GR 105586; (December, 1993) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-105586 December 15, 1993
REMIGIO ISIDRO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SEVENTH DIVISION) AND NATIVIDAD GUTIERREZ, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Natividad Gutierrez is the owner of a 4.5-hectare parcel of land in Barrio Sta. Cruz, Gapan, Nueva Ecija. In 1985, Aniceta Garcia, the sister and overseer of Gutierrez, allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to occupy a one-hectare swampy portion of the land to augment his income, subject to the condition that he would vacate upon demand. Isidro occupied the land without paying rent and converted it into a fishpond. In 1990, Gutierrez, through her overseer, demanded the return of the land, but Isidro refused, claiming he had spent effort and invested capital in the conversion. Gutierrez filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Isidro before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Gapan. Isidro defended by claiming the complaint was due to his refusal to increase lease rental, the land was agricultural (a fishpond), and there was a lack of formal demand. The MTC dismissed the complaint, ruling the land was agricultural and thus the dispute was agrarian, falling under the jurisdiction of the agrarian relations courts (DARAB). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision on appeal, finding a “tenurial arrangement” existed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordering Isidro to vacate the land and pay attorney’s fees, ruling there was no tenurial arrangement and Isidro was a possessor by mere tolerance. Isidro’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Municipal Trial Court has jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case and whether the petitioner could be legally ejected, considering that: (1) the subject is a fishpond classified as agricultural land; (2) agricultural land is governed by tenancy laws where Rule 70 of the Rules of Court cannot be simply applied; and (3) the determination of whether a person working on a fishpond is a tenant is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined from the allegations of the complaint. The complaint alleged that Isidro was occupying the land by mere tolerance of the owner, which is a proper basis for an unlawful detainer action. While the land, being a fishpond, is agricultural, not every case involving agricultural land is an agrarian dispute. For the DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must be a tenurial arrangement, such as leasehold, tenancy, or stewardship. The evidence failed to prove that Isidro was an agricultural tenant or lessee; there was no sharing of harvest or payment of rent. His possession was by mere tolerance, and upon demand to vacate, he became a squatter. The mere raising of tenancy as a defense does not divest the MTC of jurisdiction; it may hear evidence to determine if tenancy is the real issue. In this case, no tenurial relationship was established. Therefore, the MTC had jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case, and Isidro could be legally ejected.