Raquel G. Dy Buncio vs. Leotina Sarmenta Ramos and Fernando Ramos,
G.R. No. 206120, March 23, 2022
Facts:
1. Buncio claimed that she is a registered co-owner, together with nine others, of a parcel of land. She further alleged that respondents Leontina Sarmenta Ramos and Fernando Ramos are the unlawful and unauthorized possessors of the land who should be directed to vacate the same. Thus, she filed a complaint for Accion Reinvindicatoria and Damages with the RTC.
2. On the other hand, respondents asserted that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because there existed a leasehold agreement between the late Luis de Guzman and Erlina Santos de Guzman (who are the parents of the registered owners of the subject property), with Leontina and her late husband, Hilario Ramos.
3. In its January 30, 2008 Order, the RTC initially held that it had jurisdiction over the case since respondents failed to prove the existence of all elements of agricultural tenancy relationship
4. Pre-trial then ensued. During the proceedings, or on November 19, 2009, the RTC motu propio conducted an ocular inspection of the subject property.
5. The RTC held that based on the ocular inspection and proceedings conducted by the court, it found that the entire area is devoted to palay production. Thus, the trial court referred the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) since there was an allegation of landowner-tenant relationship between the parties.
6. Aggrieved with the RTC's ruling, Buncio filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA assailing the RTC's October 28, 2010 Resolution
Issues:
· Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case
· Whether or not Buncio acquired any vested right on the RTC's January 30, 2008 Order.
· Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction to adjudicate an agrarian dispute.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE: The Supreme Court held that Buncio had other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy before the DAR.
Section 50-A of RA 6557, as amended by RA 9700, expressly provides that "if there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, that from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse."
Hence, the proper recourse of Buncio upon the trial court's referral of the case to await the DARAB's resolution. Thereafter, Buncio can assail the determination of the DARAB by appeal to the CA. Plainly, her immediate recourse to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari was improper and thus, correctly struck down by the appellate court.
SECOND ISSUE: Buncio did not acquire any vested right on the RTC's January 30, 2008 Order.
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is "conferred only by the Constitution or the law. It cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court." Consequently, contrary to Buncio's claim, the Supreme Court hold that she did not acquire any vested right from the January 30, 2008 Order, if subsequently during the trial court's proceedings, it became apparent that the case should be properly referred to the DAR which has the jurisdiction over the subject matter or issues raised.
THIRD ISSUE: The DARAB has jurisdiction to adjudicate an agrarian dispute.
An accion reinvindicatoria is an action to recover ownership over real property, the jurisdiction of which is within the proper RTC. On the other hand, Section 50 of RA 6657 and Section 17 of Executive Order No. 22936 vested upon the DAR primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, as well as original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. Subsequently, EO 129-A37 was issued wherein the power to adjudicate agrarian reform cases was transferred to the DARAB, and jurisdiction over the implementation of agrarian reform was delegated to the DAR regional offices.
As a rule, the existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. Thus, in order for tenancy agreement to arise, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, viz.:
(1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant;
(2) the subject matter is agricultural land;
(3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
(4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
(5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agri cultural lessee; and
(6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
All the foregoing requisites are necessary to create a tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant.
In the instant case, respondents substantially alleged that there existed a tenancy relationship among the parties, in particular among the parents of Buncio and Hilario in view of their leasehold agreement. Furthermore, respondents' claim that pursuant to said agreement, she and her husband, Hilario, have been paying the agreed rentals of the landholdings, to the lessors or Buncio's parents. These allegations suffice for the referral of the dispute to the DAR. "As stated by law, mere allegation of an agrarian dispute is enough."
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment