G.R. No. 138256 ; November 12, 2003
CRESENCIANO DUREMDES, Petitioner, vs. AGUSTIN DUREMDES, Respondent.

FACTS

Shirley Duremdes owned a parcel of land in Iloilo. While she worked abroad, her parents, Cresenciano and Hortencia, and her brother Nelson administered the property. Upon Shirley’s return, she decided to sell the land and requested her family to vacate, but they refused. Shirley subsequently sold the property to her uncle, Agustin Duremdes, through a deed of conditional sale. Despite demands, Cresenciano refused to vacate. Agustin then filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership against Cresenciano and Nelson in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The defendants, in their answer, denied being in possession, claiming the actual possessor was Herminio Tara, an alleged agricultural tenant. Agustin moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the RTC granted, declaring him the owner and ordering the defendants to vacate and deliver possession.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s grant of judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for trial, finding that the defendants’ denial of possession and assertion of a tenancy relationship with Herminio Tara raised genuine factual issues requiring a full hearing. On remand, the RTC ruled in favor of Agustin, a decision affirmed by the CA. The CA found no tenancy relationship existed and that Cresenciano was in possession, rejecting his claim that Herminio Tara was an independent tenant.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which held that no tenancy relationship existed and that the petitioner was in possession of the subject property, thereby making the action for recovery of possession properly cognizable by the regular courts.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic rests on the conclusive findings of fact by the lower courts and the principle of estoppel. First, the Court upheld the factual findings of the RTC and CA that no tenancy relationship existed between Cresenciano and Herminio Tara. The essential elements of agricultural tenancy, such as consent of the landowner and a sharing arrangement, were not proven. The allegation of tenancy was deemed a mere ploy to divest the regular court of jurisdiction. Second, the Court ruled that Cresenciano was barred from questioning the RTC’s jurisdiction. By actively participating in the trial, setting up a counterclaim, and seeking affirmative relief without previously challenging the court’s jurisdiction, he was estopped from raising the issue on appeal. The Court emphasized that a party cannot invoke a court’s jurisdiction to secure relief and later deny that same jurisdiction. Consequently, the action for recovery of possession was correctly lodged with the RTC.