G.R. No. 172400 June 23, 2009
ZOSIMO OCTAVIO and JESUS ALBONA (substituted by his wife, VIOLETA ALBONA), Petitioners, vs. ENRICO R. PEROVANO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Enrico Perovano filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry with Damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Talisay City against petitioners Zosimo Octavio and Jesus Albona, and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Dolores Gulmatico. Enrico alleged he is the lawful and registered owner of Lot No. 412 covered by TCT No. T-179767 and that on or before the first week of January 1999, petitioners, upon the instruction and in connivance with MARO Gulmatico, by threat, intimidation, strategy and stealth, entered the land, plowed it, and started planting sugarcane despite efforts to prohibit them.
In their Answer, petitioners argued that the land was voluntarily offered for sale (VOS) by Estefania Perovano (Enrico’s mother) to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in 1992, placing it under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law ( R.A. No. 6657 ). They claimed that Zosimo and Jesus were identified and qualified as farmer-beneficiaries; payment was made to the landowner by the Land Bank of the Philippines; Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) were generated; and a Memorandum of Agreement was executed allowing the farmer-beneficiaries to possess and cultivate the land after payment. They contended that the land is within the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage, and jurisdiction lies with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, not the regular courts.
The MTCC ruled in favor of Enrico, ordering petitioners to vacate the land, pay rentals, and pay attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC Decision in toto. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the RTC Decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the case is an ejectment suit within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court or an agrarian dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR.

RULING

The case is an ejectment suit within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the material allegations in the complaint at the time of its filing. The complaint alleged possession de facto, specifically that petitioners, by threat, intimidation, strategy, and stealth, entered the land and started planting sugarcane. These allegations constitute a case for forcible entry, the sole issue of which is physical possession. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691 , the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over forcible entry cases. The existence of an agrarian dispute is a matter of defense that does not affect the court’s jurisdiction, which is conferred by law based on the allegations in the complaint. The Court found no tenurial arrangement or agrarian relationship between the parties that would convert the case into an agrarian dispute under R.A. No. 6657 . Therefore, the MTCC properly exercised jurisdiction. The Decisions of the lower courts were affirmed.