@pldtdsl.net