G.R. No. 167748 November 8, 2005
HEIRS OF RAFAEL MAGPILY, Petitioner, vs. HERMINIGILDO DE JESUS and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Rafael Magpily filed an ejectment complaint against Herminigildo de Jesus before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Magpily alleged he owned a 10,000-square-meter land tenanted by Nazaria Tope. In July 1978, upon Tope’s request, Magpily permitted de Jesus, Tope’s nephew, to build a house of light materials on a portion and occupy it gratuitously, as evidenced by a “Salaysay.” Their relationship deteriorated when de Jesus interfered with harvesting. Magpily demanded he vacate, but de Jesus refused.
In his Answer, de Jesus claimed he was a bona fide agricultural tenant for 15 years, succeeding his aunt Nazaria Tope upon her death in 1979. He asserted the case involved a tenancy dispute under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The MTC ruled for Magpily, finding no tenancy relationship proven. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed but deleted monetary awards. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding an implied landlord-tenant relationship existed, making the case an agrarian dispute beyond the RTC’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether an agricultural tenancy relationship existed between Magpily and de Jesus, thereby divesting the regular courts of jurisdiction over the ejectment case.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled no tenancy relationship existed; thus, the regular courts retained jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by the complaint’s material allegations and the governing law, not by the defenses raised. While a defense of tenancy does not automatically strip the court of jurisdiction, it is the court’s duty to receive evidence on the allegation. If tenancy is proven, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Here, the essential elements of agricultural tenancy were not established. For a tenancy relationship to arise, there must be consent between the parties, personal cultivation by the tenant, and a sharing of harvests. The evidence showed de Jesus’s occupancy was merely tolerated and gratuitous under the “Salaysay.” His claim of cultivation and harvest-sharing was unsupported by concrete proof like agricultural leasehold contracts or official receipts. His self-serving allegations and the affidavits of interested parties were insufficient to prove a tenancy relationship. Absent such proof, the ejectment case was properly within the jurisdiction of the MTC. The Court of Appeals erred in finding an implied tenancy. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC decision affirming the MTC’s judgment for ejectment.